Używasz przestarzałej przeglądarki. Może ona nieprawidłowo wyświetlać tę lub inne strony. Powinieneś zaktualizować przeglądarkę lub użyć alternatywnej przeglądarki.
Christian theology thread for Christians - Deus homo factus est naturam erante, mundus renovatus est a Christo regnante
The King James Bible mainly cuz I didn’t wanna order both an Old and New Testament.
Edit: Is the King James Bible a good start? I never really noticed different bibles while I was learning in school so I just got what google said was a good start.
The King James Bible mainly cuz I didn’t wanna order both an Old and New Testament.
Edit: Is the King James Bible a good start? I never really noticed different bibles while I was learning in school so I just got what google said was a good start.
Out of all the ones a saw to the KJV ones look really good compared to the others especially for the price, yeah I guess you can pay hundreds even thousands on a super high quality bible but the KJV ones I saw look just as good imo.
I get that. Personally, outside of the Catena app (which I use to read outside of my abode), I have the Orthodox Study Bible
Which is in the New King James Version (just slightly updated KJV).
Out of all the ones a saw to the KJV ones look really good compared to the others especially for the price, yeah I guess you can pay hundreds even thousands on a super high quality bible but the KJV ones I saw look just as good imo.
In the world of Bible versions there are two things to keep in mind: 1) Formal vs Dynamic Equivalence, and 2) the sources of the translation
The first issue is if the translation is literal word for word, or if it is more of an interpretative style. Word for word is important because it's the word of God, hence the specific words use give us a lot of context as to how to read the text, but at the same time the full meaning of the text might get lost because languages are complex. For example, in English we don't have cases, we don't signal the role of a word in a sentence, but Aramaic, Latin, Greek and Hebrew does; also lot's of play on words don't work in English.
With that said, you can run the risk of twisting the original meaning of the text by being too "interpretative"; you can obfuscate the symbolic and mystic language of the text; you can dumb it down too much.
The other issue is the source of the translation. If you only use the Septuagint, or if you only use the Vulgate, of if you discard both and use the Masoretic, or maybe use a mix of those and other texts. The point is that different traditions prefer using different sources. The Catholics have used the Vulgate, the Greek Orthodox the Septuagint, the Antiochians use the Peshitta (in Aramaic). However in modernity "scholars" like throwing tradition out the window and just use the Masoretic, the dead see scrolls, and other stuff cause "it's the older", in spite that being older doesn't equal with being the original or being the right version (heretics have used the Bible and modified it to substantiate their theological claims).
Overall, depending on those two axioms you can get different Bibles depending on what you want, with different styles and approaches to exegesis. For me, I prefer the Torres Amat in Spanish, and the Douay–Rheims in English, both because they use a formal translation, but with dynamic equivalence when required, and because they base their translation purely on the Vulgate, as it is proper for the western tradition
Edit: Is the King James Bible a good start? I never really noticed different bibles while I was learning in school so I just got what google said was a good start.
I like the KJV for the poetry and how important of a piece of English literature it is. If I want to read the Bible as a piece of literature I use the KJV. Wycliffe, Tyndale, and everyone else that added to what it eventually became gave us so many words we take for granted. Like "atonement" from the Hebrew "kippur", or phrases like "nothing new under the sun", "giving up the ghost", literally hundreds of other examples that are apart of modern English lexicon. However for study I prefer NRSVue for general study I think that's pretty good. For OT specifically I like the JPS Tanakh, and for New Testament I like NETS (New English Translation of the Septuagint). Once you go beyond like the NIV/KJV it can get overwhelmed seeing all these fucking acronyms for various Bibles, but those are the ones I like.
I like the KJV for the poetry and how important of a piece of English literature it is. If I want to read the Bible as a piece of literature I use the KJV. Wycliffe, Tyndale, and everyone else that added to what it eventually became gave us so many words we take for granted. Like "atonement" from the Hebrew "kippur", or phrases like "nothing new under the sun", "giving up the ghost", literally hundreds of other examples that are apart of modern English lexicon. However for study I prefer NRSVue for general study I think that's pretty good. For OT specifically I like the JPS Tanakh, and for New Testament I like NETS (New English Translation of the Septuagint). Once you go beyond like the NIV/KJV it can get overwhelmed seeing all these fucking acronyms for various Bibles, but those are the ones I like.
I can't speak for the NT. But stay away from the KJV. The translations don't really express certain words well and have a tendency to fuck up the meanings of things (ultimately you probably should be learning hebrew and read it in Hebrew). The best example is the "Thou shalt not kill" which better translates as "thou shall not murder". BIG difference in the sentences. Just pointing it out.
But that's not why I'm posting, I have question on resources. Does anyone have ANY good explanation or can point me to a good explanation that explains what exactly the holy Spirit is??? (Honestly the trinity for that matter) And how it's theologically sound? I got into an irl convo with some atheist and they said "well how is it not paganism" and I couldn't respond because I just didn't know. I remember back in university I asked a priest this question and he pointed me to some video to watch but I forgot the name of. I don't want to derail this thread with questions I might have but my questions wouldn't be unique. Is there a "cannon law/theology 101 for retards" or some old theologian?
The King James Bible mainly cuz I didn’t wanna order both an Old and New Testament.
Edit: Is the King James Bible a good start? I never really noticed different bibles while I was learning in school so I just got what google said was a good start.
6 Now, brothers and sisters, if I come to you and speak in tongues, what good will I be to you, unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or word of instruction? 7 Even in the case of lifeless things that make sounds, such as the pipe or harp, how will anyone know what tune is being played unless there is a distinction in the notes? 8 Again, if the trumpet does not sound a clear call, who will get ready for battle? 9 So it is with you. Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying? You will just be speaking into the air. 10 Undoubtedly there are all sorts of languages in the world, yet none of them is without meaning. 11 If then I do not grasp the meaning of what someone is saying, I am a foreigner to the speaker, and the speaker is a foreigner to me. 12 So it is with you. Since you are eager for gifts of the Spirit, try to excel in those that build up the church.
For your first read of the Bible, I do not think you should choose the translation that has the best prose or is the most word-to-word accurate, but instead you should choose the one that is the easiest for you to understand. I haven't been exposed to many translations, but I will say that the NIV was easy to understand. If you read the Bible and do not understand what you're reading you have wasted a lot of time, and the archaic language of the KJV is rather notoriously difficult to parse.
For your first read of the Bible, I do not think you should choose the translation that has the best prose or is the most word-to-word accurate, but instead you should choose the one that is the easiest for you to understand. I haven't been exposed to many translations, but I will say that the NIV was easy to understand. If you read the Bible and do not understand what you're reading you have wasted a lot of time, and the archaic language of the KJV is rather notoriously difficult to parse.
I can't speak for the NT. But stay away from the KJV. The translations don't really express certain words well and have a tendency to fuck up the meanings of things (ultimately you probably should be learning hebrew and read it in Hebrew). The best example is the "Thou shalt not kill" which better translates as "thou shall not murder". BIG difference in the sentences. Just pointing it out.
But that's not why I'm posting, I have question on resources. Does anyone have ANY good explanation or can point me to a good explanation that explains what exactly the holy Spirit is??? (Honestly the trinity for that matter) And how it's theologically sound? I got into an irl convo with some atheist and they said "well how is it not paganism" and I couldn't respond because I just didn't know. I remember back in university I asked a priest this question and he pointed me to some video to watch but I forgot the name of. I don't want to derail this thread with questions I might have but my questions wouldn't be unique. Is there a "cannon law/theology 101 for retards" or some old theologian?
A good bit of prepwork for understanding the Trinity would be checking out the Athanasian Creed. It deals directly with the Trinity:
Whoever desires to be saved should above all hold to the catholic faith.
Anyone who does not keep it whole and unbroken will doubtless perish eternally.
Now this is the catholic faith:
That we worship one God in trinity and the trinity in unity,
neither blending their persons
nor dividing their essence.
For the person of the Father is a distinct person,
the person of the Son is another,
and that of the Holy Spirit still another.
But the divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one,
their glory equal, their majesty coeternal.
What quality the Father has, the Son has, and the Holy Spirit has.
The Father is uncreated,
the Son is uncreated,
the Holy Spirit is uncreated.
The Father is immeasurable,
the Son is immeasurable,
the Holy Spirit is immeasurable.
The Father is eternal,
the Son is eternal,
the Holy Spirit is eternal.
And yet there are not three eternal beings;
there is but one eternal being.
So too there are not three uncreated or immeasurable beings;
there is but one uncreated and immeasurable being.
Similarly, the Father is almighty,
the Son is almighty,
the Holy Spirit is almighty.
Yet there are not three almighty beings;
there is but one almighty being.
Thus the Father is God,
the Son is God,
the Holy Spirit is God.
Yet there are not three gods;
there is but one God.
Thus the Father is Lord,
the Son is Lord,
the Holy Spirit is Lord.
Yet there are not three lords;
there is but one Lord.
Just as Christian truth compels us
to confess each person individually
as both God and Lord,
so catholic religion forbids us
to say that there are three gods or lords.
The Father was neither made nor created nor begotten from anyone.
The Son was neither made nor created;
he was begotten from the Father alone.
The Holy Spirit was neither made nor created nor begotten;
he proceeds from the Father and the Son.
Accordingly there is one Father, not three fathers;
there is one Son, not three sons;
there is one Holy Spirit, not three holy spirits.
Nothing in this trinity is before or after,
nothing is greater or smaller;
in their entirety the three persons
are coeternal and coequal with each other.
So in everything, as was said earlier,
we must worship their trinity in their unity
and their unity in their trinity.
Anyone then who desires to be saved
should think thus about the trinity.
But it is necessary for eternal salvation
that one also believe in the incarnation
of our Lord Jesus Christ faithfully.
Now this is the true faith:
That we believe and confess
that our Lord Jesus Christ, God's Son,
is both God and human, equally.
He is God from the essence of the Father,
begotten before time;
and he is human from the essence of his mother,
born in time;
completely God, completely human,
with a rational soul and human flesh;
equal to the Father as regards divinity,
less than the Father as regards humanity.
Although he is God and human,
yet Christ is not two, but one.
He is one, however,
not by his divinity being turned into flesh,
but by God's taking humanity to himself.
He is one,
certainly not by the blending of his essence,
but by the unity of his person.
For just as one human is both rational soul and flesh,
so too the one Christ is both God and human.
He suffered for our salvation;
he descended to hell;
he arose from the dead;
he ascended to heaven;
he is seated at the Father's right hand;
from there he will come to judge the living and the dead.
At his coming all people will arise bodily
and give an accounting of their own deeds.
Those who have done good will enter eternal life,
and those who have done evil will enter eternal fire.
This is the catholic faith:
one cannot be saved without believing it firmly and faithfully.
EDIT: In case you don't know, the word "catholic" here means "universal", not Roman Catholic. What the creed means when it says this is the catholic faith is that if you do not believe what this creed says you are not a real Christian.
For your first read of the Bible, I do not think you should choose the translation that has the best prose or is the most word-to-word accurate, but instead you should choose the one that is the easiest for you to understand. I haven't been exposed to many translations, but I will say that the NIV was easy to understand. If you read the Bible and do not understand what you're reading you have wasted a lot of time, and the archaic language of the KJV is rather notoriously difficult to parse.
Replying here because the creed post won't let me reply.
Thanks it's a good foundation but I haven even more questions. Maybe the best for me would be that I'm looking for a "Facts and Logic ™" approach. I know Catholism like Judaism don't just "declare" things but you have to logically prove it.
But thanks for the creed it helped answer some questions.
I can't speak for the NT. But stay away from the KJV. The translations don't really express certain words well and have a tendency to fuck up the meanings of things (ultimately you probably should be learning hebrew and read it in Hebrew). The best example is the "Thou shalt not kill" which better translates as "thou shall not murder". BIG difference in the sentences. Just pointing it out.
Oh I know the KJV isn't accurate, hence why I said "I enjoy it for how it reads/its importance to English literature" and not as a proper study Bible. And to your point about the Hebrew, that's why I like the JPS Tanakh, it's Jewish scholars translating directly from the Hebrew into English. Hence why they call it "Tanakh" and not "Old Testament".
But that's not why I'm posting, I have question on resources. Does anyone have ANY good explanation or can point me to a good explanation that explains what exactly the holy Spirit is??? (Honestly the trinity for that matter) And how it's theologically sound?
So there's two ideas of how the Holy Spirit functions/came to be revealed, and this is pretty technical theology so some of the more learned Kiwis can correct by how I understand it is this: In the time of the Israelites, there was the Father (God), in the Apostolic age there was Christ (the Son), his death, causing the veil at the Second Temple in the Holy of Holies to be torn creates the New Covenant, and the Holy Spirit is the living word/living God in the age of the Pentecost (AKA today). This the Economic Trinity understanding. However, just because the three forms of God were revealed in these different periods doesn't mean one supersedes the other. God, Christ, and the Spirit are one in the same, but serve different functions. You can't have Christ without God, God without the Spirit, etc. This is the Immanent Trinity. So yes, while the three persons were revealed at different times, that doesn't make one better than the other. God is still the Father, Christ the son, and the Spirit the living word. Believing in only the Economic Trinity is known as Modalism or Sabellianism, and that was one of the topics of debate at the Council of Nicaea about the matter of the Trinity along with Arianism.
The three persons are distinct and not separate, co-eternal but not identical, one in being but three in person. (Again, really technical theology shit but any analogy like the one of liquid, solid, gas doesn't really work when you think about it)
With how Christians understand the Old Testament, there is evidence of the Spirit (ruach in Hebrew). Like Samson in Judges 14:6, Saul in 1st Samuel 10:10, David in 1 Samuel 16:13, all have references to the Spirit of God enabling them for specific purposes. In Luke 4:18, Jesus references Isaiah saying the "Spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because the Lord has anointed me to bring the good news to the poor". The Baptism of Jesus is blatantly Trinitarian in all the Synoptic Gospels (That's Mark, Luke, and Matthew). The Spirit descends on Christ like a dove, followed by God's voice from Heaven. Matthew 28:19 which talks about the Great Commission formula for baptism which you're probably familiar with from osmosis. It's baptizing in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. And it is very explicitly "name" and not "NAMES" because they are one in the same.
I could keep going, but it's all over Scripture. If you're not raised Christian I'm sure it can seem pretty technical and autistic, but I personally don't see how you can be a follower of Christ without accepting the Trinity. Again, I probably got some shit wrong, but I'm not a theologian and that's my best understanding of the Holy Spirit.
Thanks for the explanation, but yeah, it's pretty technical and autistic (which ngl I enjoy). But some theologian somewhere must have written something for some austist somewhere, I mean, I can't be the only one here with these questions. I have heard the Jewish version of what the Holy Spirit comes to (and I am quoting Wikipedia here): "The rabbinical understanding of the holy spirit has a certain degree of personification, but it remains, "'a quality belonging to God, one of his attributes, ' and the trinity being polytheistic, Now I know that Christians do not consider it polytheism. But I guess you probably see it more of how Judaism sees it (we also see it as a form of prophecy in a complicated manner). But I suppose, am I getting caught up in a semantic thing/ some cataphatic theology way of looking at it sorta how you say "God is xyz HE abcd. I suppose what I am looking for is a "catholic version of The Guide for the Perplexed" (if that makes sense). But thank you anyway
Also the "artscroll translation" is 100% kosher and if pedantic Jews like it then I suppose it's fine.
Also why does my profile say "DID I MENTION I'M JEWISH" I never changed it.........................................
Replying here because the creed post won't let me reply.
Thanks it's a good foundation but I haven even more questions. Maybe the best for me would be that I'm looking for a "Facts and Logic ™" approach. I know Catholism like Judaism don't just "declare" things but you have to logically prove it.
But thanks for the creed it helped answer some questions.
I think you stumbled onto a main point of disagreement between Protestants and Catholics. When asked to explain why they believe something, Catholics will often quote the writings of their saints or popes. Their great men have considered and investigated these issues and their conclusion are now settled matters and not open to re-litigation. They see themselves as standing on the shoulders of giants and following in the footsteps of their ancestors.
For Protestants, the writings of the saints may be very nice, but they are not directly based in scripture and are not sufficient on their own regardless of the talents of the authors. Discussions between Protestants and Catholics can often end up with the Catholic quoting their saints or pope and the Protestant responding with direct bible quotes. This can quickly turn into an ouroboros of talking circles around each other. It's an unproductive discussion that I usually try to avoid.
I should also point out that Protestants are not trying to "prove" anything by quoting the bible and they are not trying to make a "facts and logic" based argument either. Instead, they see the proper response to incorrect beliefs and theology is to directly quote the bible as Jesus did in Matthew 4. In this book, Jesus responds to a number of maliciously twisted statements by directly quoting Deuteronomy and Psalms.
3 The tempter came to him and said, “If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread.”
4 Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God'. (Deut. 8:3)
Maybe just go to a Protestant church that takes Jesus more seriously? We are called to live out our faith in how we act as a response for what he's done for us.
But that's not why I'm posting, I have question on resources. Does anyone have ANY good explanation or can point me to a good explanation that explains what exactly the holy Spirit is??? (Honestly the trinity for that matter) And how it's theologically sound? I got into an irl convo with some atheist and they said "well how is it not paganism" and I couldn't respond because I just didn't know. I remember back in university I asked a priest this question and he pointed me to some video to watch but I forgot the name of. I don't want to derail this thread with questions I might have but my questions wouldn't be unique. Is there a "cannon law/theology 101 for retards" or some old theologian?
A very simple explanation of the work of the Holy Spirit can be watched here. An overview of the Holy Spirit in the Hebrew Bible can be watched here.
As far as the Trinity, there's a number of modern books I could point you to: Ryken & LeFebvre's Our Triune God or Scott Swain's The Trinity: An Introduction, for example.
The current favourite Christian apologist on the interwebs, Wes Huff, has a half-hour video on the Trinity here. A new channel has made a 15 minute video here that attempts to be the best video on the internet explaining the Trinity, you can judge their success for yourself.
If you want to listen to a guy talk at length - and I mean at length, although he is very listenable - about how the Trinity is present in the Hebrew Bible, not just in the New Testament, Anthony Rogers has a few playlists you may appreciate.
EDIT: If you want another writer with a more Jewish focus, I would recommend Daniel Boyarin. He is an excellent scholar. Start with The Jewish Gospels, which is quite readable.
When asked to explain why they believe something, Catholics will often quote the writings of their saints or popes. Their great men have considered and investigated these issues and their conclusion are now settled matters and not open to re-litigation.
>Unlike Catholics, we actually quote the Bible Already poisoning the well, I see. Generally everyone interprets the text through a tradition. Some people just pretend they don’t. This is why people can supposedly teach “just what the Bible says” and come up with incompatible conclusions.
Does anyone have ANY good explanation or can point me to a good explanation that explains what exactly the holy Spirit is??? (Honestly the trinity for that matter)
first all, this is a believe that is to be held de fide, not something that can be "explained" in a sensible manner. Like how we know that water is wet because we can touch it and feel it wet. With that said, we can both use Philosophy and analogies to better get at more inteligible understanding of God
Now because God is simple, immutable, eternal, immense, infinite, and united we hold to one God. But what happens when God thinks of himself? He doesn't create another God, he creates an image of himself in his intellect, the Son. The Son and the Father unite in love, because God is infinite goodness, and this link of love produces the Holy Spirit. The "sigh" two lovers make when they see each other.
this is just a very simple analogy. Not something I would throw at a simpleton saying that Christians are pagans
If you want to learn more about the topic I recommend Garrigou-Lagrange's work
the writings of the saints may be very nice, but they are not directly based in scripture and are not sufficient on their own regardless of the talents of the authors
The Saints are not just wise men. They have studied the Scriptures better than most men, they have lived a holy life, thus their opinion is higher than mine or yours. Because they are also older than you and I, they are closer to Christ time; they give testimony to how and what Christians believed and did in their time. So it's not just their opinion
