As former follower of Pastor Anderson and now a Papist; I read and love the KJV, the language, majesty...

Did you read his post? Let me quote it again for you:

Implicit here is the presumption that the word of God said "God was manifest in the flesh". Perhaps Paul actually wrote "which was manifested in the flesh" (DR) and the KJV changes it.

You have to admit my issue is bigger than a mere mistaken definition. My complaint is that your version removes God and Christ in these places.

And by the way, I could bring those up as well, but then you would be the one belittling it as nothing. So why don't you explain the direct removals in these places instead of pretending like the two translations are somehow comparable. Only one can be right, that needs to be admitted upfront before any discussion continues.

How on Earth does the kjv go against Catholicism? Sure it's missing a few books but as long as you're not a king-james-onlyist then what's the big deal? It was extremely enjoyable to read.

Personally, I'd use whichever version your local conference uses during mass.
America: NABRE*
Canada: NRSVCE
Ireland: TJB
Australia: TJB
Scotland: TJB
Eng and Wales: RSVCE (I think)
At the same time, I wouldn't recommend exclusively using any of them, as they all have pros and cons. Like any translation, none are perfect.

You have to admit my issue is bigger than a mere mistaken definition. My complaint is that the KJV erroneously adds God and Christ in these places.
So why don't you explain the direct additions in these places instead of pretending like the two translations are somehow comparable.

They both could be wrong, actually.

Attached: Judge-Judy-Eye-Roll-Thumb.gif (390x259, 982.06K)

it's definitely not approved for liturgy. a lot of tradcaths get hung up on people reading KJV because of the old religious wars. personally I use the Ignatius bible (RSVCE) for studying. say what you want about the jesuits but they're top-tier academics when it comes to that stuff.

Sure, I will gladly. Because God actually was manifest in the flesh, the word of God makes sure to say this in 1 Timothy 3:16. The Word is God. So then this isn't erroneous.

I'm glad you recognize that the two versions don't agree and can always hope you see which one is the misleading, wicked corruption from the above examples of full deletion of words from scripture by certain men. The important thing is that due to these changes, the two translations are not comparable. They say substantially different things and therefore cannot both be right in claiming to be scripture.

If you're an unbeliever you might say they are both "wrong." I say one is right and the other is a corruption.

It is important to recognize that, purporting to be the same inspired scripture, they cannot both be right. One of them clearly deletes the word God, without a trace. Maybe if you had any respect for God you would care more about what his word says instead of acting intentionally snarky and pretending like it doesn't matter.

The word of God is what the inspired authors wrote. So the issue is not necessarily what is the most detailed or accurate description of what happened, but what is the proper translation of the inspired Greek. If Paul wrote "which was manifested in the flesh", then switching it to God was manifest in the flesh" would be an erroneous addition to of scripture, even if it is true.

I'm glad you recognize that the two versions don't agree and can always hope you see which one is the misleading, wicked corruption from the above examples of full addition of words to scripture by certain men.

The two translations are not comparable.
Why not?
They say substantially different things and therefore cannot both be right in claiming to be scripture.
Sure, but you still haven't proven one is right. You've just assumed one is right. Both could be wrong.

Which translation do you think is right: The NIV or the ESV?
I assume you are a KJV only kinda guy, which means you'll say only the KJV is right and both the NIV and the ESV are wrong. I'm not a KJV only guy. In fact, I'm not a "one-translation-only" kinda guy at all. So you first have to prove the KJV to be a perfect representation of the inspired biblical text before you can begin using it as a standard of comparison. So I will quote >>61142 again: why should we think that it's not KJV which ADDS to Scripture? Why should [the KJV] be a standard?

It is equally important to recognize that they both can be wrong.

clearly? deletes? compared to what? You have not proven the KJV should be our standard of comparison, and therefore I reject using it as such. Thus, it is not in any way clear that one deleted or added a word. I will admit they are different. I am not convinced there is a substantive difference, but we can move on to that after we've reached an agreement on whether either text (or both) is an accurate translation of the inspired words.

Why are you being so rude? I merely used your words as a mirror to expose the issue presented. You didn't address at all the questions presented in the post you responded to or when I reiterated them.

Then why would you flat out say they are "wrong?" You're being intellectually dishonest. You know all the way back in my original post what I mean, yet you have tried to derail this whole thread by pretending I don't understand that "only one is right" means the same as "both cannot be right," but you seized on the semantics to make a huge, pointless sidetrack about how both could be "wrong" as you put it and in the process of doing that you called the word of God outright wrong. Yet now you are also pretending not to understand that I call one right and the other a corruption. I don't call it "wrong" persay, and to "call both wrong" is something I would never say unless they were factually wrong. Rather, one is a corruption. I made myself clear before. And that's what I have been saying here, my explanation is clear and obvious, and you are deliberately pretending that it isn't. As I said before and you apparently missed, they cannot both be right; or in other words one of them must be corrupted; or in other words only one can be right. You deliberately fail to understand these things however that so you can redirect the whole conversation into this pointless subject of trying to explain the most basic logic and continue to pretend every step of the way that precisely what I've said from the beginning cannot be understood. Hence, you are being intellectually dishonest and I refuse to allow you to keep changing the subject to basic logic that we all already understand when I've spoken clearly from the beginning. I'm glad that settles this.

The OP in this thread is trying to compare the Authorized KJB with the DRB, and that is who I was originally addressing my post to, before you even came here.

It is only your intellectual dishonesty that makes you think I haven't implicitly recognized this from the beginning, although I would say corrupted, not WRONG. Because it may only have some words changed, it might mean something that's true still so I wouldn't outright say it's wrong. But since only some of us has any respect for the Lord, only some of us take any consideration not to blaspheme the word of God. Even indirectly.

But for you, when I say "God was manifest in the flesh" you can blithely dismiss that as "wrong."

So finally, after all of the sidetracking, you acknowledge my point actually. It had to be buried this deep, though.

Yes I did. His complaint was that a word definition was off. That is all you apparently have to complain about. But my issue that I'm bringing to the table about why the DRB should never be used is that entire deletions of the word God and Christ have occurred. Since the OP wanted to know whether to switch from Authorized KJB to some other non-authorized version, I therefore told him why he should not switch to that version. And then the mockers who belittle what God's word has to say showed up, making empty contradictions to all of these things and scoffing at them. But let me tell you that one word in 1 Timothy 3:16 has more meaning and value than my own life.

Thanks for the recommendations, definitely will check it out the RSVCE for reading, and when I listen to audio books I'll try to find a good DR one.
I already read the KJV so I'm not missing out on the book that shaped English language, as well as mine; as one girl puts it when I talk to her
Even though I'm a papist now, we should all appreciate it
theguardian.com/books/2010/nov/21/king-james-bible-english-language

I didn't say either one was wrong. I said "It is equally important to recognize that they both can be wrong. Let me explain,

The DR reads:
"which was manifested in the flesh"

The KJV reads:
"God was manifest in the flesh"

Both would be wrong if Paul actually wrote,
"He was manifested in the flesh," (ESV, RSV, CSB, etc.)

You're not listening to what I actually say. There is nothing dishonest about what I've said at all.

I'm not pretending anything. I'm only taking your words to their logical conclusion.

You have argued that the KJV's representation of the text "isn't erroneous" without proof. I am merely trying to get you to admit that, in fact, the KJV may not be an accurate reflection of the inspired word. It's not semantics, it's logic.

lol now you're actually arguing semantics. I mean, you're right in that I conflated the words "wrong" and "corruption" to mean the same thing, which for our purposes here, is appropriate.

Which you have not done. You have also not shown it to be a "corruption".

"only one can be right" does not follow from "they both cannot be right." Both can be wrong. It's that simple.

I never claimed you could not be understood. I am saying your conclusion that the KJV is "right' rendering does not follow from the evidence you presented.

I have not changed the subject. We're still talking about which rendering of 1 Tim 3:16 is right. You have argued the KJV wording is accurate without sufficient proof.

Absolutely nothing has been settled. lol

Right. And you said: "you can't simply erase the word for God from your translation." and "Words like "God" and "Christ" are just gone, and that's the issue I have with those versions." but you haven't proven that the KJV didn't add those words, you immediately assumed the DR removed them without sufficient proof. Therefore, you haven't yet shown why the KJV "should be . . . [the] standard."

OK, so you admit then that the KJV may have been "corrupted" and therefore it is equally possible that the different reading in the DR is "right". Now we can actually begin discussing whether the KJV was corrupted.

Fair enough. So, following your words, the DR's rendering might be "true still" even if it has "some words changed." This means there is no reason to assume the KJV should be the standard of comparison, as you did by saying "one of them clearly deletes the word God, without a trace."

sigh.

cont.
I never said the KJV's rendering was "wrong". At most, I said it could be wrong, just as I said the DR's rendering could be wrong. You were the one who said, the DR "removed" words, and used the KJV to demonstrate words were "removed." But you have not yet said why the KJV should be the standard of comparison so that the KJV couldn't have added words, and only the DR could have "removed" them.

Your point wasn't that they are different. Your point was the the DR "removed" words.

said:
your response:

you did not address his question as to "why the KJV should be a standard." You statement "that [the DR] removes entire sentences" is only valid if the KJV is the standard. A question raised in the post that you did not address.

I didn't complain about the definition at all. lol

You have not proven this, as I've said over and over.

Right, you told him that the DR removes words and therefore use the KJV. But you didn't prove the DR actually removes words, as you used the KJV as a standard. And here I am, contesting your use of the KJV as the standard for comparison. sheesh dude.

Who is mocking God's word? I want to know what God's word is. You haven't proven that the KJV ONLY is God's word.

????

"Papist" is a slur. Do not address yourself like that.

Non-christians who don't believe in the Bible say the same thing every day. There are always skeptics asking for proof that the Bible is the word of God.

In the general case, if two translations say completely different things, then only one can be right. I did not say only one IS right— that statement might be taken as assuming one is right— but I did say only one CAN BE right. So you have totally failed at reading comprehension here. In the general case, only one can be right. That's what I said, and you apparently didn't fully understand that.

Now in the general case, only one can be right. That is just basic logic. But in this SPECIFIC case, the Authorized Version is correct. You are now trying to conflate properly understanding my general logic with what I've been saying about the particular case. In this particular case, there is no question of which one is right, namely the Authorized Version. By simply clarifying the general principle that they cannot both be right if the two differ in this way, that does not mean I've raised any doubt as to which is right in this specific case. I'm first stating general idea that if two differ then they are definitely not both right and then applying it to this case where we know the right translation, to show that the differing version must be corrupted. It's pretty odd that this all needs to be explicitly stated for you, but you are going to some extreme lengths to argue semantics here, by trying to conflate the general case with this specific case. And yeah, that is intellectually dishonest. There's no way you don't know what you're doing.

I already showed that it does. "Can be" means "has the potential to be." Not just for intentionally bringing this discussion nowhere, your reading comprehension is to blame for this in the first place. Only one can be right is the exact same as they cannot both be right. And this is absolutely true is for any two translations that come from objectively different words.

So are you now tacitly admitting to wasting our time? Is that funny? tell me exactly what any of this proved. All you did was waste a bunch of time, it didn't really accomplish anything for anyone. I said all along "only one can be right" and you got all tied into a knot over this. You tried to use these semantics to imply something about this specific case to which the principle has been applied, in which one of the versions happens to be the KJV. In which I never raised any question about which is right; even though I did say "only one can be right" which was just logic in general.

See, this is your dishonesty conflating the specific case with general logic. In general two disagreeing translations cannot both be right, in this specific case the Authorized Version is right, and therefore (logically) the other is corrupt, as I've said up til now.

He should have read the OP then.

You are. By making posts like the above where you flat out state that God and Christ are erroneously added. I don't care if it was supposed to be a parody of me, I take those words seriously. I don't care if you tried to post a sarcastic reaction image to go with it. That was serious.

I thought we agreed that God's word is whatever the inspired author's wrote. The inspired authors didn't write in English. So you need some more evidence to back up your assertion that I should be KJV only.

Or they could both be wrong. I don't understand why you are so confused at that.

No. But from your word choice, like "your version removes God and Christ in these places.", you are assuming the KJV is right, as I pointed out. . You have not yet shown to be true.

The only iteration of the Bible guarantee to be right are the original autographs of from the inspired authors and any exact copies. There is no grantee any particular translation is ever right. There is no guarantee any particular handcopy is exact like the autograph either.

You have not shown this to be true from any evidence other than "it's the KJV"

I am only taking your words to their logical conclusion.

I have been asking you repeatedly to prove this, and you have not.

Yes you have. By presenting two choices and saying "one is right" you have called into question both. By using language like "x removed and deleted a,b, and c" you have asserted just that, without proving a, b, and c, were ever there in the first place.

>I'm first stating general idea that if two differ then they are definitely not both right and then applying it to this case where we know the right translation to show that the differing version must be corrupted.
But we do NOT know the right translation. You assumed the right translation. You refuse to answer the question: why the KJV "should be . . . [the] standard." This issue is fundamental to our discussion here and the issue presented by OP. I don't understand why you won't address this. Without an answer, our discussion cannot continue fruitfully. At this point, I have to assume you do not have an answer.

I do not think the word "semantics" means what you think it means. I am not conflating anything. You are sidestepping this issue. Why should I think the DR "removed" words? Why shouldn't I think the KJV is corrupt because it added words?

You accuse me of being intellectually dishonest, yet I have responded to your posts sentence by sentence, raising issues you either didn't see or didn't address. You have skipped around my posts, hardly addressing anything. Instead, you have danced around the issues I presented by arguing the semantic difference between "wrong" and "corrupt" which for our purposes, is not significant. You have gone at lengths to draw a distinction between a "general case" and "a specific case" without provind meaningful support to your assumption that the KJV should be our standard of comparison in either situation.You have been asked at least seven times: "Why should [the KJV] be a standard?" and you have never once addressed it. You sir, are the one being intellectually dishonest.

I am afraid you have not.
Indeed.

Let me ask you this:
1+1=3
1+2=4
Which one is right?

As I've said repeatedly, you have not shown me any reason to believe either the DR or the KJV is right. I presented in my previous post a third translation found in the ESV, RSV, and CSB. If Paul, when he put pen to paper, wrote neither what is in the DR or the KJV, then both the DR and the KJV have been corrupted. This is not difficult to understand. You haven't yet shown the KJV to be correct, and yet you use it to measure what is right and wrong. This is fallacious reasoning.

cont.
If you won't answer the questions I have given you, then yes this was a complete waste of time for both of us. Just so you're not confused, I'll repeat the question raised initially by and repeated over and over by myself: Why should we think that it's not KJV which ADDS to Scripture? Why should it be the standard?

It has proved you do not have the intellectual integrity or capacity to engage in serious argument.

You got tied in a knot. I would've dropped the issue if you would have either admitted the KJV could have wrong rendering here or answered the initial question about why you made the KJV the standard for comparison.

I really don't think you know what it means to argue semantics. You've come up with all this gobbedly gook about general cases and the difference between "wrong" and "corrupt" when I just want you to answer why you think the KJV isn't the "corrupt" text.

You didn't raise any question. I did. I raised the question over which is right: the DR or the KJV. Your answer was "the KJV". I asked why is the KJV right and the DR wrong? I asked couldn't they both be wrong? You haven't really addressed that question.

You said "you think I haven't implicitly recognized [they both can be wrong] from the beginning". The "both" we are talking about here is the DR and the KJV. Therefore, if you have "implicitly recognized" both the DR and KJV can be wrong, you have admitted "that the KJV may have been corrupted." I am taking your words to their logical conclusion. There is absolutely no intellectual dishonesty here.

sure. But both can be wrong

You have not shown this to be true.

You argument would be sound and cogent if all your premises were true. I am contesting your premise that "the Authorized Version is right". Without establishing all your premises, your conclusion is not true or convincing.

Now you're backpedaling. You responded to who initially contested an implicit premise in your argument. You have maintained your position as correct without addressing the issue. Thus, your position has not been proven correct.

If Paul did not write those words, then yes they are erroneously added. That is not mocking God's word. You are blasphemously trying to correct the inspired Apostle Paul by adding them without justification.

It does not seem like you take it seriously, based on our discussion so far.

Indeed it was serious. But you have not seriously refuted any of the issues I brought up with your argument as to why KJV and not DR. You have danced and sidestepped, around it, throwing insults along the way. If you won't support your initial statement about how the DR "removed" words and verses, then your argument in support of the KJV is invalid. Any further discussion with you is fruitless. May God have mercy on you.

Let's take Bible(KJV) appears out of nowhere, and we take the a assumption that it is God's word; we can all agree on it for this discussion.
But now, the question arises, which interpretation is correct?
I thought this through, coming from Pastor Anderson's side. If the holy Spirit guides us to all truth, and there is objective truth in the universe, then only one interpretation can be correct. If someone does not agree with you, and you whole-heartly believe that you have the Holy Spirit, then it follows logically that everyone that doesn't agree with you does not have the Holy Spirit.
The bias the Baptists and most other protestants have is Faith alone.
Your fundamental assumption is clouding the judgment of how you read the Bible.
All the counicls leading up to the Reformation already gave us a pretty defined idea what the Bible says(council of Nicea pre-dominantly).
Pastor Anderson church is the logical conclusion of Faith alone and Bible alone.
Now, looking at History as I did, I found that no one had Baptists beliefs, and they were deemed as heretics.
Now if no one for 1500 years had faith alone, then they must have not had the Holy Spirit in then, or they have lost it negating the faith alone. You must hold onto your belief and believed no one was saved in the 1500 years of the church, or update what it means to be saved(is just belief in jesus enough?), or go trail of Blood style and beleif your church has apostolic succession.

What makes your interpretation that Jesus when he said to eat my body, he meant it as symbolic but Genesis literally?
What the IFB clings onto is traditions as defined by them which is traditions they learned from before. Honestly, they stayed pretty true to no degeneracy and pretty core teachings.
By faith you believe that the KJV is inspired, and by faith I believe that there is one church that kept the interpretation of those scriptures to be inspired.
We all need a solid bedrock of assumption or else we descend into female and trans pastors.

Attached: Bible_History.gif (1350x1739, 379.52K)

Furthermore, the canon question comes into mind. If I take the 1611 KJV to be the inspired word of God, which I used to, then what about the Apocrypha in it? Should that not be used as inspired scripture? on what basis do we determine what is scripture or not?
The Holy Spirit that guides us into all truth?
Calvin thought exactly the same, that the Spirit tells us what is canon or not.
The KJV was printed with apocrphya for over 200 years.
See, if I'm Bible alone with the apocrphya, then Catholic doctorines start to make a lot of sense.
My quest for Bible alone with the Apocphra led me to the Anglican chuch which held it as scripture.
After that, quick and easy transition to Rome as the high Church Anglicans beleive in veneration of Saints, purgatory etc.. and Some Anglican priests in the travesty of women pastors came home to Rome as ordinaned priests.
calledtocommunion.com/2010/01/the-canon-question/

Attached: Protestant_interpetation.PNG (582x551 35.17 KB, 24.61K)

They don't have to agree with me though, I'm fallible, they have to agree with the Spirit. I can't stand in as a substitute for that. It's the same word of God and the same Holy Spirit that you choose to resist whether or not I'm here.

Saved by grace through faith is in the Bible.

So if the world says they are nonexistent heretics, that's who you believe? Alright, then that's who you believe then.

There is no second inspiration, that's nonsense. The original words that God gave to the prophets and apostles has never left this earth in the first place. Matthew 24:35. If you disbelieve that, you must be putting your faith in something other than what God said.

I think that his point is more: "If there is no historical proof whatsoever that baptist theology was existent before the 16th century, and early christian evidence shows a completely different theology, is your theology actually christian at all?"

I like how you've purged the Bible from your whole thought process. At this point, you can just subjectively change the standards to decide what is evidence and what isn't. And that's what you do. After all, according to what you just wrote it doesn't have to adhere to any Biblical standard. There is no such justification anywhere in that sentence, you don't even pretend there is one! That is, unless you yourself think differently than what you just wrote.

Okay, which canon of the Bible then. The KJV came with the Apocrypha. Let's agree Bible Alone, but which canon?
The Bible never says Bible alone btw, not regarding that it only leads to the Holy Spirit claim that will tell you which books are actually scripture.
The Bible says to eat and drink Jesus's body, do you not follow the Bible.
even if I went back to Sola Scriptura, I can derive pretty much any Catholic doctrine from the Bible itself. In fact, I can derive Calvinist doctrine or Lutheran doctrine from the Bible itself and they both believed in a Real presence as well along with Sola Fida and Sola Scriptura.
The point is, I can read the Bible(and I have 66 books of the KJV), and see justifications for calvinism, armianism, lutherism, andersonism; it becomes subjective to my interpetation which is correct in that case even if we just use the 66 books.

Attached: visibleChurch.PNG (611x610, 33.21K)

I know Anderson objects to Mary being the mother of God.
Mary gave birth to Jesus, jesus is God, ergo Mary gave birth to God.
The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are distinct bodies but one God. Mary didn't give birth to God the father, or the Holy Spirit, but to Christ who is God.
That is directly from the Bible.
There is one mediator between God and man, and that is the man,Christ Jesus.
But I bet you ask people to pray for you, is Jesus no longer the only mediator?

2 Peter 1:20 says that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

That means the Bible itself undermines the entire principle of sola scriptura. Man is not fit to personally interpret scripture alone, he needs to conform to the interpretation that is reached by the Body of Christ as a whole, without schism.

Read Sirach 1, it is very important for you:
You are urged therefore to read with good will and attention, and to be indulgent in cases where, despite out diligent labor in translating, we may seem to have rendered some phrases imperfectly. For what was originally expressed in Hebrew does not have exactly the same sense when translated into another language. Not only this work, but even the law itself, the prophecies, and the rest of the books differ not a little as originally expressed.

This is what I've been trying to say. The Holy Spirit does. And you can't place any man in the role of God. Any man who does is a usurper.

Even better, I whole heartly agree. Then how did no Christian come up with baptist beliefs until after the reformation?
I honestly was on Pastor Anderson's side until i read some Church History and Reformation. And I understand the logic behind what he says, I played it out in my head. I came from raised nomial catholic, to athiesm to Christianity when I finally realized that there was objective truth in the universe.
The solid foundation of the KJV made me cling to it and I didn't look at any catholic resources because I thoiught it was false because I thought it failed me.
I failed it, my parents failed me by not going to mass and learning why I have to beleive.
My autism didn't take the standard "have faith".
Faith is not without reason, and I now finally understand why the church says you can prove God.
Sola Scriptura ultimately leads to subjectivism and we see what a post-modernist world it left us in.
The growing churches are strong fundamental that adhere to Tradition which is how got into pastor Anderson.

But see, how can you tell who has the Holy Spirit. If you know you have it, then everyone who disagrees with you on a doctorine must logically mean the person does not have the holy Spirit.

Attached: pastorjim_Nicea.png (1920x1080 128.35 KB, 168.54K)

That's where you are wrong.

Failure of basic logic. I am not the Holy Spirit. In fact the scripture says in 1 Peter 2:2 to "desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby." So then it is incumbent on you to study the word of God, or else you will get nowhere in doctrine. That is the fate of people who reject the word of God as well, they can never learn what the Spirit teacheth.

The Didache clearly states that baptism is preferably by immersion and since it says that the person to be baptized should fast beforehand, we can also assume that they were adults.
Other than that it depends what you mean by "baptist" but going with a Reformed view:
Epistle to Diognetus Section 9:
Sounds a lot like total depravity, substitutionary atonement, etc. to me…

From the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians Chapter 32:
On top of that he uses the term "elect" quite a lot all throughout the epistle.

Of course not everybody had the same view in the early church or held the completely correct view, but they also don't have to. Unlike Catholics who desperately are looking for any scrap that seems to confirm the authority of the Bishop of Rome, you don't have to search history for early Baptists.
You can gladly acknowledge that there were some people that had views that sound similar to yours today, there were heretics and everything in-between. You might be shocked to hear this, but nobody at the Council of Nicaea held views that correspond to modern day Catholic, Orthodox, Reformed, or any other denominational view. Most of those theological dogmas developed over time and many dividing issues today (e.g. soteriology) were not discussed until many centuries later.

Attached: 20ae3abdfb47a1d958e13192cc87f798cea5455dc829b008982b5528c0f90f21.jpg (1234x815, 99.62K)

The douay-rheims is much more accurate but the KJV was created to sound nice. l prefer the douay-rheims

Attached: Baptists1.jpeg (805x658 3.63 MB, 274.11K)

Colorful infographics based on air and fanfic don't prove anything though.

The bible does not equal baptist theology no matter how hard you want to meme it.
Biblical interpretation has been fairly consistent for the first 1400 years with the exception of the natures of Christ.
Historical evidence shows that everybody took the "This is my Body" and "This is my Blood" literal.

Accusing someone of subjective standards wont refute them if they are mere historical facts.
If early christians believed in child baptism, the real presence, praying to saints for intercession, that Mary was the Mother of God and certain denominations don't do any of these, are they really christian then?

You have literally zero proof of your theology being christianity as it was known right after Christ died.
You argue that your theology is based on the bible and purely biblical, and you do so saying that the bible proves it.
This is such a circle argument if I ever saw one YET you cannot prove that the bible has always been interpreted this way.
Not that this matters to you because as long as the book that the apostolics compiled in the late 4th century is interpreted by you it keeps on saying something different than we do.

HAHAHAHA
I really hope that it was made ironically or by some bored Catholic, noone can be this stupid.

I'm a Catholic, I like the King James too. Here's what you should know: the King James Bible was intended for use by high-church Anglicans, and in the 1600s there weren't very many differences between them and Catholics. Also, both the King James Bible and the Douay-Rheims Bible borrow from each other (the King James was compared to numerous translations when it was being made, one being the Douay-Rheims and one being the Vulgate the Douay Rheims is based on. The Douay-Rheims was revised several times after its initial 1610 release, most notably the Challoner revision, and many of these revisions were making it more inline with the King James). I don't think that using it as your typical Bible will get you in much spiritual trouble, however you should be cognizant of certain areas where the translation does differ specifically due to theological issues. The biggest one being how the KJV renders Luke 1:28

Says this: the whole time of your faith will not profit you, if you are not made perfect in the last time.
Is Catholic: Section 8: He sought to form a mind conscious of righteousness, so that being convinced in that time of our unworthiness of attaining life through our own works, it should now, through the kindness of Gob, be vouchsafed to us; and having made it manifest that in ourselves we were unable to enter into the kingdom of God, we might through the power of God BE MADE ABLE.

And then: He who takes upon himself the burden of his neighbour; he who, in whatsoever respect he may be superior, is ready to benefit another who is deficient; he who whatsoever thing he has received from God, by distributing these to the needy, becomes a god to those who receive his benefits: he is an imitator of God. Then thou shalt see, while still on earth that God in the heavens rules over the universe; then thou shalt see, while still on earth that God in the heavens rules over the universe; then thou shalt begin to speak the mysteries of God; then shalt thou both love and admire those that suffer punishment because they will not deny God

Also Catholic:
CHAP. XXX.–LET US DO THOSE THINGS THAT PLEASE GOD, AND FLEE FROM THOSE HE HATES, THAT WE MAY BE BLESSED.

Seeing, therefore, that we are the portion of the Holy One, let us do all those things which pertain to holiness, avoiding all evil-speaking, all abominable and impure embraces, together with all drunkenness, seeking after change,(3) all abominable lusts, detestable adultery, and execrable pride. "For God," saith [the Scripture], "resisteth the proud, but giveth grace to the humble."(4) Let us cleave, then, to those to whom grace has been given by God. LET US CLOTHE OURSELVES WITH CONCORD AND HUMILITY, EVER EXERCISING SELF-CONTROL, STANDING FAR OFF FROM ALL WHISPERING AND EVIL-SPEAKING, BEING JUSTIFIED BY OUR WORKS, AND NOT OUR WORDS. For [the Scripture] saith, "He that speaketh much, shall also hear much in answer. And does he that is ready in speech deem himself righteous? Blessed is he that is born of woman, who liveth but a short time: be not given to much speaking."(5) Let our praise be in God, and not of ourselves; for God hateth those that commend themselves. Let testimony to our good deeds be borne by others, as it was in the case of our righteous forefathers. Boldness, and arrogance, and audacity belong to those that are accursed of God; but moderation, humility, and meekness to such as are blessed by Him.

When he made the quote that you noted, we see that surrounding it before and after was the necessity of works done in God's grace for salvation. He was in the quote contrasting a self-righteous holiness to the holiness that must be done in God's grace. The one that did not justify, is when one tries to justify himself, relies on his own wisdom, holiness, etc. One indeed who works on one's own power is condemned by Trent, canon 1, justification. That is what Clement was condemning, and saying that does not avail before God. He specifically speaks of justification by works in Chapter 30. Notice though that those works are done in grace, as he specifically says in that same chapter. In Chapter 31 he says Abraham was blessed (and the context is speaking of justification), because of the act of offering Isaac on the altar. In chapter 34, Clement says that in justification it is requisite to our actions to be well-doing. He gives us two choices. To be a faithful servant, we labor (in grace of course) and we get the reward of heaven. However, if we are a slothful servant, and don't labor for God, we are sent to hell. Clement is obviously referring to Mt. 24:45-51. The slothful servant gets what? weeping and gnashing of teeth. That is hell. Why, because he didn't work. Then Clement says, he forewarns us he renders accoring to our works (Rom. 2:6, Mt. 16:27). If faith alone, he wouldn't forewarn us (because our justification would be absolutely assured), and we would not fear damnation. In Chapter 48 he speaks of those can attain salvation only those who direct their ways in holiness. Thus, that direction in holiness is a cause of justification. In Chapter 50 he notes that we must keep the commandments and that love (not faith alone) forgives sins. Clement notes that works are what must be judged before God to achieve salvation, and not even a hint of forensic justification, or Sola Fide.

As for use of elect, it's not what you think: jimmyakin.com/2017/11/gods-elect-in-1-clement.html

Well, at this rate it seems like my work is done.

Just wunderbar.

It's just so funny how the moment someone gives you something malleable to work with you go to town on that, but still have nothing in response to the inspired infallible words. Because no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

Like the Bible? Sheer number of denominations proves it can be malled like clay.
That's why there is only one interpretation. And since it's only one it must mean that it was always the same. And lo and behold we can find Catholicism in any given time period while rest of sects just start in history.
Plus, you absolute tigger, there was no a bit of scripture in the post that I answered to

Attached: 30000.png (1903x9985, 3.21M)

Not true. Sacerdotalism started later in history.
I know. You want to talk about all kinds of private interpretations of subjective things and avoid all the Scripture references so far. Because it is the witness against which you cannot stand, against which you cannot possibly hope to stand.
No, because 2 Peter 1:20 says that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

But I'm glad you freely admit that what you responded to was subject to all kinds of corruption and private interpretation, as it is all imperfect works of man. You can conclude anything you want from those.

Arguing with a KJV-onlyist must be similar to arguing with a Gnostic during the days of St. Paul/St. John. There's so much wrong about it, there's not much else to do but to follow St. John's example.

"There are also those who heard from him that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house without bathing, exclaiming, "Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within."

This is strange mixture of Anglo-centrism, pride, and circular logic isn't worth anyone's time. I really use "Anglo-centrism" seriously here, I cannot figure out how anyone could really think an english translation gets any primacy of "God's Word" over the Latin or Greek Scriptures.

The Greek and the Hebrew original says the same thing.

ah yes, the old "I'm not a KJV onlyist, I just happen to prefer the Greek; only in the form of KJV"

Catholics lying about church history again, oh joy.

First of all, the point is not to make them all reformed but to show that there are views well within the reformed tradition at a very early stage in Church History. Unlike Catholics, I don't have to go looking for traces of papacy and Marian dogmas in the early church. I can quite contently say that doctrines develop over time and that issues like soteriology were not really at center stage in the early church.

Just quickly on the few passages:

Of course, you are made perfect in the last time by God, not of your own doing. The point was about Baptism anyway, not anything else.
Yes silly, we are made able to enter the kingdom of heaven by Christ's sacrifice. Again, being instructed in how to do what is pleasing to God is not teaching a works based salvation.
Every Reformed theologian will tell you that a regenerate believer will not just talk about how he believes that Christ is his savior but act accordingly.
Oh, and to make this even better: Notice how the letter never identifies Clement by name? In fact the first passage almost reads like a church writing to a fellow church on equal footing. Almost like there was no monarchical episcopate in Rome until the middle of the 2nd century.
What's even more, no bishop of Rome will claim to be the direct successor to Peter and have a special position until Stephen in the 3rd century tries to force his authority on the churches of North Africa.

Many of these "denominations" that actually hold to Sola Scriptura have very small differences between them (e.g. divided over Baptism of infants or form of church government) and many others will just flat out ignore certain passages or believe in additional revelation. It is also important to keep in mind that correct doctrine will not save you. You can very well be wrong on certain theological issues (e.g. eschatology) and still be saved. On top of that, any truly regenerate believer will have the Holy Spirit guide his study of scripture to guide their understanding of God's Word. Keep in mind the narrow gate.
Quite frankly, you sound a lot like a postmodernist with your relativism and "all interpretations are valid"-attitude. How can we ever know what a text was intended to say unless we have an authoritative source tell us? If we are being honest, Catholics believe in "Sola Ecclesia": The church tells you what the bible says, it tells you what is tradition and what those tradition are telling you.

What do you mean by "Catholicism"? You must know that nobody at the Council of Nicaea believed in Purgatory, Transubstantiation, infallibility of the pope or the Immaculate conception. In what sense could you call them "Catholic"? Any honest believer would have to admit that these believes developed over time, so to claim that any church father was "of your denomination" is just a blatant lie. I believe even Cardinal Ratzinger (aka former pope Benedict) admitted in one of his books that the church in the first thousand years looked quite different from what anybody today would understand as Catholic.

33 Ad to be precise
Irenaeus of Lyons Book 4 ch 8.3 (120-180 ad)
And all the apostles of the Lord are priests, who do inherit here neither lands nor houses, but serve God and the altar continually.
(Why you shouls listen to Irenaeus see graphs)
No, you dum-dum. Some protestant argued that early church "sounded baptist". I corrected him.
And as seen here even though prophecy of scripture is not made by private interpretation countless do privately
interpret it.

.First of all, the point is not to make them all reformed but to show that there are views well within the reformed tradition at a very early stage in Church History. Unlike Catholics, I don't have to go looking for traces of papacy and Marian dogmas in the early church. I can quite contently say that doctrines develop over time and that issues like soteriology were not really at center stage in the early church.
Problem is that there is no reformed soteriology in early church. Sure, some phrases can sound reformed but only when you butcher them out of context. Meanwhile, when you look at documents such us 1 Clement, Didache or Epistle to Diognetus you see Catholicism. Maybe sometimes not in letter (like use of "metabolised" in Justin's works) but in meaning. Reality, that even protestant historians see is that refomed view is novelity.
Do you even read the quote? "Whole time of your faith will not profit you, if you are not made perfect in the last time."
So long for preservation of the saints, which is logical conclusion of Faith Alone and PSUB
And regarding Baptism, Didache teaches that both sprinkling and pouring are valid ways.
The author of the Epistle to Diognetus 8 Having therefore convinced us in the FORMER TIME THAT OUR NATURE WAS UNABLE to attain to life, and having now revealed the savior who is able to save even those things which it was formerly impossible to save, by both these facts he desired to lead us to trust in his kindness, to esteem him our nourisher, Father, Teacher, counselor, Healer, our Wisdom , Light, Honour, Glory, Power, and Life, so that we should not be anxious concerning clothing and food.

He who takes upon himself the burden of his neighbour; he who, in whatsoever respect he may be superior, is ready to benefit another who is deficient; he who whatsoever thing he has received from God, by distributing these to the needy, becomes a god to those who receive his benefits: he is an imitator of God. Then thou shalt see, while still on earth that God in the heavens rules over the universe; then thou shalt see, while still on earth that God in the heavens rules over the universe; then thou shalt begin to speak the mysteries of God; then shalt thou both love and admire those that suffer punishment because they will not deny God

Conclusion - In this very short letter, there is not much in regards to justification. But of what is there, we see that what justifies is a making just, not a mere declaring just. Our own righteousness and works without grace merits nothing before God (Trent, canon 1, justification). God's grace does not merely cover us but makes us able. What was in the former nature unable to be just in God's sight is cleansed now by God's grace to merit justification. Nothing about a pile of dung just covered with snow (Luther). Not a hint of Sola Fide.

And Clement will tell you in Chapter 50 he notes that we must keep the commandments and that love (not faith alone) forgives sins. Clement notes that works are what must be judged before God to achieve salvation, and not even a hint of forensic justification, or Sola Fide.

Attached: fathers.png (400x203 49.17 KB, 22.92K)

Or maybe in Catholic tradition cultivated to this day monarchic bishops is equal to his diocese? We see that in Acts 15 and Galatians 2 when James is equal to Church in Judea.
But we have historical recods to back this up:

"The blessed Apostles (Peter & Paul), then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the Apostles, CLEMENT was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed Apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the Apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their Traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the Apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful epistle to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the Tradition which it had lately received from the Apostles … To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus …" (Against the Heresies 3)

Indeed, when it comes to the authorship of First Clement, there is not one ancient source which disputes that St. Clement of Rome is the epistle's author or that speaks of the epistle apart from St. Clement's office as monarchical bishop of Rome. For example, even the ancient Corinthians themselves who, if anyone should know who to thank for restoring their threatened unity, always spoke of St. Clement as both the epistle's author and primate of the Roman city-church. For example, in about 170 AD, ten years before Irenaeus wrote his Against the Heresies, we have St. Dionysius of Corinth writing to St. Soter, Bishop of Rome, to thank him for issuing a letter of instruction. And, of this letter, he says:

"Today we kept the Holy Day, the Lord's Day (Sunday), and on it we read your letter (i.e., Soter of Rome's epistle). And we shall ever have it with us to give us instruction, EVEN AS THE FORMER ONE WRITTEN THROUGH CLEMENT." (Dionysius Epistle to Pope Soter in Eusebius H.E.)

Here again we see First Clement attributed to St. Clement of Rome himself, who is equated with St. Soter as the monarchical bishop of Rome.

Quotes about disprove this claim. So is 1 Clement itself in which he commands Church in Corinth from place of authority. But best example is perhaps first Quartodecimanism controversy.
And all those sola scriptura churches cannot agree on what scripture alone actually teaches.
Faith is correct doctrine.
Ecclesiology is part of theology. And without correct theology you cannot have correct faith. And false faith do not save.
Problem is that they all claim that they are truly regenerated. And all claim that they have Holy Spirit. But of course you cannot be wrong, all of them are wrong, right?
Somone said that protestantism is based on subjectivism and this post prooves it.
Church believes in Primo et Necessario Revelation - that we are to believe in all public revelation, be it passed by mouth or text, to be saved and that Church alone is Mater et Magistrata because she alone is body of Christ. And within Church there are those who have gift of teaching.
Steven Ray analogy of three legged stool is perhaps easiest way to put it.

Attached: ireneusscripture.png (894x586 446.27 KB, 92.78K)

Irenaeus disagree
Ignatius, Didache and Justin disagree
The council itself or rather fact that it is ecumenical (and ecumnicality of the council is decided by Pope) disagree
The Odes of Solomon, Gregory Thaumaturgus and Mathetes disagree,
That they belived among others in Purgatory, Transubstantiation, infallibility of the pope or the Immaculate conception.
Except when you are Catholic (or even Orthodox) then you can with all honesty "My faith is the same faith of them"
And the same Pope says that Faith of modern Church is the same ancient faith of the Fathers. Forms change, substance is the same.

And since we get off topic of the thread I will end here. Read Church Fathers more.

Attached: st maximus.png (972x352, 248.63K)

I'm pretty sure cats can't read

Yes, you chose to go into a long argument over that, but you ignored all the scripture I posted before. This is my point.

Ok, tell me a couple things before you go into this. Please prove to us that Chapter 50 of whatever you are reading, hasn't been changed by even one word since it was written. Prove to us that the claimed author is in fact the author. Prove to us with 100% certainty that the claimed author of these unaltered words was a Christian, and furthermore prove to us with 100% certainty that he was writing it by inspiration of the Holy Ghost.

If you can't prove every single one of these, the discussion is pointless. You will come away with your subjective interpretation because it is not inspired scripture. The person you are arguing with will come away with his. And, beside all this, I would never actually base a doctrine on such a changing, corrupted foundation as this. It could have been altered by ten different people before it got to me.

seeing you quote psalms and say "poetic" made me think:

the use of the psalms is prayer, and all of the psalm tones are written in plainchant, which though it's written for latin, isn't metrical – you could literally chant the liturgy of the hours in hawaiian pidgin and still be good.

either way, KJV doesn't have the imprimatur, so it's not useful for anythng official or done with the church.

anything not based on byzantine text types says the same thing, since only byzantine manuscripts say "joseph" instead of "father".

Even the vulgate says "pater" there, rather than joseph, so the "error" is at least as old as st. jerome.

interlinear

Kang Jimmies bible is a classic, it doesn;t really matter if you read douyou-rhymes or jimjams bible just keep in mind its a prottie trans-lation but the differences are minor so personally i wood gouh with the kangs as a catlicker.

Okay, will probably just buy a douay-rhiems for an offical Bible(be strange to walk into a catholic bible-study with a KJV).
One last question or maybe for a new thread.
How do I gracefully leave my old church?
I talked to my pastor this morning and talked for an hour (he studied catholic theology and even considered it at one point during his PHD). He thinks I should stay in the church until I leave for work; but I do want to get the Eucharist (going to confession today).
Any experiences on leaving churches anons?

Attached: NewSmallChristiansAsSeenByEachOther.png (2048x1804 15.79 KB, 590.81K)

Does it REALLY matter?

You've memorised the KJV, why not keep memorising it? Or are you virtue-signalling your Catholicism by making sure everybody in your congregation knows you're using the DR and are therefore a "reeaal cathbro"?

Attached: ttthhhp-snake.webm (480x480, 255.45K)

Stop going.
Of course he does. He either still wants your money in the coffer or hopes to convert you away from Catholicism.
Are you a revert? Until you've gone through RCIA, don't take the Eucharist.