Isaiah as a mini bible

Preddy neat but what do all u CatDogs make of this if your canon doesn't have 66 books? Nice co inkydink but doesn't this easter egg validate prot canon and that they're on the right track (with the canon, at least)?

See 18:37 in in vide related for sauce

Other urls found in this thread:

yahoo.com/lifestyle/body-dead-teen-honored-extreme-embalming-posed-video-games-sunglasses-snacks-182105773.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Psalms.

u wot m8

Isaiah was only divided into chapters in the 16th century. The only book of the Bible to be actually (and not just artificially) divided into chapters is the book of Psalms, since it is a compilation of 150 individual psalms (and even then, the chapter divisions between the Masoretic and the LXX disagree).

Furthermore, God's judgement and salvation are not distinct. The salvation of the faithful is referred to several times in the 39 first chapters and judgement on the wicked is referred to several times in the 27 last chapters.

More than 66 books, m8. Get real Bible pls.

Whatever you say, Mr. Fanfiction.

Whatever you say follower of the council of Jamnia.

Yeah, but how many more should we have?
Roman Catholics have 73, Orthos have 76 (Georgians have one more book), and that's not even considering how the Oriental Orthodox (especially the Ethiopians) have their canon formed.
This doesn't even factor in additions to agreed-upon books, Like Psalm 151, the Prayer of Manessah, etc.

Honestly the Wisdom books are probably the best books in the entire Old Testament. You're really missing out if you don't have them.

This is a really cool way of looking at Isaiah. I'm Catholic so obviously the 66 books = 66 chapters point is moot, but I do like the poetry of Isaiah being a compressed Bible. Not a huge fan of MacArthur but this is a really nice insight.

Isaiah isn't called the "Gospel of the Old Testament" for no reason.

interesting video overall. MacArthur is a powerful speaker. Guess that's the fruit of spending 24/7 studying God's word
That was interesting. I'd never heard that before. I'll have to research that.
OP can't inb4 or so I keep getting told no idea why

Attached: thumbs-up-jesus.jpg (550x316, 33.62K)

...

What if it was the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that divided the chapters in the first place? It makes your entire argument about "artificial" vs. "natural" chapters entirely moot. You sound like one of those "atheist Christians" that obsessively listens to Jordan Peterson while harbouring secret contempt for the Bible.

Attached: cereal.png (523x472, 41.22K)

So the writing and compilation of the holy scriptures really ended in the 16th century?

Whatever makes you happy, brother.
The scriptures being divided into chapters and verses is a 16th century thing and the scriptures are divided in a completely different way liturgically.
The division into chapters and verses is as "inspired" as the translators' preface and the index at the end. Useful for citations, but meaningless as to how the text is actually divided, or used liturgically. It's even detrimental in some cases - the epistle to the Romans greatly suffers when it is read chapter per chapter and not as a consistent whole.

It's always an interesting thing to observe when Protestants treat their Bible like a Qu'ran while still harboring contempt for Muslims.

So I'm curious, before the Mosaic covenant which Scripture did believers read? Adam and Eve didn't have the Bible, so what did they do? What about Job or Abraham?

I have contempt for Muslims and every non-believer because they hate God and refuse to accept Jesus Christ as the Messiah. Unfortunately, it seems you're the spiritually blind one making these autistic arguments about 16th-century this and that. Why is this so difficult for you?

Attached: slap.jpeg (247x204, 5.96K)

Answering a question with a question is very rude. Answer my question, and I will answer yours.

"A division between chapters and verses was made centuries upon centuries after the canon was recognized by the Church" is an autistic argument how? The earliest text was written by Moses. The latest text was written by John the Evangelist. Then it took 4-5 centuries for the canon to be recognized East and West, and the Church has used its scriptures as such for centuries up until now. Even though the division between chapters and verses is kept for convenience, it means nothing liturgically, where it is select passages that are read, sometimes crossing from one "chapter" to the next and sometimes putting together "verses" that aren't next to each other in the text.

So, now, answer my question. Do you believe the canon's development ended in the 16th century? Because that would be ironical, as Orthodox and Catholics are accused of developping the scriptures beyond what God intended too.

...

The Bible that we know of today is the Bible because it's the most prominent one. I'm sure the Holy Spirit has worked such that the Bible that we know of today is the proper canon, it's something called culture. Certain things in human history tend to be the way the they are because of history, due to cultural norms. I'm saying that you're autistic because you're obsessing over some historical footnote, honestly your layman Christian who truly believes in Jesus Christ doesn't care for the Roman Catholic vs. Eastern Orthodox division because they have the Word of God and we know it to be true. Just like Jesus Christ stood right in front of Pontius Pilate and Pilate asked Him what is Truth? We shouldn't be obsessing over which Bible canon is correct. Ultimately the question we need to ask ourselves is, what is Truth?

Attached: 1548617229261.jpg (1024x1023, 605.75K)

It's recognized as canonical and inspired because of its liturgical use, continuous use, and traditional transmission of the texts. The Church is not a democracy, what is and isn't inspired and true isn't a popularity contest.

Which Bible canon? Protestant? Catholic? Eastern Orthodox? Ethiopian Orthodox?
Where is "culture" a word used to refer to matters of faith in the scriptures?

You have gone from calling my argument autistic (which is fine) to calling me, personally, an autist. That's a clear lack of charity on your part, and I don't say this to pretend I am better, but I'm not sure if you have realized that the moderators are strict on rule 2 around here. Tread carefully with those fighting words.

If you want to study the Bible, then study the Bible as it has been received by Christians historically. Christians historically have not considered the chapters & verses division to be an inspired and wholly integral part of the scriptures. The Reformers would have lost their marbles if you told them that.

Also, nice job putting a dead body in your post. A fraternal suggestion: remove this immediately, it will be a stumbling block for many who will see it and the mods will not take it lightly either.

There's actually two dead bodies in that picture.
yahoo.com/lifestyle/body-dead-teen-honored-extreme-embalming-posed-video-games-sunglasses-snacks-182105773.html

Attached: 1548478875130.png (625x626, 100.28K)

1) Stop posting in reddit memes. Thank you.
2) You insult other Christians online and post dead bodies for everyone to see, responding with a "I REGRET NOTHING XDDD" when reprimanded. In what world is this Christian behavior? Did I waste my time talking with a troll?

Attached: 1490140365576.jpg (547x480, 15.8K)

Btw chapters were added by Cats. Verse numbers added later by prots. So we could have divided it into any number of chapters.

unrelated, but cats vs bats is a great metaphor for catholics vs baptists

The ones decided by the council of Trent and the council of Carthage.
The Ethiopians are crazy. They even consider the heretical fake book of Enoch as Canon.

All they did was put numbers to what was already there, they didn't rearrange or change any of it. Sure, it may seem like they tried to push an agenda by only using 66 chapters, but if it was meant to reflect 73 books then splitting it into 66 wouldn't match up as well right?

This is getting precariously close to numerology. The subdivisions are meant as a reference apparatus.


Yes there are many people who want to alter Scripture, add their personal favorite headcanon as inspired. But God providentially preserved his Word and ensured that nothing was lost or changed. That had nothing to do with me, that was the Lord bringing His Word to us. The task is to the individual to recognize God from his record to us. So pray that he will let you do this.

If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son. He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. — 1 John 5:9-10

But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: — John 10:2-5

And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not. Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me? He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God. — John 8:45-47

Isaiah is not meant to reflect the rest of the Bible. The Bible isn't a single book and each book is independent (except for 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah, Luke and Acts). The ordering of the book depends of the time and place as well.

Isaiah can safely be divided into 3 parts. Anything beyond that is arbitrary and for the sake of convenience.

Ethiopian Catholics use 1 Enoch.

It's referenced in the Gospels and in Revelations. I wouldn't call it canon, or even deuterocanon, but heretical fake is a bit strong.

That feels like heresy, but I can't find a proper reason.

Ethiopian orthodox.

It shouldn't be. The Bible is a collection of inspired scriptures, it is not a single book. Liturgically there isn't even a "Bible" - there is the Evangelion, the Apostolos, the Psalter, the Horologion, etc. but there isn't "the Bible".

… Yes? What is your point? Both the Ethiopian Tewahedo church and the Ethiopian Catholic church use 1 Enoch.
I only cited 1 Enoch because that user did, of course. Books that are not mentionned at either Trent or Carthage, like 3 Maccabees and 1 Esdras, are canonical in both Eastern Orthodoxy and the Eastern Catholic churches of Byzantine tradition, too, for instance.

I can't let the Orthodox start getting proud.

This is false. Prove it

… What do you mean by "prove it"? If you're a Catholic you're supposed to know about your own communion.
If you're not a Catholic, you can get in touch with Ethiopian Catholics. They'll inform you.
Many at my parish are Ethiopians, and say that the Catholics in Ethiopia use the same canon as them. But I feel like this isn't a satisfying enough response for you. So, again, get in touch with Ethiopian Catholics - they'll tell you.

As for you, prove that it is false.

...

You made the claim. Show me one valid source saying that Ethiopian Catholics have 1 Enoch as canon.

Attached: A34D0A47-31A2-432A-BB58-FBCE594A2F81.jpeg (262x197, 24.68K)

There is very little information on Ethiopian Catholicism online.
Talk with some real people instead. Get in touch with Ethiopian Catholics. Although, of course, this discussion shouldn't even be happening - everyone already knows that the sui iuris churches are allowed to retain their traditions, including saints and biblical canons.

You didn't just say "I don't think this is right" or "prove it" but "this is false". So that means you yourself feel justified to say it is false. That is why I ask you to provide proof for your own claim as well.

Prove your claim lol, haha so you make claims with literally zero evidence and you're just like no u. How can you prove a negative you smart cookie. You want me to find articles stating that there are no unicorns in Ethiopia too? There is literally not one credible source that you can provide that shows your lies.

Hey guess what, the Gospel of WIKIMAKALA isn't part of the Ethiopian Catholic canon either. Want proof for that?


Again, there is very little information on Ethiopian Catholicism online. I support my claim with personal experience, having discussed this with Ethiopian Christians. It may be hearsay, but at least it is -something-. You accuse me of being a liar, and specifically state that what I said is false (just as I specifically state that what I said is true). I have provided my reason for claiming to say the truth. And it is okay if you will not be satisfied by anything less than an official document of the Ethiopian Catholic Church listing its biblical canon. But at least provide a reason for accusing me of being a liar and for stating that what I said is false, even if it is only "hearsay" like my own reason.

I haven't claimed anything about unicorns of the Gospel of Wikimakala, so you are putting up a strawman. Remain on topic.
Although it seems that your argument for me being a liar is that "it's obvious, duh". Is that really the path you're trying to take?

Okay my personal experience is that you are a Liar. It is not part of the Canon, and I further support this based that you can't find any credible evidence at all.
Because what you said is utterly false. It's totally nonsense and there is literally no evidence to support your false claim. Someone may have told you something, doesn't mean it's right. It seems more likely you are lying, but either way what you said is false. This is shown by your inability to find even a shred of evidence for this. The Ethiopian Catholic Church has never declared it as part of their Canon. That's my evidence. My evidence is that there is not a single document stating this.
You must not be very intelligent if you can't understand the argument. This is the topic. You're making a claim with zero evidence. My evidence is the same that there are no unicorns in Ethiopia and there is no gospel of Wikimakala, because there is no evidence of it.

Listen if you can't find a single document to support you, despite there being lots of information about the Ethiopian Canon in general, and even Ethiopian Oriental Orthodox etc, maybe you are mistaken? That's to put it charitably. The reality is you are most likely lying. Either proof your claim (you can't) or stop spreading falsehoods. It is not part of the Ethiopian Canon. There are no Unicorns in Ethiopia either. Just because someone told you that there are Unicorns in Ethiopia doesn't make it credible. My view is more credible because there isn't a shred of evidence that there are Unicorns in Ethiopia. Just like there isn't a shred of evidence that Enoch is in the Ethiopian Catholic Canon.

"You're wrong because you're wrong" is not an argument.

You have no reason to think I am credible evidence, since I am a random Internet stranger. Nonetheless, I did explain why I make this claim - because I have already had discussions with people who are actually concerned by this subject. I invite you to do the same before you pass definitive judgement on whether I have made myself an enemy of God or not, by being dishonest.
I am also not convinced that "It seems obvious to me" is a sufficient argument to counter "I have dealt with people who live in that environment and can speak about it". Why is it "obvious" to you that 1 Enoch is not canonical to Ethiopian Catholicism? Is it because it is not part of the Roman Catholic canon? Will you also claim that I lie if I say the Melkites and the Ukrainian Catholics have 3 Maccabees and 1 Esdras in their canon?

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", etc. As a Christian, you should know better than this. This is the exact sort of argument that atheists use against our religion, so you may want to take a different approach here.

I admit I am unintelligent.

Does every claim need immediate and tangible evidence? If I say that I have met with so and so and we have done this or that, or if I say that this or that event happened at church, or that my priest came back from a trip and brought back interesting things, would you immediately accuse me of spreading falsehood because I have no proof of this?
Or then would you say that the contents of a church's biblical canon is a more sensitive subject, and you would say that there is no reason 1 Enoch would be canonical to the Ethiopian Catholics? But then, why? What makes this more nonsensical than saying that 1 Enoch is canonical to the Ethiopian Orthodox?

Do you realize here that you criticize me for unilaterally stating A, while you yourself unilaterally state its contrary? It is not because you claim the polar opposite of what someone claims without evidence that it becomes evidence for your own counter-claim. It is widely accepted that unicorns do not exist, because their origins are very likely mythological and no one has discovered a unicorn, living or dead, and brought back proof of it. The Gospel of Wikimakala is something you literally just made up on the spot for the sake of an argument. It is absurd to compare both of these to the claim that the Ethiopian Catholics do in fact share the same canon as its Oriental Orthodox counterpart, just as every other Eastern Catholic church is allowed to retain the canon it had before its reunion with Rome.
While I will not theorize on which outcome is more "realistic", I have at least supported my claim with an anecdote. The only support for your counter-claim is literally that you disagree with me and cannot find something about it on Google right now.

So why don't you learn something and be quiet then. You clearly can't understand basic concepts, yet you wish to lie and lie and lie.
With zero evidence.

Anyways you are rambling on and on. You have no evidence, so your claim can be discarded. Based on your behavior I can only conclude that not only are you not misinformed but probably something more sinister.
Who said I'm a Christian? Again peddling lies are we? And it's as much evidence as anecdotal evidence. Like I said it's impossible to prove a negative, but based on your character and the staggering lack of any evidence it's safe to say that you are lying. Prove me wrong then. My evidence is my testimony.
Who are you to assume my religion? You are seriously so foolish to think that any claim is valid with zero evidence.
Well I am disputing your claim, and yes you have to provide evidence, cause you are lying.
Prove it. Show me the evidence of it. You are unilaterally saying this so prove it. Can you go one post without lying?
My anecdote is that I have heard that it is not in the canon. On top of that there is no credible evidence to show that it is part of the canon. On top of that, the character of someone claiming it is very poor, so it seems clearer that the person is trying to spread misinformation.
Not now, not ever, because it is false.

Now prove what religion I am and prove that The Gospel of Wikimakala is made up. Or are you here just to lie? Why are you even here?

Also canon means nothing. The book could be utterly and completely fabricated. Only the 73 books declared in Trent are known to be inspired. It's very possible that Enoch (most likely in fact) is a complete fabrication with not a single inspired word in there.

Please forgive me, brother.

You are on a Christian message board, defending that the Ethiopian Catholic Church does not use 1 Enoch, and your first post in this thread shows knowledge on the development of chapters and verses divisions in the Bible; furthermore you said "we could have divided it into any number of chapters", therefore implying that "we" means "Christians" and that you were including yourself in this. I am sorry if I misunderstood you.

You are right that your testimony is as worthy as mine; and because the discussion you are using as your testimony can actually be seen in public here, it is in fact stronger evidence than mine. Therefore I retract myself from this topic now.

… You could have started with this.

It is quite obvious that you have made it up for the sake of the argument. If you have evidence of any kind for its existence, please share it.


So are you a Christian or not? That you would say such a thing implies you are a Catholic.
Is this supposed to mean that Eastern Catholics use the canon that was defined at Trent?

I am sorry for all the evil I have done to you, brother. I will retract from this thread now, as we have both made our cases and I have other things to take care of. Please forgive me and, if you are a Christian, pray for me.

It is quite obvious you are a liar. You just literally said

In addition, it's not like the Church is taking any serious effort to care about orthodoxy. No one should be surprised if Pope Francis encourages for the Quran to be read piously by all Christians and that it is worthy of pious contemplation, and it contains some of the most sublime truth known to mankind contained in the pages.

Somebody give me a rundown on which deuterocanonical books contradict the canon.

I know! Justin Trudeau has been dead for years. He's now a ventriloquists dummy, right?
How else do you explain the bizarre behaviour other than someone's havin' a gig?


wta-

Why is this what you use to rebuff user's arguments? Is Zig Forums suddenly australian aboriginal, scared of seeing the dead? Smells a little like you fished for an excuse to not debate an user who disagreed with you

That said, that whole Yahoo article is just odd

Isaiah 59:21 says that the words God put in his (Isaiah's) mouth would be preserved for ever, but the apocrypha aren't even in the original languages. And it's pretty simple to prove since they admit they weren't prophets and Matthew 11:13 tells us that the law and the prophets comprised the word of God until John. So to claim they were inspired would contradict Matthew 11:13.

The Monophysites are not Orthodox, regardless of what they call themselves. They are not in communion with the Orthodox Church.

that guy looks really jewish

Frankly, if God is too much of a coward to step up and take responsibility for his actions and his followers are more than happy to enable his reckless behaviour under the common argument "muh free will exonerates God", why should I, or anyone, even bother following the impotent retard?

I see now why the kikes laugh at Christianity. It's a joke religion predicated entirely behind 'Heaven on a Stick,' don't mess up or you're going to suffer for eternity! This farce is unnecessary.

I spit on god.

Really just think about it. If your son murdered his brother then of course he should be punished. But wouldn't you contemplate your failures as a father?

God isn't infallible, so why would I follow him?