Christian theology thread for Christians - Deus homo factus est naturam erante, mundus renovatus est a Christo regnante

I'm ready the bible for the first time. I got KJV/RVR (I can speak both languages fluently so I figured it would be good to have them side by side if I don't understand a word from KJV instead of reaching for the translator). It's really difficult to follow because it feels written in the same way an excited kid would tell you about their day (and and and and and), so someone told me people have made year reading plans so it becomes more manageable and you learn things better. I figured I'd ask you guys first instead of just searching it on the internet.
Any recommendations?
Behold, The Bible in a Year podcast with Fr. Mike Schmitz! You don't have to be a Catholic to appreciate Fr. Mike, his genuine passion and energy are endearing. The daily video podcast format allows you to listen while you work, exercise, game, etc.

1725596134094.png
LINK:
 
I'd recommend getting a copy of Strong's Concordance along with Thayer's and Vine's Greek-English dictionaries.

If you can't afford physical copies, just use the site Blue Letter Bible.

strong's concordance.jpg thayer.jpg vine's expository dictionary.jpg
 
I'd recommend getting a copy of Strong's Concordance along with Thayer's and Vine's Greek-English dictionaries.

If you can't afford physical copies, just use the site Blue Letter Bible.

View attachment 6386549 View attachment 6386550 View attachment 6386548
The issue is its based on the KJV which is a flawed bible for many reasons. First and foremost being the missing books. Second being translation issues. Etc.

Also, why would you want a Bible that names anyone who came after Jesus as "King" ?
 
The issue is its based on the KJV which is a flawed bible for many reasons. First and foremost being the missing books. Second being translation issues. Etc.

Also, why would you want a Bible that names anyone who came after Jesus as "King" ?
I do not accept Enoch or the Apocrypha as canon. I have nothing to do with Catholicism, either. God knows every last thing that goes on in the world down to every step a rabbit takes in the woods. With how important the Bible is to a Christian's daily life, He would have had someone put Enoch and the Apocrypha into the final KJV if He wanted it to be there. The canon of Scripture is 66 books; I am a proponent of King James Onlyism for some reasons, though I am not a Baptist.

Where in the Bible does it say that an earthly government leader can't be called a king? Jesus is King of kings and Lord of lords. He is the Word in the flesh, and He will reign on the earth someday. Paul later on in the New Testament mentions earthly kings in his epistles, though he doesn't capitalize "king" when mentioning earthly kings.
 
I do not accept Enoch or the Apocrypha as canon. I have nothing to do with Catholicism, either. God knows every last thing that goes on in the world down to every step a rabbit takes in the woods. With how important the Bible is to a Christian's daily life, He would have had someone put Enoch and the Apocrypha into the final KJV if He wanted it to be there. The canon of Scripture is 66 books; I am a proponent of King James Onlyism for some reasons, though I am not a Baptist.
Your personal acceptance is meaningless, and God does know all, which is why when he, as Christ, gave St. Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven and the powers to bind and loose (mirroring the authority given to Eliakim as Steward of the Kingdom of David in Isiah 22) then declared that The Gates of Hell Shall Not triumph against his Church, he did so knowing that St. Peter would go on to be the first Bishop of Rome (Pope) and thus he was forming the Catholic Church.

Therefore only the Catholic Church has the authority to decide what is or is not canon (and deuterocanon) so when they say the Bible is 73 books, its 73 Books. God did want those books in there, which is why his Church has put them there.
 
Any recommendations?
Whenever picking a translation, always read what denomination the translators are from; there's a lot transcripts for them to cherry-pick for their stances, & some Greek words can have multiple translations. Thus, there are arguments over Calvinist-bias (ESV), loose-translations (The Message, NLT), or gender-neutrality (NASB). Even within the Catholics, you'll see varying opinions over RSV-CE, NAB, ESV-CE or D-R.

I do think that ESV/RSV, Vulgate (Douay-Rheims is an English edition) & NASB are "good" translations, but be aware that the Bible was (and is) being transcribed by humans who think of God in strongly different ways; you have to understand there'll be no perfect translation, cause no one (unless you're with God) has a direct 1-to-1 recalling of the thoughts the writers had during their writings.
 
Even within the Catholics, you'll see varying opinions over RSV-CE, NAB, ESV-CE or D-R.
Yes I've met people with very strong preferences for one translation or the other, but we all tend to agree that any version approved by the Church is fine.
I do think that ESV/RSV, Vulgate (Douay-Rheims is an English edition) & NASB are "good" translations
I must concur, as my physical Bible collection consists of a Douay-Rheims (my personal favorite, I like the old prose and the book's physical aesthetic, I also have a separate New Testament and Psalms copy) a NASBRE (revised NASB) and The Great Adventure Bible from Ascension which is a RSVSCE (RSV-Second Catholic Edition). Between them I think I'd rank the NASBRE lowest, it feels very plain and its definitely the least impressive to look at.

EDIT:
Added pictures for reference

You see here the Great Adventure Bible is a large, impressive looking Bible, and inside it has a lot of extra stuff to help you.
1725601202797.jpegView attachment 1725601256714.webp

The Douay-Rheims I have is smaller, simple and elegant.

1725601385918.png
The thinner New Testament and Psalms version shares those qualities.
1725601468443.png

Meanwhile the NASBRE I have looks like this
1725601496444.png

By no means a bad Bible but by comparison to the others it earns its place at the bottom.
 
Last edited:
I'd actually recommend picked up a copy of the Orthodox study bible; It has all of Maccabees (1 through 3), both 1 and 2 Ezra (2 Esdras is actually the book of Nehemiah), the Wisdom of Sirach, the Epistle of Jeremiah, as well as the full version of the Book of Daniel, including 'Susanna' and 'Bel and the Serpent', and this is on top of what the RCC Old Testament has which is left out of most Protestant texts.

It also comes with notes and homilies present as a part of the text to aid with understanding of what has been written, in addition to being a version of the text with a translation based in the old versions of the scripture. It's a very impressive version of the text.
 
they also acknowledge my Messiah
They acknowledge Jesus as the messiah yes, but they deny his divinity, accuse the apostles of corrupting his teachings, deny he died on the cross (instead he tricks everyone with someone else), and teach numerous things completely anathema to Christ’s teachings.

The Gnostics also acknowledged Jesus was the messiah, should we have tried ecumenism with them? Just because the Muslims have some things in common does not mean they aren’t a violent war cult that was founded upon a corrupted fusion of Christianity and Arabic paganism. They are not are friends, and there are simply too many irreconcilable differences for them to ever become so without one side giving in.
 
@YouDoNotHaveTheRight
I brought up Corinthians specifically because it’s incongruent with Jewish perfectionism and the Sacred Name Movement as I understand it; all throughout the Gospels, Christ blesses all those who did not uphold the Law, but failed the Law. He Himself “violated” the law, and made the point that “Man was not made for the Sabbath, but the Sabbath was made for man.” It was His “violation” of the law that caused His crucifixion, and the “perfection” of the law that allowed money-changers in the holy Temple.

On holidays and celebrations,

Exodus 23:13-19.charges far more than just Passover as a holiday, but even the Unleavened bread, the Harvest, and the Ingathering.

Leviticus 23 is all about that varying festivals that are mandated to celebrate, including the New Year, the Day of Atonement, and the Feast of the Tabernacle.

Again, in Deuteronomy 16:1-17, God decrees specifics about Pascha, the Feast of Weeks, and the Feast of Tabernacles, and in them, He commands to sacrifice “sheep and oxen”and “to eat it in the place The Lord chooses”, For there to be six days of fasting and a seventh of feasting.

1 Chron 23:31 talks of a smaller festival of sacrifice for the beginning of the month, and 2 Chron 2:3 has Solomon declaring an ordinance of the Temple he will build to offer sacrifices continually, morning and evening, and specifically; on the sabbaths, the new moons, and on the festivals.

Hanukkah has its roots in the tales of the Maccabean revolt, and is mentioned (albeit very briefly) in the New Testament at John 10:22.

There are a few others, but the point to make here is that for as many feasts as have been given to His flock by His Word to be celebrated, many others have arisen among His flock by His Spirit. What then is the justification against All Hallows Eve, or Christmas? Recall now too that even the Hebrew cycle of celebrations shared similarities with the Egyptians and Babylon; so much so that atheist biblical scholars sees them as a direct inversion and perversion of those traditions. But, if God comes before all time and creation, is it not more likely that they had perverted and inverted His holy days? Then too, could the pagan festivals celebrated be perversions and inversions of His holy days?

Furthermore, Christs first miracle was the wedding of Cana; where He turned water into wine at the behest of His mother. That wine was certainly not meant for sacramental usage in the strictest understanding, but for the joy and celebration of the participants. This should show that even the Jews celebrated festivals; that this is good and pleasing to God. In addition, look at the whole of the Song of Songs. Universally accepted and adored, but very sensual and earthly.

The Apostle Paul was perfect in the law, but became holy only through meeting Christ and becoming truly Christian. He consistently made the case that the gentile should not obey the old covenant, but obey the new covenant. The new covenant fulfills the old, and certainly requires the commandments, but there are different lessons and different teachings to follow.

For Amos 8, it’s a good prophecy. Not only does is foretell of Christs coming and completion of Israel, but it also foretells of the captivity under Nebuchadnezzar, and how he was God’s chosen over his own people. All because of their unrepentant wickedness.

Far be it from me to assume perfection from anyone, least of all myself. I admire the tenacity and zeal with which you approach the Bible. However, none are perfect but Christ, so don’t beat yourself up over it. Anxiety and perfection is a tool of the devil to stumble you away from goodness. I’ve heard it once said that you don’t need to beat yourself up over perfection, for Christ holds the true rod of Aaron, and He can use it to both beat you and heal you as is needed. This is as best as I can respond for now. May it be at least interesting if not helpful.

EDIT: I forgot to mention on the topic of names and translations. I was once taught that all the names of the genealogies of Genesis formed a sentence that predicted Christs incarnation, but this was false. It relied on truths, twisted and spurious translation, and outright lies to accomplish this goal. Be very careful when wading into comparative language study, for Koine, Aramaic, and Hebrew are dead languages, and rely upon (even if rather strong or good) assumption and speculation. This is why the gift of tongues was bestowed upon the Apostles at Pentecost; not to mindlessly enforce Hebrew or Greek as the lingua franca and enforce the holy scriptures as only in those tongues (as the Muslims HAVE TO by their own law), but to bring the Gospel to the people in their own tongue and their own ways.
 
Last edited:
They acknowledge Jesus as the messiah yes, but they deny his divinity, accuse the apostles of corrupting his teachings, deny he died on the cross (instead he tricks everyone with someone else), and teach numerous things completely anathema to Christ’s teachings.

The Gnostics also acknowledged Jesus was the messiah, should we have tried ecumenism with them? Just because the Muslims have some things in common does not mean they aren’t a violent war cult that was founded upon a corrupted fusion of Christianity and Arabic paganism. They are not are friends, and there are simply too many irreconcilable differences for them to ever become so without one side giving in.
You're misunderstanding me. Do you doubt God's ability to do many things simultaneously? You know enough about Muslims clearly. My point was that Christianity as a whole is most closely similar to Islam with the agreements. Even if they deny a cross, Is their appreciation of him not more in line with us than what is written in the Talmud? A lie is a lie for sure, but one seems a lot more with ill intent than the other.

This does not make me a Muslim or a sympathizer for them. It is an observation that I have made I do not agree with them on many things and prefer we stay in our own lands. If our mission is to spread the gospel to all Islam already has some faith in what we believe, but also some misguidance. There are many others with not even that to me I think it would be better to tackle the rest first or attempt to and even both others and Islam we cannot force them to believe what we do we can only try to tell them. Also when you take such hardline stances on Islam as a whole it does make your stance look bad. Even the pope was giving them foot massages no?

@mtunu I really appreciate that post I will look more into the specific things you mentioned you made a really good point about God's creation potentially being perverted/inverted which historically and even now happens all day every day. I do not best myself up, so no worries about that I just get really immersed with my studies and I do want to live the right way, so I want to make sure that the guidelines are clear of course I still have to get further on my studies. It is much easier to comprehend or get another opinion in common language as to the studies sometimes. I really appreciate you taking the time to tell me those things.
 
Last edited:
Do you doubt God's ability to do many things simultaneously?
Are you trying to imply that Islam has any sort of divine inspiration? Or was in any way the work of God?
Because if so, yes, I would deny that completely. And I would also assert that one cannot hold this belief and properly follow Christs teachings as laid out in the gospels. Islam is a very clear example of the False Prophets he warned of in Matthew 7:15-20.

My point was that Christianity as a whole is most closely similar to Islam with the agreements
Perhaps, though I’m not sure even that’s the case. This depends greatly on what we mean by agreements. They may have the most in common regarding Christ, but I’d argue there are other religions with moral systems more in line with Christ than Islam.

Even so, them being most in agreement is immaterial on its own. What do you propose based on that premise? Are we just purely talking about this for religious comparison reasons, or do you have some broader call to action based on this premise?


Even if they deny a cross, Is their appreciation of him not more in line with us than what is written in the Talmud? A lie is a lie for sure, but one seems a lot more with ill intent than the other.
One is a lie seething at Christ, one is a lie that seeks to use Christ as a tool to further a Medieval warlords goals of conquest. Frankly, I find both equally malicious, just in different ways.
At the end of the day, what’s important is calling all to the Truth. I actually think Islams lies are far more pernicious with this in mind.
The lies in the Talmud about Christ burning in hell aren’t going to stop many conversions. They also aren’t something used by Jews in apologetics. But the lies about Christ by the Moslems are.
 
Are you trying to imply that Islam has any sort of divine inspiration? Or was in any way the work of God?
Because if so, yes, I would deny that completely. And I would also assert that one cannot hold this belief and properly follow Christs teachings as laid out in the gospels. Islam is a very clear example of the False Prophets he warned of in Matthew 7:15-20.


Perhaps, though I’m not sure even that’s the case. This depends greatly on what we mean by agreements. They may have the most in common regarding Christ, but I’d argue there are other religions with moral systems more in line with Christ than Islam.

Even so, them being most in agreement is immaterial on its own. What do you propose based on that premise? Are we just purely talking about this for religious comparison reasons, or do you have some broader call to action based on this premise?



One is a lie seething at Christ, one is a lie that seeks to use Christ as a tool to further a Medieval warlords goals of conquest. Frankly, I find both equally malicious, just in different ways.
At the end of the day, what’s important is calling all to the Truth. I actually think Islams lies are far more pernicious with this in mind.
The lies in the Talmud about Christ burning in hell aren’t going to stop many conversions. They also aren’t something used by Jews in apologetics. But the lies about Christ by the Moslems are.
My only calling for Muslims and Jews is to repent and accept the Messiah our way. That being said to flat out call all Muslims rapists, terrorist, cult, etc is disingenuous and you knowing so much about them should know that as well and if I see people do that I will call it out.

Did God not create pagans, Muslims, Jews as well? Not their texts in the sense of them being his word. He created all. Sometimes we do not get the reasons why beyond a challenge and a goal for us to spread God's word to. Is it easier or harder to spread God's word when you call someone based on often times their appearance a rapist, cultist, etc when that person or even group of persons may be just following the Quran to the word of it and not committing the things that low life oppurtunists do? With Jewish behavior in more recent times there is evidence, but not as much with Muslims. Even legitimate evidence of Jews pretending to be Muslims to stain them. Whats up with that?
 
Last edited:
My point was that Christianity as a whole is most closely similar to Islam with the agreements
If you want to get to the brass tax of things the Religion that views Jesus the closest to the way Christians do is probably the Baha'i Faith, since they at least see him as a manifestation of God, unlike Islam. While their views on theology deviate too much from Christians to ever have ecumenism they would be the technical closest I think (unless you count Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses as non christian, like I do, then it'd be them).
 
Do people with severe mental disabilites to the point of not understanding things like the bible go to hell?
That depends if you think you go straight to heaven or hell when you die. I am of the idea of the sheol scenario where there is partitions of sheol for the righteous, the neutral, and the people who have done very wrong in this life. There they stay until the final judgement and those that can be redeemed can live eternally in New Jerusalem and the unredeemable cast away into eternal punishment. Also depends how you feel about the souls of the mentally disabled if their soul is disabled by extension.

@Derrick I was lumping them all together despite splintering Christianity is horribly divided (people used to get killed over discussions like we have been having by Christians while being the same kind of Christians truly a dark time in the faith.) and Islam is also divided up pretty well and I have a shallow understanding of just the shia and sunni divide and I understand it is more divided than that and to this day kill each other over that truly a dark time in their faith in my point of view, but they see it as righteousness.
 
Since god said that the only to him was through his son do you think he would offer some sort of second chance to people who had NEVER heard of jesus or the gospel since god is stated to be kind and just and wants to give humans a chance for redemption.
 
Do people with severe mental disabilites to the point of not understanding things like the bible go to hell?
If they are genuinely incapable of understanding the Word of God then they would be functionally the same as groups who never had it preached to them in the first place. I would say that gets them a sure ticket, since unlike with US Law, ignorance is a valid excuse in theology.

That depends if you think you go straight to heaven or hell when you die.
As a Catholic I do believe in Purgatory but the good thing about Purgatory is everyone who ends up there is guaranteed to make it to Heaven eventually. In that sense the Heaven or Hell concept remains valid.
 
If they are genuinely incapable of understanding the Word of God then they would be functionally the same as groups who never had it preached to them in the first place. I would say that gets them a sure ticket, since unlike with US Law, ignorance is a valid excuse in theology.


As a Catholic I do believe in Purgatory but the good thing about Purgatory is everyone who ends up there is guaranteed to make it to Heaven eventually. In that sense the Heaven or Hell concept remains valid.
who goes to purgatory
 
Islam is also divided up pretty well and I have a shallow understanding of just the shia and sunni divide
The Baha'i Religion is a seprete Religion from Islam and Christianity, though I think it's the closest non-Christian religion to Christianity on the issue of 'who was Jesus' while still being too theologically seprete to be called Christian/have ecumenism.

Do people with severe mental disabilites to the point of not understanding things like the bible go to hell?
Good question, it raises a couple issue, one can someone who was born and died vegetative even commit sin? Hard to say, unless you subscribe to the idea of 'origional sin' that one is born tainted with the sin of their ancestors. However we do know for certain, from the man himself that without having accepted Jesus one can not get into Heaven. Jesus said: “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me".- John 14:6 and in order to get in through Jesus one must accept him as their savior, "For this is how God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life".- John 3:16.

So they're just burning in Hell? Well while I couldn't say with 100% certainty what their fate is we do know that their inability to accept Christ will likely lesson their punishment, Jesus taught us that while ignorance of sin does not absolve guilt it does lessen the punishment (Luke 12:47-48 ) it's possible (perhaps even likely) that while they are separated from God they are kept in some separate area of Hell, one where they are not being tortured or burned but rather left just kept separated from God on their own plain of existence.

Tl;dr while they're not in Heaven it seems likely that they would be in their own separate, probably good, area, though the Bible doesn't elaborate on this too much.

Since god said that the only to him was through his son do you think he would offer some sort of second chance to people who had NEVER heard of jesus or the gospel since god is stated to be kind and just and wants to give humans a chance for redemption.
No, once one goes to Heaven or Hell the Bible informs us that is where they stay.

  • "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."- Matthew 25:46
  • "They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might"- 2nd Thessalonians 1:9
  • "Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels."- Matthew 25:41

since unlike with US Law, ignorance is a valid excuse in theology.
Ignorance can lessen a punishment (Luke 12:47-48 ) but it does not completely absolve them: "If any of the common people sin by violating one of the LORD’s commands, but they don’t realize it, they are still guilty"- Leviticus 4:27.
 
Back