Search Results
7/2/2025, 9:51:52 AM
>>17808206
>These verses state
In Matthew 24, it says, "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." That refers to the generation mentioned in Psalm 22.
If you are instead referring to Matthew 16:28, the fulfillment of that happened in the next verse.
I notice that in all your posts, you are avoiding naming which Scripture passage you are referring to. You simply say, "these verses state" without specifying which verses they are or whether you are looking at Matthew, Mark or Luke. Most likely based on what description you provided, it is the Olivet Discourse (so Matthew 24). In that case see the first answer.
>>17808232
Now it sounds more like you're referring to Matthew 16:28. If you want the explanation for that passage, see the second answer above.
>These verses state
In Matthew 24, it says, "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." That refers to the generation mentioned in Psalm 22.
If you are instead referring to Matthew 16:28, the fulfillment of that happened in the next verse.
I notice that in all your posts, you are avoiding naming which Scripture passage you are referring to. You simply say, "these verses state" without specifying which verses they are or whether you are looking at Matthew, Mark or Luke. Most likely based on what description you provided, it is the Olivet Discourse (so Matthew 24). In that case see the first answer.
>>17808232
Now it sounds more like you're referring to Matthew 16:28. If you want the explanation for that passage, see the second answer above.
7/2/2025, 5:29:26 AM
>>17807808
According to what I have gathered, these people also teach that literally anyone can baptize anyone else. Not just deacons, but anyone. Even if it was two non-believers, they still claim this is valid baptism according to them.
The reason for that extreme stance is contrarianism. They have to do the opposite of what Baptists have always historically done. Baptists have always practiced believer's baptism only by authority of a valid church. Any other ritual such as infant baptism or sprinkling performed by someone without church authority is regarded as not fulfilling the requirements.
Because this is what the Bible tells us about baptism, the originators of paedobaptism had to formulate a very strange set of doctrines to separate and clearly distinguish themselves from biblical Christianity. First, they had to teach that literally anyone can baptize anyone else, even if both people are non-Christians. And in another strange addition to that already weird belief, they also insisted on the death penalty for anyone who baptized someone, if the baptism was what they considered to be "a second time." Even if the first baptism was invalid.
Thus, under the emperor Honorius they actually criminalized alleged "re-baptism," even though catholicism simultaneously had an infinitely lax definition of what even counts as "baptism." This is what catholicism used to persecute Christians who were actually following the Bible during much of the Middle Ages. See the below quote:
>Codex Justinianus Book 1, Title 6 (A.D. 529)
>1.6.2
>Emperors Honorius and Theodosius to Anthemius, praetorian Prefect.
>If any person shall be discovered to rebaptize anyone of the catholic faith, he, together with him who has permitted this infamous crime -- provided the person persuaded to be rebaptized be of an age capable of a crime -- shall be punished by death. Given at Constantinople March 21, 413, C.T. 16.6.6. Revived April 16, 529, C.J. 1.6.2.
According to what I have gathered, these people also teach that literally anyone can baptize anyone else. Not just deacons, but anyone. Even if it was two non-believers, they still claim this is valid baptism according to them.
The reason for that extreme stance is contrarianism. They have to do the opposite of what Baptists have always historically done. Baptists have always practiced believer's baptism only by authority of a valid church. Any other ritual such as infant baptism or sprinkling performed by someone without church authority is regarded as not fulfilling the requirements.
Because this is what the Bible tells us about baptism, the originators of paedobaptism had to formulate a very strange set of doctrines to separate and clearly distinguish themselves from biblical Christianity. First, they had to teach that literally anyone can baptize anyone else, even if both people are non-Christians. And in another strange addition to that already weird belief, they also insisted on the death penalty for anyone who baptized someone, if the baptism was what they considered to be "a second time." Even if the first baptism was invalid.
Thus, under the emperor Honorius they actually criminalized alleged "re-baptism," even though catholicism simultaneously had an infinitely lax definition of what even counts as "baptism." This is what catholicism used to persecute Christians who were actually following the Bible during much of the Middle Ages. See the below quote:
>Codex Justinianus Book 1, Title 6 (A.D. 529)
>1.6.2
>Emperors Honorius and Theodosius to Anthemius, praetorian Prefect.
>If any person shall be discovered to rebaptize anyone of the catholic faith, he, together with him who has permitted this infamous crime -- provided the person persuaded to be rebaptized be of an age capable of a crime -- shall be punished by death. Given at Constantinople March 21, 413, C.T. 16.6.6. Revived April 16, 529, C.J. 1.6.2.
6/25/2025, 5:59:06 AM
>>24492445
There was probably a translation of the first five or six books of Moses into Greek made in the 3rd century BC. Later, others translated other pieces of the Old Testament into Greek due to it being an important language, and eventually Origen compiled these translations in the 3rd century AD, while adding more edits of his own, into what we now call the Septuagint (as part of the Hexapla, which also had other versions of the Old Testament placed next to it).
This "Hexaplar Septuagint" of Origen in the 3rd century AD is generally the basis for what people now call the Septuagint, but they mistakenly think or assume that the oldest 3rd century BC translation (which we do not have anymore) corresponds to what Origen eventually pieced together in the 3rd century AD. They also popularly assume that Origen didn't change anything in his recension of the Septuagint when scholars have shown he certainly did. He likely harmonized various passages to match up with New Testament language, and this only further creates the illusion or popular misconception that the New Testament writers had used it.
>>24493902
>Masoretics come from the 9th century and they tried to write out clues pointing to Jesus so yeah they're pretty noticeable.
I've done comparisons between the Hebrew and Greek forms of the Old Testament, and I can only find places where prophecies about Jesus are removed in the Greek version, not the other way around.
For example, compare Isaiah 9:6, Hosea 11:1 (which is quoted by Matthew 2:15 out of the Hebrew version, not the Greek version) Zechariah 12:10, and Psalm 2:12. Another messianic prophecy referring to Christ is found in Jeremiah 33:15, which is a verse that is removed entirely by the Septuagint.
In fact, the Septuagint form of Jeremiah is missing about 1/8 of the book or 2700 words which are simply not there compared to the older Hebrew version. Jeremiah 33:14-26 for example, a passage of thirteen verses, is missing from the Septuagint.
In other books, the Septuagint Old Testament is missing 31 entire verses from the book of Proverbs by my count, 39 whole verses in 1 Samuel, 49 whole verses in 1 Kings, and 56 whole verses in Exodus, and more. Then there are the messianic prophecies which are changed in the Septuagint to no longer point to Christ, such as Zechariah 12:10 ("they shall look upon me whom they have pierced"), Isaiah 9:6 or Haggai 2:7. You can compare these verses easily by putting the KJV next to the Brenton English translation of the Septuagint for example, or the OSB 2008 translation of the Septuagint.
Also, the Septuagint text has Methuselah live a full 14 years after the flood of Noah, due to differences in some of the ages (see Genesis 5:25, 28). In the Hebrew version, Methuselah died the same year that the flood happened.
It seems to me like those extolling the Septuagint are often not aware of these basic facts, and I don't know of examples where the Hebrew text used by the KJV has such problems.
There was probably a translation of the first five or six books of Moses into Greek made in the 3rd century BC. Later, others translated other pieces of the Old Testament into Greek due to it being an important language, and eventually Origen compiled these translations in the 3rd century AD, while adding more edits of his own, into what we now call the Septuagint (as part of the Hexapla, which also had other versions of the Old Testament placed next to it).
This "Hexaplar Septuagint" of Origen in the 3rd century AD is generally the basis for what people now call the Septuagint, but they mistakenly think or assume that the oldest 3rd century BC translation (which we do not have anymore) corresponds to what Origen eventually pieced together in the 3rd century AD. They also popularly assume that Origen didn't change anything in his recension of the Septuagint when scholars have shown he certainly did. He likely harmonized various passages to match up with New Testament language, and this only further creates the illusion or popular misconception that the New Testament writers had used it.
>>24493902
>Masoretics come from the 9th century and they tried to write out clues pointing to Jesus so yeah they're pretty noticeable.
I've done comparisons between the Hebrew and Greek forms of the Old Testament, and I can only find places where prophecies about Jesus are removed in the Greek version, not the other way around.
For example, compare Isaiah 9:6, Hosea 11:1 (which is quoted by Matthew 2:15 out of the Hebrew version, not the Greek version) Zechariah 12:10, and Psalm 2:12. Another messianic prophecy referring to Christ is found in Jeremiah 33:15, which is a verse that is removed entirely by the Septuagint.
In fact, the Septuagint form of Jeremiah is missing about 1/8 of the book or 2700 words which are simply not there compared to the older Hebrew version. Jeremiah 33:14-26 for example, a passage of thirteen verses, is missing from the Septuagint.
In other books, the Septuagint Old Testament is missing 31 entire verses from the book of Proverbs by my count, 39 whole verses in 1 Samuel, 49 whole verses in 1 Kings, and 56 whole verses in Exodus, and more. Then there are the messianic prophecies which are changed in the Septuagint to no longer point to Christ, such as Zechariah 12:10 ("they shall look upon me whom they have pierced"), Isaiah 9:6 or Haggai 2:7. You can compare these verses easily by putting the KJV next to the Brenton English translation of the Septuagint for example, or the OSB 2008 translation of the Septuagint.
Also, the Septuagint text has Methuselah live a full 14 years after the flood of Noah, due to differences in some of the ages (see Genesis 5:25, 28). In the Hebrew version, Methuselah died the same year that the flood happened.
It seems to me like those extolling the Septuagint are often not aware of these basic facts, and I don't know of examples where the Hebrew text used by the KJV has such problems.
6/19/2025, 7:43:32 AM
>>17773604
>>17773987
I would suggest reading the Gospel of John and really contemplating it carefully.
>>17773791
>He never claimed to be the messiah, he was just a man who taught the truth to people. That does make sense in my opinion, Isaiah 53 would fit for him, I'm not saying he is meaningless but he isn't the messiah just a wise teacher and a prophet.
One second you say what you think "probably happened," the next minute, the very next sentence you act certain by telling us definitively what Jesus was, at least according to you. But just a breath earlier in the very same paragraph you were telling us about what you think "probably" happened. The only way to really know certainty is by actually studying the word. Otherwise, you'll never have it.
>>17773987
I would suggest reading the Gospel of John and really contemplating it carefully.
>>17773791
>He never claimed to be the messiah, he was just a man who taught the truth to people. That does make sense in my opinion, Isaiah 53 would fit for him, I'm not saying he is meaningless but he isn't the messiah just a wise teacher and a prophet.
One second you say what you think "probably happened," the next minute, the very next sentence you act certain by telling us definitively what Jesus was, at least according to you. But just a breath earlier in the very same paragraph you were telling us about what you think "probably" happened. The only way to really know certainty is by actually studying the word. Otherwise, you'll never have it.
6/17/2025, 2:53:46 AM
>>17768044
It's called studying Scripture. God is at such a high level of wisdom that all of the answers you need are already given to you if you will search the Bible enough.
"Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
- John 5:39
It's called studying Scripture. God is at such a high level of wisdom that all of the answers you need are already given to you if you will search the Bible enough.
"Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
- John 5:39
Page 1