>>17841821
According to the Bible, Jesus Christ is God. See the following:

"And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God."
(Luke 18:19)

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God."
(John 1:1-2)

"And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was."
(John 17:5)

"For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily."
(Colossians 2:9)

>>17833097
>I’d say that racism is tolerated in Christianity. It would be seen as being an inherent part of the fallen state of the world and an inevitable outcome of the flesh. Racism and nationalism as positive principles aren’t supported however, as they’re obviously paganistic and they reject human equality in such a way that implies that many humans can’t have an equal relationship with God as the racist group.
The fifth commandment is, "Honor thy father and thy mother." See Exodus 20:12.

It also says this in 1 Timothy 5:8, "But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel."

>>17808251
>How can you not know this basic biblical feature?
Are you retarded, anon? I'm the one who pointed out that Matthew, Mark and Luke all have the same passage. Of course I know, I'm the one who first pointed it out!

>> 27For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done. 28Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”
This is Matthew 16:28. See the next verse in Matthew 17:1 for the fulfillment.

>>>26 (Dead) “At that time people will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. 27 And he will send his angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of the heavens.
And this is from Matthew chapter 24. A totally different passage that happens six chapters later. The answer for this part of Matthew was already given in the first line of the same post here (>>17808236)

Face it, anon. You are trying to be dishonest by conflating two different Bible passages, hiding the fact that they are from different chapters and not wanting to acknowledge that I already provided the answer to both of them at the same time in the previous post. Re-read >>17808236 if you still don't get it, anon.

>>17782687
He also predicted that they would force men to fast and prohibit some men from marrying in 1 Timothy 4:1-4. And they still did it anyway. He also seems to have predicted that they would take the title "Father" for themselves in Matthew 23:9.

Paul also predicted their activities quite well in Acts 20:28-32, even warning us about them and commending us specifically to God's word rather than to false teachers that would soon arise once Paul was gone.

>>24480338
>I also don't see why he would consider the KJV, which relies heavily on 16th century translations that rely heavily on the Vulgate
It's based on the original languages. The Geneva Bible was also based on the original languages as well.

>to be a more accurate rendition of the original text than a direct translation into contemporary English.
Because the modern translations are using the "critical text" as mentioned earlier. It is missing entire verses in some places, and has thousands of smaller differences where words are removed or changed elsewhere.

>then it would probably be more beneficial to read the bible in contemporary English rather than a transitional dialect between early and modern English.
The King James Bible basically became a cornerstone of modern English actually. If you look at Samuel Johnson's Dictionary of the English Language or Noah Webster's Dictionary (for American English), you see that they are citing the KJV Bible verses as examples of how English words are used. So by definition, the KJV cannot be considered inaccurate without also questioning the 18th and 19th century dictionaries that used it profusely as an example of accurate English.

Because of the above, and also because the KJV was revised to make its spelling of words consistent in the year 1769, there is no reason to claim that its language is not the standard form of English. Furthermore, no English speaker who actually wants to make an effort to learn will have trouble with reading it. Furthermore still, other modern translations contain examples of confusing language (compare Judges 8:13 in the KJV versus the NKJV for example). And arguing this point even further, there is a large body of commentary for the KJV that will provide more assistance than you would get for most other translations, which have only appeared in modern times, in avoiding misunderstandings.

So considering all this, the whole argument that the KJV as an English translation is "hard to read" really makes no sense in actuality. And I should also say that if you wanted to have a translation at the reading level of Dr. Seuss books where you never find a word you haven't seen before, you would invariably have to sacrifice accuracy.

I hope that this helped to answer your question anon.

>Didn’t Pontius Pilate in, Matthew 27:25, wash his hands in blood and said, “ Let Jesus' blood be on us Romans and on our Roman children!”??
That's not what Matthew 27:25 says. Verse 25 tells us what the crowd shouted out, while verse 24 tells us what Pilate said. Try not to get the two confused as you seem to have done. See the two verses in context below:

"When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it.
Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children." (Matthew 27:24-25)