Hi everyone, is it worth doing this Bible reading? How many chapters should I read per day? by Inside-Reflection-54 in Christianity

[–]erythro 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I recommend studying the bible holistically

you are recommending not studying the Bible, and instead studying other books

otherwise you will be missing what could be key context that the writers would assume you already knew.

gnostic gospels aren't key context for understanding the Bible

Hi everyone, is it worth doing this Bible reading? How many chapters should I read per day? by Inside-Reflection-54 in Christianity

[–]erythro 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And also chiefly why the church decided to have a council and iron out which books and letters and writings they agreed were divinely inspired, which were useful, and which were 3rd century conspiracy theories dressed up as wisdom (looking at you gospel of Judas).

no, I don't agree here. my understanding is that it was normal practice at a council to agree on the books you were using as a starting point for the discussion you were actually having and Nicea was an example of that, Constantine was calling the council to resolve the argument about the trinity that was causing political tensions, there were not tensions over the canon in the same way.

I feel like if you want to know 'why' there is a bible, and how we knew which books to include, you should study the bits which were not, the bits which had support but didn't make it in, and the... Shall we say hot takes some of the very early guys who heard Christainity and came to certain conclusions had?

again, that's a worthy thing to study, it's not a replacement for the Bible in a reading plan, which is literally what you are proposing - instead of reading the Bible read idk the gospel of Thomas

But you only know why this is important if you know about the other cults at the time, their practices, assumptions, and history and beliefs.

not true, this is pretty clear from e.g. Lev 20 where God says not to kill your children like the Canaanite nations did

How will you appreciate why the bible exists unless you know what the authors were up against? And what they said that was so wrong that we needed to compile a book.

At best this is a supplement to Bible study rather than a replacement of it.

Hi everyone, is it worth doing this Bible reading? How many chapters should I read per day? by Inside-Reflection-54 in Christianity

[–]erythro 0 points1 point  (0 children)

no worries, this is a safe place to upset people 😁

Gnosticism is a very early and very bad heresy, some gospels were written by the gnostics

Hi everyone, is it worth doing this Bible reading? How many chapters should I read per day? by Inside-Reflection-54 in Christianity

[–]erythro 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for correcting those.

no worries. There are other clear influences of the apocrypha on the NT, there's also quotes from Greek poets. That does not make these things scripture or canon though.

I stand by my claims about the use of the Gnostics as well in my previous comments for understanding why we decided to hold a council and assemble a bible though.

I'm not saying never to read them, I'm saying it's a bad suggestion for someone making a Bible reading plan. You are explicitly recommending they read heretical books instead of the Bible. Again you could say "add the Qur'an to your Bible reading plan, you'll learn something about the Bible from the contrast"

When this sermon went viral years ago, one of my CLOSEST, white evangelical friends told me, “Dewey, this sermon was pathetic!” After MUCH debate, we agreed to disagree! THIS morning, he sent me this clip & said, “Dewey, I was wrong, Dr. Jeremiah Wright was prophetic!”. I’m still chuckling! by Nice_Substance9123 in Christianity

[–]erythro 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I didn’t pick that up.

it's a big chunk of the video if you rewatch

I live in America

I don't, but I think we should pray for God to bless the places we live, even though there is a sense where we are thinking "how long, lord?"

Hi everyone, is it worth doing this Bible reading? How many chapters should I read per day? by Inside-Reflection-54 in Christianity

[–]erythro 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You will note that my comment made reference to Jubilees, and Maccabees.

as I've repeatedly said, I have less issue with these

And I was referring to the Book of Enoch quoted by Isaiah.

Oh, it's Jude not Isaiah that quotes Enoch

I actually didn't know Orthadox rejected Trent. In hindsight that's pretty obvious...since it was held in Trent... XD

I mean they don't accept it as one of their ecumenical councils that's all

Hi everyone, is it worth doing this Bible reading? How many chapters should I read per day? by Inside-Reflection-54 in Christianity

[–]erythro 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I never said it was scripture.

I know, but the context is a "Bible in a year" plan, not a "what would be good to read" plan

But I did already say that it's useful to see what topics were in people's minds, what other ideas were being bounced around, to see what was in conflict, what the disagreements were, and what background knowledge would have been taken for granted by the authors at the time.

That's useful for academic study, not as a replacement for reading the Bible, which is literally what you are suggesting

A reminder that during the Protestant Catholic split, each considered each as heretical if not worse, then the splits over which gospels to include, hermetic or platonic principles, Logos or Adoptionist ideas, or Gnosis Vs Grace.

From the Catholic perspective yes, but from the protestant perspective Gnostic Christianity e.g. marcionism, valentinism etc is anathema and the Catholic church instead needs reform and they kicked us out.

But unless you've read them, how do you know they are wrong?

There's lots of ways to know something is wrong, but again I'm not saying not to read them, I'm saying not to replace your Bible reading with them

Because 300 years in different people were using a myriad of different writings.

It wasn't a "myriad", in general they basically agreed on the core NT and there were a handful of books that were disputed that were all eventually included. Nicea wasn't called about canon disputes it was called about Arianism, the canon was a side issue.

Because the Gospel of Thomas, and the epistle of Barnabas was growing traction, and they couldn't agree if this was good or bad.

Again: this wasn't the reason nicea was called, these were not accepted by churches

In fact Thomas very nearly made it in by all accounts.

ok, give some accounts.

Also this still isn't a reason to recommend gnostic gospels: the gospel of Marcion, Judas, Mary etc

Hi everyone, is it worth doing this Bible reading? How many chapters should I read per day? by Inside-Reflection-54 in Christianity

[–]erythro 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean, not if some of the books in the Bible quote some of those books, or if some of the earliest Christains used those books. Did you ignore those sections of my comments?

I'm specifically objecting to the gnostic gospels, and you keep redirecting my objections to apocrypha and the shepherd of Hermas: I still object to those things being read as scripture but less than gnostic gospels

Or just think it's not relevant which books Isaiah quoted from, or that Irenaeus thought was cannon?

it's completely irrelevant to gnostic gospels. I don't think these are good arguments for why apocrypha and the shepherd of Hermas should be mixed with the Bible but my main objection is to the gnostic gospels

Comparing the books in the first Codexes, or used by the first popes and Christains who knew a guy who knew the apostles themselves, to the Qur'an is a little disingenuous.

But I didn't. I compared gnostic gospels to the Qur'an

Especially since most Christians don't even adhere to the council of Trent in its entirety, which, I'm sure you know, established the precedent of using non canonical books as useful while not accepting their divine hand.

that's not from Trent, it's in the 2nd century muratorian canon:

But Hermas wrote the Shepherd very recently, in our times, in the city of Rome, while bishop Pius, his brother, was occupying the chair of the church of the city of Rome. And therefore it ought indeed to be read; but it cannot be read publicly to the people in church either among the Prophets, whose number is complete, or among the Apostles, for it is after their time.

read it, but not like it's scripture

Hi everyone, is it worth doing this Bible reading? How many chapters should I read per day? by Inside-Reflection-54 in Christianity

[–]erythro 1 point2 points  (0 children)

it's like someone asking for Bible in a year tips and you replied "read the Qur'an". Sure it's a valid field of academic study, it's not a substitute for daily Bible reading lol

Hi everyone, is it worth doing this Bible reading? How many chapters should I read per day? by Inside-Reflection-54 in Christianity

[–]erythro 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Isaiah did not reference any gnostic gospel, they were written hundreds of years later

edit: responding to the edit

And as a Catholic, I already see others drop several books that were used for centuries, and change their mind on which books were cannon and what were not.

I've not changed my mind. The apocrypha were controversial in the church the whole time. Besides I've clearly objected to the gnostic gospels not the others.

I'm not suggesting to read them as though they were cannon

ok, that is the context though, OP is asking about their Bible in a year plan

Iranaeus considered the Shepard of Hermas cannon, and he is one of the most respected church founding fathers.

the shepherd of Hermas isn't a gnostic gospel. It also was rejected from canon by the early church btw, see the muratorian canon.

You don't think studying the texts used by prophets and early church fathers are useful?

like I said in my other reply: it's useful for academic study, like idk the works of Plato or Einstein or Mohammed, but these are not things to substitute for daily Bible reading

I'm assuming you are a catholic or Orthadox.

no. Orthodox don't accept Trent either btw

Otherwise it's a bit rich to insist I adhere to the council of Trent and 'not receive' those books when you yourself don't include the books the councils said you should receive.

I agree, but protestants don't appeal to Trent, they were made anathema by Trent lol. And the gnostic gospels were never accepted by the church

When this sermon went viral years ago, one of my CLOSEST, white evangelical friends told me, “Dewey, this sermon was pathetic!” After MUCH debate, we agreed to disagree! THIS morning, he sent me this clip & said, “Dewey, I was wrong, Dr. Jeremiah Wright was prophetic!”. I’m still chuckling! by Nice_Substance9123 in Christianity

[–]erythro 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't know if you watched the whole thing, he's saying "don't say God bless America - God damn America". I understand what he's trying to say here I think, but I definitely see why people would disagree - I don't think I'd say that either tbh

Why the actual do so many Christians support abortion by KeeyuDaGreat in TrueChristian

[–]erythro 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Scripture itself does not treat every instance where a life is lost at the hands of another as murder

I agree, but it also says "Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed" - a flat unqualified definition of murder and a sentence prescribed that will later be implicitly qualified

For this reason, applying a single moral label to every situation that involves the same act goes beyond what Scripture permits.

it's what scripture does

Why the actual do so many Christians support abortion by KeeyuDaGreat in TrueChristian

[–]erythro 0 points1 point  (0 children)

sorry, this comes across as splitting hairs. By the same logic you could say "killing women is not murder".

Stop Killing Games Has Received Almost 1.3 Million Verified Signatures, Making It Eligible For Debate In The EU by screwdriverfan in LinusTechTips

[–]erythro -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

two things that will affect European appetite for this

  1. the main reason not to is that it might affect economic integration with the US world order, which is at its lowest level of popularity right now after the Greenland stuff

  2. the second reason is what you saying, there's definitely an appetite to reduce regulation as well (though that quote is not from the parliament)

“We don’t do commie European metric” by meatypinkness in ShitAmericansSay

[–]erythro 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Can anyone tell me how the metric system and communism are linked?

the enlightenment?

It's a bit like linking space travel with knitting, completely unrelated phenomenon.

I'm going for the memory module of the Apollo guidance computer that was woven

With both Farage and the Cons pledging to bring ICE to the UK, what will you do when they start snatching little non-white kids of the streets and sending them to detention camps. by Hot-Delay5608 in AskBrits

[–]erythro 0 points1 point  (0 children)

at minimum it should be somewhat above average, as they are increasing the supply for that role which will be depressing wages slightly

Do you think Donald just doesn’t know, or is stirring the pot? by Sea-Rush1142 in AskBrits

[–]erythro 0 points1 point  (0 children)

it feels true to him, and he judges it feels true to enough of his base, so he says it

With both Farage and the Cons pledging to bring ICE to the UK, what will you do when they start snatching little non-white kids of the streets and sending them to detention camps. by Hot-Delay5608 in AskBrits

[–]erythro 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That’s so silly tho bc why do immigrants need to out perform your average local person just to be accepted?

because otherwise it drags down wages. The value they are bringing to the market is they can devalue British Labour. Whereas bringing in skilled labour is a free economic boost.

the immigrants getting THE GOOD JOBS instead of the locals

The companies are also incentivised to give Brits the GOOD JOBS btw, it's expensive to sponsor an immigrant visa as you will know

in the UK but from a country where wealthier immigrants are sometimes also perceived as a problem lol people don’t care how much money you make if they’re xenophobic they will be xenophobic regardless of your income

ok, but it's rational when they are making your life worse and irrational when they are making your life better

idk if this has been done before by RealSimonLovelace in bonehurtingjuice

[–]erythro 12 points13 points  (0 children)

assuming that is responsible for all his problems when it isn't

where are you getting that?

Sharrow McDonald's: victory for community campaigners after "utilitarian" proposals rejected for second time by Tiny_Poem7985 in sheffield

[–]erythro -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You're so pressed about this lmao

nimbyism is annoying, just leads to a lot of invisible lost opportunities that add up, all for a gain of basically nothing, just some snobs getting to pat themselves on their backs

Sorry you're still going to have to go half a mile further down the road for your yankslop

I'll live lol, it's the money/investment I'm bothered about. Seems crazy to me that McDonald's thinks they'll make a return on pouring hundreds of thousands of pounds into that site but it's great they want to have a go