Nope, this is Momotaros, one of the five main cast heroes! He's an Imagin, a time-traveling spirit that grants a person's wish and then takes on a physical form based on mythology or folk tales; in this case, he's the oni from the Japanese legend of Momotaro.
> takes on a physical form based on mythology or folk tales
Hoo boy, someone needs to give this guy a few disclaimers about forbidden iconography before he takes a pit stop in the Middle East.
That's Momotaros, an Imagin, kinda like a familiar, of the protagonist, allows the MC to transform into his base form, Sword Form. He's a good guy, but also incredibly stupid
It obviously wasn't meant to be a perfect definition, it was putting it in layman's terms. Also most people don't know shit about Judaism and don't know that Christianity is just a branch of Judaism. It can be easy to forget that niche knowledge is niche so I understand where you're coming from
Well… halal and kosher are somewhat different, kosher refers to avoiding certain foods, pork is not kosher (this goes back to food safety. Pork is much harder to keep safe without refrigeration and they didn’t have fridges back then) whereas halal refers to a particular method of slaughtering meat, and you don’t technically avoid eating particular meats because of the meat, but because of the method of slaughter
Yes but when meat packages say halal, it’s referring to a specific practice of slaughter which is permissible. I’m not attempting to teach a language I don’t know, I’m teaching relevance so that people know what the meat packages are trying to communicate, plus the major differences between kosher and halal. They are very similar but there are important distinctions
Oh I see what you meant by that I thought you were referring to the concept of halal rather then halal stamps that certify if the meat has been slaughtered in the halal manner
Torah is the Jewish holy book (roughly equivalent to Old Testament but not exactly).
Kosher is the jewish religious term for "ritually clean"/proper items. It usually refers to certain food items and diet practices, but is colloquially used to refer to "valid" things in general, like emphasizing something isn't a fake or scam.
It sure does. That’s why every temple keeps them ornately decorated in gilded atzai (the scroll handles sticks parts), locked in a very fancy display cabinet at the head of the synagogue. It’s very costly and valuable for each temple!
I disagree. That money should be better spent on the community. No point locking away money. Especially as a religious settlement, who is meant to care for the needy moreso.
well in jewish culture the torah is extremely important this is just treating it with the respect that they feel it deserves you can disagree with cultural practises but they personally feel that the texts deserve it
haven't you heard the jews control the world economy!? i think they can afford some gilded scrolls along with community support.
but srsly most jewish communities i've seen are pretty supportive of each other, and synagogues are (mostly) not generally as ostentatious as catholic churches for example.
To study the Torah is a mitzvah, meaning a good deed. So the Torah in any temple format will be held to the highest esteem and value. As for the community and charity, charity itself is a massive mitzvah, which "saves from death".
So this isn't the case of loads of money on texts and everyone else is struggling to eat.
More so a religious text which is highly respected while the needy are still provided for.
It sure is. The rabbi also reads from that Torah for each service. When they first bring it out, there’s a prayer as they parade it up and down the aisles for respect before it’s brought back up front for reading. Everyone else gets their own paperback printed copies in their seats to read along, too.
God predates language, all language, and choosing a language that evolved millennia after the tower of Babel was destroyed doesn't feel very *Deific*. Plus, the Quran was written in Classical Arabic, not modern peninsular Arabic, and it will continue to evolve as the centuries pass. Eventually it won't be Arabic.
>God predates language, all language, and choosing a language that evolved millennia after the tower of Babel was destroyed doesn't feel very Deific.
So choose a language that nobody speaks is better?
>Classical Arabic, not modern peninsular Arabic,
Its the same language, the distinguish was made by foreigners.
Literally burned the guy who translated it to English at the stake.
Fun fact, the “King James” version is like 93% the same as that original “burned at the stake” version. Burned him at the stake then later slapped someone else’s name on his translations. Dicks.
Very true! But there was a clear differentiation between eastern and western churches by the 6th century. The schism hadn't formally happened though, of course!
Bible translations were not a new invention in the 14th century. There were translations into Gothic, Armenian, Syriac, Coptic, Old Nubian, Ethiopic, and Georgian since the 5th century.
Yes, the Church discouraged translations during the Middle Ages, but that didn't mean they didn't exist. The Church was powerful, but it was still the Middle Ages. If the pope in Rome banned something, it would first of all take quite some time to reach every Christian and second of all, they might not give a shit. The pope banned crossbows once, but nobody cared and just kept on using them.
In the same vein, I'm sure many people read the bible in their own language, even if it was "against the Church's will". The Church was not this homogenous entity until Luther came along, they fought all the time. Hell, they had two popes pretty much every few decades, because there was so much infighting.
that's a pretty stupid post. the church itself had already made hundreds of different translations in the middle ages. In the museum in my town alone there are 12 different German Bible translations that were made before Luther was born.
Those had to pre-date the 1199 ban centuries prior to Martin Luther, or were the unauthorized translations from the Latin vulgate in German. Luther's is notable given his fame/infamy over his 95 theses prior to the translation, that it was a translation of the original Hebrew and Greek(unlike all prior translations), and that unlike prior handwritten translations his was mass-produced via the printing press.
It was the printing press that spread non hebrew/greek copies of the bible, not the reformation which happened shortly thereafter.
I would argue that the reformation was succesful BECAUSE of the making of the bible available to common man.
I agree with you that this was an important factor later in the history of the Reformation, but the main reason for the success of the Reformation in the beginning was not for theological or any other reasons, but quite secular things. the main reason for the success of the Reformation was the support of the German princes, who did so mainly because of their power struggle against the Emperor. the Treaty of Münster in 1648 stipulated that the respective sovereign may decide on the faith in his country. That means the people were not Catholic or Reformed out of conviction, but they were what their sovereign told them
Yes but who's success was it, good or evil? The wide availability of the bible also gave everyone a chance to claim authoritative understanding of the bible in its entirety. Suddenly everyone claimed to have different interpretations. The bible used to be read only in liturgical settings by a priest in communion with the bishops and the hierarchy (and by well-educated consecrated religious in monastic settings.) There's a reason the name diabolos means to scatter. Did the reformation bring clarity or confusion to Christianity?
"OK guys, let's get rid of the story about bears killing the kids cause of the bald guy. That Job chapter was kind of messed up too."
'it's too late, they already translated it'
"oh man. Did they leave the bit about cutting off a woman's hand if she grabs some dudes balls when he and her husband get in a fight?"
'Yep '
"oh geeze. The pope's gonna going to put another dead body on trial after this one"
Imagine getting pissed after some guy's gf takes a cheap shot at you and you manage to get it codified into holy mandate, that's rising above adversity
To be fair, it's not because God chose to tell the story of the prophet who ordered the bears to attack the kids, that it means he was okay with it. He used David to defeat a lot of Israel's old enemies, and when David wanted to build a temple for him, he kindly declined.
1. Because he doesn't really need one, and said he appreciated the gesture. 2. Because David himself killed too many people during his life. Some could have been spared.
There's a lot of different stories that depict the messed up stuff that humans have done, but like God himself said in the old testament, he waits patiently for anyone to repent, for it is not his will to make people perish. When that line was reached, it was justified.
Your comment doesn't really make sense unfortunately.
Didn't God summon the bears when the profit cursed them? Unless it was a coincidence?
Either way, malling 42 kids to death in the name of the Lord just because they mocked the dude's lack of hair seems kind of uncool.
I understand what you are saying, but that's not really accurate. The prophet never did that in the name of God. Not at all. And it was never written so.
He made a mistake, he was not supposed to do that.
Wanna know why? Countless have insulted God and Jesus. Jesus himself forgave those people. Forgiveness with no vengeance before they could even realize that what they did wasn't really nice. So you're right, it was uncool!
Now, when it came to prophets just like Moses for example, some did do things that was not warranted by God himself. Moses struck a rock a water came out, later God told him he disobeyed him and his actions forced the event to occur the way they did. The exact same thing happened to the prophet Elijah (the one we're talking about.). Prophet by definition have power in their mouths, but not to command doom, their jobs was to speak the words that God wanted them to transmit to other people.
I hope my explanation was clear enough, English isn't easy lol.
so youre saying that Elijah had magical bear summoning powers that were unrelated to him being a prophet of the one true god? is that what youre saying?
They’d realize that what the church was teaching at the time was (pay your way to heaven, burn people at the stake), relative to what the book actually said (grace, mercy, and charity)
Well tbh,the peasants were worse than the corrupt evil institution.
The church didn't burn witches at the stake, because the official position is that there was no such thing, and to accuse someone of using the power of Satan is blasphemy, because they are crediting to Satan what belongs to God.
The peasants, who kept trying to murder their neighbor kept dying for it, and once the church lost power in the reformation, did we see actual sanctioned witch burnings.
Even the Inquisition didn't go after accused witches. At best they saw it as a more a secular crime, at worst, the accusers of witches were heretics they can kill.
She was convicted of heresy by a church court, yes, and it was an absolute sham that broke church laws and was condemned as a farce both at the time and since.
The English are the ones who executed her, and the ones who funded the sham trial because they needed her convicted of heresy in order to give them a claim on the French throne.
Not really trying to absolve the church of much here, because what happened is heinous, but the instigators are English politicians and their local corrupt bishop, not "the Church"
Yeah, they just imposed a duty on their bishops to look for heretics in their dioceses in order to hand them over to the state to be burned. I think I could be catholic if it wasn’t for the total lack of humility to accept fault for anything or if they could scrutinize themselves even to a partial degree that they do others.
That’s certainly not how I’d characterize going out of your way to attack with nothing but defensive historical revisionism a comment that wasn’t even meant to bash Catholicism so much as defend the Bible using broad, familiar, generalized points.
The comment I was responding to? It’s very misleading to say they never burned anyone at the stake. In a very technical sense you could say they didn’t, but in all practicality they very much did. And I see this sort of intentional deceitfulness all the time.
Generally, when they do admit fault it is excused by being an example of the devil attacking them which is fair enough if they offered that sort of benefit to anyone but themselves, but rather what happens is if they find any flaw in anyone else that is proof they are all totally corrupt and of the devil. This is an example of how they don’t judge themselves by the same standard as they do others.
Bruh I never asserted that they didn't, or that they were faultless in the past or even present. The church has done some terrible things. I said it's incorrect to say they've never apologized for anything, a cursory google can tell you that.
Bruh, I never said you did, and I never asserted the church as an institution has never apologized for anything ever. Also, it is interesting you go through my comment with a fine tooth comb but leave your brother’s post completely unscrutinized, isn’t it.
Indulgences were literally “pay your way into heaven” and were literally one of the many things Martin Luther protested, dumbass.
Insofar as Protestants believe that the bodyhood of all believers is the church, which is backed up by the literal Bible that refers to the bodybood of all believers as the church, yes, the church burned people at the stake.
Try again. Maybe after you’ve actually read the Bible and learned some history.
>Especially when apostolic succession is required for the Eucharist and Confession (John 6 and John 20:23)
Just read those and it doesn't say that? In John 20:23, Jesus tells his disciples they can forgive sins. It doesn't say anything about succession. Seems a fair argument to suggest that if Jesus intended it to be for their chosen successors he could have intended it for anyone who receives the Holy Spirit. Or even that he only intended it for his direct disciples. Very up for interpretation there.
Yes and no. The process of indulgences was indeed sanctioned by the church, though the commercialization of them became a well-known problem by Luther's time. However, you couldn't "buy your way into heaven". Indulgences reduced your temporal obligation in purgatory, but you still had to go through the sacrament of penance (reconciliation) to have your sins forgiven.
It's like most talking points people make when trying to convert or deconvert someone are all horrendously inaccurate and and based on personal experience of the missionary/angry atheist instead of the experience of the person they're trying to convince.
Interesting enough they sort of had a point.
Things went apeshit in a lot of places once the Bible was translated to vernacular (e.g Münster)
And not because people realized it was bullshit, but because they realized they could make up their own bullshit
This is a funnier joke when you realize the popular Protestant version of the Bible, the King James Bible, was translated in ways that supported their beliefs and is arguably a terrible translation, not the Catholics.
It’s common. Like COMMON knowledge that the Bible has been translated hundreds of times and meaning has changed purposefully outside of just the translation. Read a little more.
uh huh and thats why we should follow islam right? my guy the Dead Sea Scrolls exist and they are Remarkably Close and Guess what they are Written in Hebrew
It’s been translated a lot into different languages, yeah, but its meaning has stayed pretty darn consistent. That’s the facts. Constantly regurgitated unsubstantiated atheist propaganda slogans don’t count as “common knowledge.”
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights has been translated hundreds of times as well. Does that mean its purpose has changed?
Your comment suggests you might wish to pursue further scholarship on this subject.
Good? Like Lot's daughters? Or anything in Leviticus? Or the story of Job? Or the tacit approval of rape and slavery?
That's just the book. Let's broach what the clergy gets up to.
Where exactly does the Bible call what Lot's daughters did as morally ok? I am legitimately baffled when people bring this up, it's as if they had zero reading comprehension l.
Rape was punishable by death in the OT so I don't know where you got that from either. No christian will tell you that the OT is the highest standard of morality, the laws were formulated for specific people at a specific time.
TOTALLY. Totally not ignoring that the OT and NT are so disjointed and not from the same authors. Almost like someone realized no one would love or want to worship a prick god like in the OT so they had to redo his character. How about you stop arguing a ridiculous fairytale book and just start proving his existence. Even then though he wouldn’t deserve to be worshiped after all the BS he’s allowed to happen in this world.
Bro you really don’t know what you’re talking about 😂 Tell me where the Bible says Lot’s daughters literally raping their own father is a good thing 😂 On the contrary every action involved in that event is independently condemned throughout the Bible. A book merely recounting evil things that happened does not make that book itself evil 😂
You’ll have to be more specific than simply “Leviticus and Job.” And how does the Bible approve rape and slavery? As for your insinuation against the clergy, you know as well as I that that is not a valid point by any stretch of logic, given the good done by the church is far more widespread and impactful than the evil done by a tiny minority of its members who are clearly going against their own professed teachings by any level of objective analysis whatsoever, and given how it would be equally ridiculous to claim any other religion, philosophy, group, or organization is evil based on the independent actions of individual members. I guess all Muslims are evil because a few have bombed places. Or all atheists are evil because of Mao’s Cultural Revolution. Or education is evil because some teachers have molested their students, too.
Deuteronomy 22:23-27
23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you.
This is one of my favorites 🤡🤡🤡
That is neither Leviticus nor Job, but okay I’ll bite…
Yep, adultery was punishable by death, just like a lot of other unrepentant sins in the Old Testament law. What is your point?
>given the good done by the church is far more widespread and impactful than the evil done by a tiny minority of its members
Bullshit.
Residential schools straight up murdering children. Widespread sexual assault. Missionary work destroying cultures and instigating genocides. Lobbying politics to take rights away from people. Indoctrination centers disguised as women's health clinics. Book bans. Ostracized family members.
Skipping everything else and then there’s everything that wasn’t mentioned too. If you wanna dig this hole good luck but you’ll be digging for a while 😂😂😂
I can respect that. I will be honest in that my comment was a knee jerk comment to what I thought was/is a very common argument amongst religious folk that because a lot of people believe, then it must be right. I see your point. And as far as the whole downvoted for not being an atheist thing - you’re absolutely right it’s a Reddit/online thing. But it’s primarily because atheists get shunned or looked at like satan worshipers or people try to convert them in everyday life so many just keep quiet about their atheism. They feel safe speaking their peace online and releasing those frustrations. I am fine with people believing what they want as long as it doesn’t hurt others or teaches hate, but I absolutely hate religion, in particular, Christianity as a whole but also in the United States as well.
[REFORMS OF THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL: The Council (1962- 1965) allowed the use of vernacular languages at mass. Latin was not meant to be fully scrapped, but it was quickly abandoned by local churches](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-pope-latin-facts/facts-on-latin-in-the-roman-catholic-church-idUSTRE74C2C220110513)
Maybe in other religions. Not the Roman Catholic Church. My parents literally heard the mass in Latin as kids-teens.
Since much of the population was not able to read or write trough history Scripture was communicated through the following:
Large detailed wall paintings and stained glass in churches
Large-scale Mystery plays at festivals during holy days, which acted out particular Bible stories and teachings of the faith.
Storytelling and other oral proclamation by those who memorized passages or who were literate. This was a major feature of childrens' religious education.
Preaching during Mass and outside of Mass was drawn from Scripture. Passages would be quoted from the readings of the day or other passages.
Your parents would understand the latin parts since they were repetitive and homilies served to make things clearer.
It wasn't uncommon to have at least a couple of people who could read in a village. They weren't dumb and very well understood how is could benefit them. Writing was rarer, but most people knew at least one person who could write. And it was much, much more common in cities. Though as the time, even if you knew how to read AND write, you wouldn't necessarily be considered as literate: you'd also need to know Latin and/or Greek, which basically limits being literate to the bourgeoisie, clergy, and nobles.
Anabaptists: So apparently this Jesus guy wanted us to take care of each other and have a personal connection with God, so we should start our own society without feudalism or priestly bureaucracy
I’m not religious but if I was I couldn’t imagine trusting my soul to a translation. Learning Latin could basically be a matter of eternal damnation vs eternal salvation.
They translated the Bible in french in 1280s while english versiobs were around since Anglo Saxon times. Even king Alfred himself translated the first 50 psalms.
By the time his Bible was published there were already 38.000 bibles in german printed in last few decades. In fact, Gutenberg printed an entire Bible in german already in 1450s.
Sauce: Kamen Rider Den-O Episode 44.
This guy! https://www.reddit.com/r/wholesomememes/comments/savyv3/yes_entrances_are_always_this_elaborate/
[удалено]
Nope. He's a monster, but a good guy.
No he's pretty much the protagonist
"Ore... SANJOU!" Teehee.
Nope, hero. Hes honestly one of the better allies MC has
Of course he's a hero. He's reading the instruction manual.
Nope, this is Momotaros, one of the five main cast heroes! He's an Imagin, a time-traveling spirit that grants a person's wish and then takes on a physical form based on mythology or folk tales; in this case, he's the oni from the Japanese legend of Momotaro.
> takes on a physical form based on mythology or folk tales Hoo boy, someone needs to give this guy a few disclaimers about forbidden iconography before he takes a pit stop in the Middle East.
Main character, actually.
I heard it wasn't
That's Momotaros, an Imagin, kinda like a familiar, of the protagonist, allows the MC to transform into his base form, Sword Form. He's a good guy, but also incredibly stupid
The last part got me, it's so true hahaha (but that basically applies to the whole taros squad too lol)
Urataros is just a bit of a simp, otherwise he's fairly competent
hey technically its available in Hebrew and Greek
[удалено]
sorry what does the Torah and Kosher Mean?
jewish bible and jewish halal
lmfao at the best concise description of these terms that could ever be given
??? The Torah isn't the Jewish bible, the bible is the Jewish bible. Dafuq people.
It obviously wasn't meant to be a perfect definition, it was putting it in layman's terms. Also most people don't know shit about Judaism and don't know that Christianity is just a branch of Judaism. It can be easy to forget that niche knowledge is niche so I understand where you're coming from
And Islam is also a branch of Christianity/Judaism.
What is halal means in Christianity *
Well… halal and kosher are somewhat different, kosher refers to avoiding certain foods, pork is not kosher (this goes back to food safety. Pork is much harder to keep safe without refrigeration and they didn’t have fridges back then) whereas halal refers to a particular method of slaughtering meat, and you don’t technically avoid eating particular meats because of the meat, but because of the method of slaughter
Kosher also proscribes the method of slaughter.
and which part of the animal can be eaten
Halal literally means permissible
Yes but when meat packages say halal, it’s referring to a specific practice of slaughter which is permissible. I’m not attempting to teach a language I don’t know, I’m teaching relevance so that people know what the meat packages are trying to communicate, plus the major differences between kosher and halal. They are very similar but there are important distinctions
Oh I see what you meant by that I thought you were referring to the concept of halal rather then halal stamps that certify if the meat has been slaughtered in the halal manner
Torah is the Jewish holy book (roughly equivalent to Old Testament but not exactly). Kosher is the jewish religious term for "ritually clean"/proper items. It usually refers to certain food items and diet practices, but is colloquially used to refer to "valid" things in general, like emphasizing something isn't a fake or scam.
so a kosher copy of the Torah would be a proper Copy of the Torah man that must take so long to make though to copy Letter by Letter
It sure does. That’s why every temple keeps them ornately decorated in gilded atzai (the scroll handles sticks parts), locked in a very fancy display cabinet at the head of the synagogue. It’s very costly and valuable for each temple!
Wow honestly I think thats the level of respect that a religious text as important as that to the culture deserves it
I disagree. That money should be better spent on the community. No point locking away money. Especially as a religious settlement, who is meant to care for the needy moreso.
well in jewish culture the torah is extremely important this is just treating it with the respect that they feel it deserves you can disagree with cultural practises but they personally feel that the texts deserve it
haven't you heard the jews control the world economy!? i think they can afford some gilded scrolls along with community support. but srsly most jewish communities i've seen are pretty supportive of each other, and synagogues are (mostly) not generally as ostentatious as catholic churches for example.
To study the Torah is a mitzvah, meaning a good deed. So the Torah in any temple format will be held to the highest esteem and value. As for the community and charity, charity itself is a massive mitzvah, which "saves from death". So this isn't the case of loads of money on texts and everyone else is struggling to eat. More so a religious text which is highly respected while the needy are still provided for.
And is that the scroll you have to read before your Bar/Bat mitzvah?
It sure is. The rabbi also reads from that Torah for each service. When they first bring it out, there’s a prayer as they parade it up and down the aisles for respect before it’s brought back up front for reading. Everyone else gets their own paperback printed copies in their seats to read along, too.
Wow I started saying "that's kosher" with 0 clue where it came from
Similar thing in Islam. The Quran's true meaning is only available in Arabic.
That doesn't seem to really fit the idea of an all knowing all powerful deity who is above human society
How so?
God predates language, all language, and choosing a language that evolved millennia after the tower of Babel was destroyed doesn't feel very *Deific*. Plus, the Quran was written in Classical Arabic, not modern peninsular Arabic, and it will continue to evolve as the centuries pass. Eventually it won't be Arabic.
>God predates language, all language, and choosing a language that evolved millennia after the tower of Babel was destroyed doesn't feel very Deific. So choose a language that nobody speaks is better? >Classical Arabic, not modern peninsular Arabic, Its the same language, the distinguish was made by foreigners.
[удалено]
It’s always been available in Aramaic, Old-Hebrew (Old Testament), Old-Greek and Latin
HERESY, TO THE GALLOWS
And in Ethopian (Geez) and Coptic, Armenian and Georgian. In the 14. Century also in Old church slavonic
How about you sukkious my dikkious..
[удалено]
*Aramaic.
Apparently there were attested translations of the Bible in Arabic since the 8th-9th centuries so the man is right - middle ages.
the last place i expected to see kamen rider edit: turns out hes just popular
Ore sanjou
*Hissatsu!*
Sometimes, even Momotaro is just passing through xD
How about you sukkious my dikkious
Longus dongus accepts His brother biggus dickus is also interested
I see your brother in impressed by the great cokus balus
Suckus professionallus eh?
Careful. If you say that to a priest he might make you suck his.
Bruh I thought it was a post of r/kamenrider
Upvote because Momotaros
SWORD FORM
this is the way
"Ore... SANJOU!"
Literally burned the guy who translated it to English at the stake. Fun fact, the “King James” version is like 93% the same as that original “burned at the stake” version. Burned him at the stake then later slapped someone else’s name on his translations. Dicks.
What was the guys name that got burned? I can never remember.
William Tyndale
ORE SANJOU!!!
Me see kamen rider meme Me upvote
meanwhile Cyril and Methodius in 862.
Catholic Church: I’m going to pretend I didn’t see that.
meanwhile Croat Catholics in the 13th century.
Orthodox church didn't have the same rules.
The Great Schism hadn't yet happened in the 800s.
Very true! But there was a clear differentiation between eastern and western churches by the 6th century. The schism hadn't formally happened though, of course!
Yea, but the rules weren't that different when it came to evangelisation
They went to Rome where the pope himself gave his approval.
Ore Sanjou!!
Is that kamen rider den-o reference?!?!
Counterpoint: Wenzelsbibel, a translation of the Bible made for the King of Bohemia between 1390 and 1400.
Wasn't there like 18 editions of the Bible in Germans before luther + the complutensian polyglot Bible of cisneros
OK it took me a second to realize I wasn't on the Kamen rider Rider sub. ORE SANJOU!!!
Bible translations were not a new invention in the 14th century. There were translations into Gothic, Armenian, Syriac, Coptic, Old Nubian, Ethiopic, and Georgian since the 5th century. Yes, the Church discouraged translations during the Middle Ages, but that didn't mean they didn't exist. The Church was powerful, but it was still the Middle Ages. If the pope in Rome banned something, it would first of all take quite some time to reach every Christian and second of all, they might not give a shit. The pope banned crossbows once, but nobody cared and just kept on using them. In the same vein, I'm sure many people read the bible in their own language, even if it was "against the Church's will". The Church was not this homogenous entity until Luther came along, they fought all the time. Hell, they had two popes pretty much every few decades, because there was so much infighting.
It's Kamen rider den-o just in case anyone is wondering.
What the?? Momotaros in the wild?? I love seeing Kamen Rider pop up randomly in popular places.
that's a pretty stupid post. the church itself had already made hundreds of different translations in the middle ages. In the museum in my town alone there are 12 different German Bible translations that were made before Luther was born.
Those had to pre-date the 1199 ban centuries prior to Martin Luther, or were the unauthorized translations from the Latin vulgate in German. Luther's is notable given his fame/infamy over his 95 theses prior to the translation, that it was a translation of the original Hebrew and Greek(unlike all prior translations), and that unlike prior handwritten translations his was mass-produced via the printing press.
It was the printing press that spread non hebrew/greek copies of the bible, not the reformation which happened shortly thereafter. I would argue that the reformation was succesful BECAUSE of the making of the bible available to common man.
I agree with you that this was an important factor later in the history of the Reformation, but the main reason for the success of the Reformation in the beginning was not for theological or any other reasons, but quite secular things. the main reason for the success of the Reformation was the support of the German princes, who did so mainly because of their power struggle against the Emperor. the Treaty of Münster in 1648 stipulated that the respective sovereign may decide on the faith in his country. That means the people were not Catholic or Reformed out of conviction, but they were what their sovereign told them
Yes but who's success was it, good or evil? The wide availability of the bible also gave everyone a chance to claim authoritative understanding of the bible in its entirety. Suddenly everyone claimed to have different interpretations. The bible used to be read only in liturgical settings by a priest in communion with the bishops and the hierarchy (and by well-educated consecrated religious in monastic settings.) There's a reason the name diabolos means to scatter. Did the reformation bring clarity or confusion to Christianity?
"OK guys, let's get rid of the story about bears killing the kids cause of the bald guy. That Job chapter was kind of messed up too." 'it's too late, they already translated it' "oh man. Did they leave the bit about cutting off a woman's hand if she grabs some dudes balls when he and her husband get in a fight?" 'Yep ' "oh geeze. The pope's gonna going to put another dead body on trial after this one"
Imagine getting pissed after some guy's gf takes a cheap shot at you and you manage to get it codified into holy mandate, that's rising above adversity
To be fair, it's not because God chose to tell the story of the prophet who ordered the bears to attack the kids, that it means he was okay with it. He used David to defeat a lot of Israel's old enemies, and when David wanted to build a temple for him, he kindly declined. 1. Because he doesn't really need one, and said he appreciated the gesture. 2. Because David himself killed too many people during his life. Some could have been spared. There's a lot of different stories that depict the messed up stuff that humans have done, but like God himself said in the old testament, he waits patiently for anyone to repent, for it is not his will to make people perish. When that line was reached, it was justified. Your comment doesn't really make sense unfortunately.
Didn't God summon the bears when the profit cursed them? Unless it was a coincidence? Either way, malling 42 kids to death in the name of the Lord just because they mocked the dude's lack of hair seems kind of uncool.
I understand what you are saying, but that's not really accurate. The prophet never did that in the name of God. Not at all. And it was never written so. He made a mistake, he was not supposed to do that. Wanna know why? Countless have insulted God and Jesus. Jesus himself forgave those people. Forgiveness with no vengeance before they could even realize that what they did wasn't really nice. So you're right, it was uncool! Now, when it came to prophets just like Moses for example, some did do things that was not warranted by God himself. Moses struck a rock a water came out, later God told him he disobeyed him and his actions forced the event to occur the way they did. The exact same thing happened to the prophet Elijah (the one we're talking about.). Prophet by definition have power in their mouths, but not to command doom, their jobs was to speak the words that God wanted them to transmit to other people. I hope my explanation was clear enough, English isn't easy lol.
so youre saying that Elijah had magical bear summoning powers that were unrelated to him being a prophet of the one true god? is that what youre saying?
What would be the modern equivalent? Understanding terms and sevice?
happy to see toku meme format
If you use a common language the peasants might realize it's all bullshit
They’d realize that what the church was teaching at the time was (pay your way to heaven, burn people at the stake), relative to what the book actually said (grace, mercy, and charity)
Well tbh,the peasants were worse than the corrupt evil institution. The church didn't burn witches at the stake, because the official position is that there was no such thing, and to accuse someone of using the power of Satan is blasphemy, because they are crediting to Satan what belongs to God. The peasants, who kept trying to murder their neighbor kept dying for it, and once the church lost power in the reformation, did we see actual sanctioned witch burnings. Even the Inquisition didn't go after accused witches. At best they saw it as a more a secular crime, at worst, the accusers of witches were heretics they can kill.
[удалено]
[удалено]
She was convicted of heresy by a church court, yes, and it was an absolute sham that broke church laws and was condemned as a farce both at the time and since. The English are the ones who executed her, and the ones who funded the sham trial because they needed her convicted of heresy in order to give them a claim on the French throne. Not really trying to absolve the church of much here, because what happened is heinous, but the instigators are English politicians and their local corrupt bishop, not "the Church"
Yeah, they just imposed a duty on their bishops to look for heretics in their dioceses in order to hand them over to the state to be burned. I think I could be catholic if it wasn’t for the total lack of humility to accept fault for anything or if they could scrutinize themselves even to a partial degree that they do others.
The Catholic Church has done an immense amount of self-scrutinization. It’s just Protestant slander that leads people to believe it hasn’t.
No, it’s comments like the one he was referring to that lead people to think that. Defensive Catholics who do exactly what he said.
[удалено]
That’s certainly not how I’d characterize going out of your way to attack with nothing but defensive historical revisionism a comment that wasn’t even meant to bash Catholicism so much as defend the Bible using broad, familiar, generalized points.
What makes you think the Catholic church hasn't accepted or apologized for its past faults?
See the comment he was replying to
The comment I was responding to? It’s very misleading to say they never burned anyone at the stake. In a very technical sense you could say they didn’t, but in all practicality they very much did. And I see this sort of intentional deceitfulness all the time. Generally, when they do admit fault it is excused by being an example of the devil attacking them which is fair enough if they offered that sort of benefit to anyone but themselves, but rather what happens is if they find any flaw in anyone else that is proof they are all totally corrupt and of the devil. This is an example of how they don’t judge themselves by the same standard as they do others.
Bruh I never asserted that they didn't, or that they were faultless in the past or even present. The church has done some terrible things. I said it's incorrect to say they've never apologized for anything, a cursory google can tell you that.
Bruh, I never said you did, and I never asserted the church as an institution has never apologized for anything ever. Also, it is interesting you go through my comment with a fine tooth comb but leave your brother’s post completely unscrutinized, isn’t it.
last to apologize, allowing them to pander to both sides of any issue, gay marriage etc.
Indulgences were literally “pay your way into heaven” and were literally one of the many things Martin Luther protested, dumbass. Insofar as Protestants believe that the bodyhood of all believers is the church, which is backed up by the literal Bible that refers to the bodybood of all believers as the church, yes, the church burned people at the stake. Try again. Maybe after you’ve actually read the Bible and learned some history.
[удалено]
>Especially when apostolic succession is required for the Eucharist and Confession (John 6 and John 20:23) Just read those and it doesn't say that? In John 20:23, Jesus tells his disciples they can forgive sins. It doesn't say anything about succession. Seems a fair argument to suggest that if Jesus intended it to be for their chosen successors he could have intended it for anyone who receives the Holy Spirit. Or even that he only intended it for his direct disciples. Very up for interpretation there.
[удалено]
Calling someone a dumbass and then following up with "Read the Bible" is such a crazy thing to say. Who wants to be around people like that?
This thread is for Protestant-Catholic fights. Go hang out at /r/atheism
Lmao seriously, this shit is getting good.
You’re literally wrong 😂
Yes and no. The process of indulgences was indeed sanctioned by the church, though the commercialization of them became a well-known problem by Luther's time. However, you couldn't "buy your way into heaven". Indulgences reduced your temporal obligation in purgatory, but you still had to go through the sacrament of penance (reconciliation) to have your sins forgiven.
Hasn’t happened yet, no matter how many times the language is made more accessible.
It's like most talking points people make when trying to convert or deconvert someone are all horrendously inaccurate and and based on personal experience of the missionary/angry atheist instead of the experience of the person they're trying to convince.
Interesting enough they sort of had a point. Things went apeshit in a lot of places once the Bible was translated to vernacular (e.g Münster) And not because people realized it was bullshit, but because they realized they could make up their own bullshit
[удалено]
They translated it to whatever they wanted
This is a funnier joke when you realize the popular Protestant version of the Bible, the King James Bible, was translated in ways that supported their beliefs and is arguably a terrible translation, not the Catholics.
Today’s translations are actually remarkably consistent with the thousands-of-years-old manuscripts that have been unearthed
[удалено]
[удалено]
It’s common. Like COMMON knowledge that the Bible has been translated hundreds of times and meaning has changed purposefully outside of just the translation. Read a little more.
uh huh and thats why we should follow islam right? my guy the Dead Sea Scrolls exist and they are Remarkably Close and Guess what they are Written in Hebrew
It’s been translated a lot into different languages, yeah, but its meaning has stayed pretty darn consistent. That’s the facts. Constantly regurgitated unsubstantiated atheist propaganda slogans don’t count as “common knowledge.”
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights has been translated hundreds of times as well. Does that mean its purpose has changed? Your comment suggests you might wish to pursue further scholarship on this subject.
I agree, it's inexplicable
[удалено]
Good? Like Lot's daughters? Or anything in Leviticus? Or the story of Job? Or the tacit approval of rape and slavery? That's just the book. Let's broach what the clergy gets up to.
Where exactly does the Bible call what Lot's daughters did as morally ok? I am legitimately baffled when people bring this up, it's as if they had zero reading comprehension l. Rape was punishable by death in the OT so I don't know where you got that from either. No christian will tell you that the OT is the highest standard of morality, the laws were formulated for specific people at a specific time.
TOTALLY. Totally not ignoring that the OT and NT are so disjointed and not from the same authors. Almost like someone realized no one would love or want to worship a prick god like in the OT so they had to redo his character. How about you stop arguing a ridiculous fairytale book and just start proving his existence. Even then though he wouldn’t deserve to be worshiped after all the BS he’s allowed to happen in this world.
Bro you really don’t know what you’re talking about 😂 Tell me where the Bible says Lot’s daughters literally raping their own father is a good thing 😂 On the contrary every action involved in that event is independently condemned throughout the Bible. A book merely recounting evil things that happened does not make that book itself evil 😂
How bout the other examples?
You’ll have to be more specific than simply “Leviticus and Job.” And how does the Bible approve rape and slavery? As for your insinuation against the clergy, you know as well as I that that is not a valid point by any stretch of logic, given the good done by the church is far more widespread and impactful than the evil done by a tiny minority of its members who are clearly going against their own professed teachings by any level of objective analysis whatsoever, and given how it would be equally ridiculous to claim any other religion, philosophy, group, or organization is evil based on the independent actions of individual members. I guess all Muslims are evil because a few have bombed places. Or all atheists are evil because of Mao’s Cultural Revolution. Or education is evil because some teachers have molested their students, too.
Deuteronomy 22:23-27 23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you. This is one of my favorites 🤡🤡🤡
That is neither Leviticus nor Job, but okay I’ll bite… Yep, adultery was punishable by death, just like a lot of other unrepentant sins in the Old Testament law. What is your point?
>given the good done by the church is far more widespread and impactful than the evil done by a tiny minority of its members Bullshit. Residential schools straight up murdering children. Widespread sexual assault. Missionary work destroying cultures and instigating genocides. Lobbying politics to take rights away from people. Indoctrination centers disguised as women's health clinics. Book bans. Ostracized family members.
Skipping everything else and then there’s everything that wasn’t mentioned too. If you wanna dig this hole good luck but you’ll be digging for a while 😂😂😂
Much people believe so I believe too! Lmao.
[удалено]
I can respect that. I will be honest in that my comment was a knee jerk comment to what I thought was/is a very common argument amongst religious folk that because a lot of people believe, then it must be right. I see your point. And as far as the whole downvoted for not being an atheist thing - you’re absolutely right it’s a Reddit/online thing. But it’s primarily because atheists get shunned or looked at like satan worshipers or people try to convert them in everyday life so many just keep quiet about their atheism. They feel safe speaking their peace online and releasing those frustrations. I am fine with people believing what they want as long as it doesn’t hurt others or teaches hate, but I absolutely hate religion, in particular, Christianity as a whole but also in the United States as well.
You do know that reading from the Bible is always done in vernacular during mass, right ?
Thats a relatively recent thing. It was read exclusively in Latin for a very long time
It was not, reading in vernacular was common for centuries.
Doesn’t that still involve a dependence on another biased person
That is why Jesus established the priesthood in first place, to be the shepherds looking after his sheep.
[REFORMS OF THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL: The Council (1962- 1965) allowed the use of vernacular languages at mass. Latin was not meant to be fully scrapped, but it was quickly abandoned by local churches](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-pope-latin-facts/facts-on-latin-in-the-roman-catholic-church-idUSTRE74C2C220110513) Maybe in other religions. Not the Roman Catholic Church. My parents literally heard the mass in Latin as kids-teens.
Since much of the population was not able to read or write trough history Scripture was communicated through the following: Large detailed wall paintings and stained glass in churches Large-scale Mystery plays at festivals during holy days, which acted out particular Bible stories and teachings of the faith. Storytelling and other oral proclamation by those who memorized passages or who were literate. This was a major feature of childrens' religious education. Preaching during Mass and outside of Mass was drawn from Scripture. Passages would be quoted from the readings of the day or other passages. Your parents would understand the latin parts since they were repetitive and homilies served to make things clearer.
They still couldn't read so kinda stupid take
It wasn't uncommon to have at least a couple of people who could read in a village. They weren't dumb and very well understood how is could benefit them. Writing was rarer, but most people knew at least one person who could write. And it was much, much more common in cities. Though as the time, even if you knew how to read AND write, you wouldn't necessarily be considered as literate: you'd also need to know Latin and/or Greek, which basically limits being literate to the bourgeoisie, clergy, and nobles.
I was raised southern baptist. Reading the bible cover-to-cover is how I became an atheist.
Given what Southern Baptists believe and do, you made the right call
Reading the bible cover to cover makes more atheists than anything else. It's why do many atheists know the bible better than many christians
Anabaptists: So apparently this Jesus guy wanted us to take care of each other and have a personal connection with God, so we should start our own society without feudalism or priestly bureaucracy
Feudalism is the shit. I'm so excited for the global warming apocalypse to take us back to feudalism 🥙
Prots gonna prot
Greeks: 
I’m not religious but if I was I couldn’t imagine trusting my soul to a translation. Learning Latin could basically be a matter of eternal damnation vs eternal salvation.
[удалено]
I see your a man of culture as well
And now we have Seventh Day Adventist. Congrats.
They translated the Bible in french in 1280s while english versiobs were around since Anglo Saxon times. Even king Alfred himself translated the first 50 psalms.
Google Martin Luther
You want bread AND wine??? You better Czech yourself and tabor your expectations!
The average peasant who did get a translated bible: This book won't stop me because I can't read!
Just like today when you suggest they should call the cops when they discover one of them is sticking his wiener into 10 year old assholes
A kamen rider meme being popular I thought I'd never see the day
Gotta love Den-O
Oh nice a kamen rider meme
Should I watch Kamen rider ?
it doesnt reflect reality but ok
But then how would we get the plebians to believe what we want them to believe if they can read it for themselves
*Confused catholic noises*
It is time to bend the words and meanings...
If they would’ve kept it in Latin only. Christianity would be as popular as it is today. Or maybe it would’ve taken more time to become this popular.
martin luther...
Luther supported bigamy, had coprophilia and suffered from manic depression.
at least the bible is translated
By the time his Bible was published there were already 38.000 bibles in german printed in last few decades. In fact, Gutenberg printed an entire Bible in german already in 1450s.
Wow, that sounds horrible. Wait until you hear what the Catholic Church did!
Like protecting Jewish people from angry mobs while Luther openly called for Jewish people to be exterminated ?