Up to the present time the premise of the subject remains the same; 'all books of the new testament have precisely the same contradictions contained in the mastercopy that came from the ordinances of Litanies that were left to the doctrine of the State of Vatican and the Great (babylonical) church' which identifies herself by the title Mother, and drinks wine and offers a gilded cup of wine for the nations to drink every week).
†In nomine patri–filii et spiritu sanctum and a likeness of a bear has been made, seeing that bears impose their right hands only; and an agility of a leopard has camouflaged what has been placed on their foreheads In nomine (in place of a name); the sign of the name of a †cicatrix made upon small and great, rich and poor, free and bond. It was designed by whom gave name to this †sign and called it: IN THE PLACE OF MY NAME wounding the front of a scarlet Roman Force that was, and is not, and is †sealed to go into perdition.
* In 1560 the fragments were entirelly divided into the verse numbering form but the sequence placed before my word by a Roman spiritual ordinance belongs to Vivi Sei
SV SEI SVTSIRHC IESVS CHRISTVS
SVSEI SVTSIRHC IESVS CHRISTVS
A man’s name and the number of the name coming from Litanies; three sequential sixes - 6,6,6
Numeric Value SUS (horse) סוס - SÂMEQ–6,0 – VAV–6 – SÂMEQ–6,0
†In nomine patri–filii et spiritu sanctum; when the buying is made In nomine, what is received in the name is not the name.
You mean the same Vulgate, written decades after the Bible as a whole was first known, comissioned by somebody who had already memorised and studied some versions of the book he wanted to write the original of, and which somehow inspired the writing of its various passages and gospels centuries before its own existence?
Wow. That book truly is a 'master' copy. Then again, time travel seems to be easily within God's powers, so it must be my unbelievingness that leads me to call "b***s***!".
As stated, the Vulgate is no master copy. It is dated to the end of the 4th century (commissioned by Pope Damasus in 382CE). It certainly did become the canonical work for Catholics. The Protestants ditched it very early in the reformation and the Catholics finally settled on a 1528 and 1548 reworking of a critical version of it (the Clementine vulgate) as their official bible until about 1980 I think.....
Isn't it written in the Law, ‘I said, you are ELYON--the ones that declare’? If the testimony calls 'ELYON--the ones that declare' those whom the word that I AM -- YHWH -- is declared to --and the manuscript can’t be wrong-- do you say, ‘You are blaspheming' to a vessel that ELYON--THE ONE THAT DECLARES sets apart and send to declare the word, because I only say the word that I AM -- YHWH --?
If he called those to whom the word of the god came 'gods (elohiym)' (and the Scripture cannot be disregarded)
Now, how about you make a reply that is coherent and relevant? Because quoting huge swaths of Bible that have no relevance to the topic, accompanied by a couple of lines that do nothing but explain your theology of the text, are not in any way useful to a debate.
Every copy of new testament came from one camouflaged source
..seems to be easily within God's powers
Whenever one uses the generic term 'god (elohiym)' as a sacred title, the reply becomes irrelevant since the term for deities, god--elohiym, was first consecrated by Scribes and translators, and is one of the evidences demonstrating that all your versions of new testament came from the same source; one mastercopy that contains the ordinance of Litanies left to the Vatican; whether you call it Sacred Vulgate or not.
..so it must be my unbelievingness
To know the truth is the averse to believing. The knowledge of the truth sets one free and it has nothing to do with beliefs.
Ten words that are not present in the fragments of scripture as originally written nor in the entire Ancient Testament,
Iesus, Christus, god or elohim being used as a Sacred term, baptize, baptism, cross, crucifixion, crucify, faith, believe
The precise consistency of places that these ten substitute words appear in the copies of new testament are evidence that all copies have been camouflaged and mixed with another things,
and all copies came from one source, the Vulgate, whether you camouflage it by calling it differently or not.
How can one ascertain that all versions of new testament came from one source called Vulgate,
Vulgate means 'left to the people'. Anything else that was not left to the people by the ordinance of Archbishops is not a Vulgate. Therefore every copy of new testament came from one source, although every doctrine and everyone that protests against their Mother church, have created some theories to camouflage (make believe) and then state that their copy of new testament has nothing to do with the Romam church.
Re: Every copy of new testament came from one camouflaged source
quote:Whenever one uses the generic term 'god (elohiym)' as a sacred title, the reply becomes irrelevant since the term for deities, god--elohiym, was first consecrated by Scribes and translators, and is one of the evidences demonstrating that all your versions of new testament came from the same source; one mastercopy that contains the ordinance of Litanies left to the Vatican; whether you call it Sacred Vulgate or not.
LOL...by this reasoning, the fact that a book - any book - uses the word 'obscene' means that all such books come from the same source, because Shakespeare coined the word in 'Love's Labours Lost.'
It is not only a non sequitur, it is breathtakingly unconnected. It is, I think, the worst (or best) non-sequitur I have ever seen...
Here's the thing - EVERY word was once used for the first time...that is sort of how it generally happens. The fact that the word is used in later texts tells you only that the particular word was written after the first use of that same word. It tells you nothing about the original source of the document. It tells you nothing about the document at all, since all we have is a couple of scraps from around the end of 1st century CE, and bits and pieces of manuscript over the next 200 years. The oldest remaining fuill copy is indeed the vulgate - or more accurately the Codex Vaticanus. Interestingly it lacks Gen.1-46:28; portions of II Kings 2; and Psalms 105-137. The New Testament is missing Heb. 9:14; I and II Tim.; Titus and Revelation. And of course the last 12 verses of Mark are not included. So if we apply your logic, those sections in the modern bible are clearly all complete forgeries. (No such thing follows, of course, as is obvious to anyone who can reason at grade-school level).
Opere della legge (Working of the law) Versus Opere della Fidelitate
EVERY word was once used for the first time
Know the meaning of the Roman word opere when it was used for the first time,
Opere della legge Versus Opere della Fidelitate
The title translates: Working of the law Versus Working of Fidelity,
meaning by which means or manner you do something rather than that which is done.
In Ancient Roman language 'opere' (working) is different from 'opera' (work). The word Opere is used to express the manner through which something is done, whether by the working or force of law (when the law is that works and operates in you) or by fidelity when your actions are done spontaneously and out of the heart.
Section of Galatians in Roman language – avendo pur nondimeno riconosciuto che l'uomo non è giustificato per le opere della legge ma lo è soltanto per mezzo della fidelitate
Knowing that [when doing something] a man is not declared righteous by doing it through the working of the law but by the working of fidelity to Yahweh only.
The use of the term per mezzo della fidelitate (through the means or manner of fidelity) indicates that the form of action, by which a man is justified (declared righteous) is without constraint: proceeding from natural feeling as a spontaneous gift, without external force; when you do it because of your fidelity only. Then the law does not operate: you do it spontaneously. It’s not the law that is working in you when you do something to Yahweh.
From the perspective of the church, to which the first mastercopy of the Versio Vulgata (the commonly used bible) was made and translated, the changes and adaptations done to the writings of Paul were important so that the scripture could have the format that it has now.
The fact that the Roman word opere presented a variation of meaning, and that the term opere della legge (working of the law) had been translated into works of the law, is not relevant as to cause any change in the lithurgy that is the doctrine of Vatican.
For, what matters more is that the first ordinances given to the Mother church were kept intact by tradition guiding the fathers and archbishops in every doctrinal proceeding.
Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : update
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Note: Following message 219 was spam and was deleted. - Adminnemooseus
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Make that message 119.