I've had my feet in and out over the years of really starting my journey into the words of Jesus Christ, but haven't fully accepted it. I finished watching [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZ4NTdSK5ac] and my mind is blown. Especially the part he says towards the end that "why should god show himself to me if I won't continue banging on the door over and over?"
It's like I've been waiting for proof, but if I knock once or twice, don't get proof and give up, why should god present himself?
I encourage you all to watch this video. For those of us who were on Voat, it says a lot of what we already knew, but he provided sources, citations, photos. It's quite remarkable the work he put into this video.
Anyways, I would like to get myself a bible and I am curious what the most accurate version is?
I am also curious if the words of the bible today can be trusted? Who is to say the satanists didn't take over publication and tweak words, remove verses, etc? This is a legitimate concern of mine.
This is the most serious post I've ever made and I am genuinely looking forward to responses so I can proceed to the next step of this journey.
Our Lord and the apostles were standing next to a large rock where the pagan temple to Caesar was built, and he turned to Peter (Greek Petros), and said on this Rock (Greek Petra) I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell will not prevail. It would be silly for Him to give Peter the feminine form of the word rock (Petra). On the flip side, the feminine form of the word designates a large Rock, like the one they were standing next too. Why would our Lord name Simon "rock" and say he would build his church on this rock when responding directly to Peters previous statement? Plus, our lord used Aramaic, which did not distinguish between the masculine and femine forms of the word, so he likely said the same word. Why would he say one thing but mean another? That doesn't sound like the Logos.
Jesus founded one church my friend, in which He is the head. But he built that church on a rock. That rock is Peter. The name Peter means rock, and our Lord literally said "thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church. (Mat-16:18) I don't know how much more clear that could be. Our Lord follows that with "And I will give to the thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Mat-16:19)
In regards to the prophets, that fulfills Daniel 2:36-46: Daniel interprets a dream about God sending a rock to crush the fourth kingdom (i.e. Rome) to build His kingdom that will last forever; Isaias 22:22: "and the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder so he shall open, and none shall shut, and he shall shut, and none shall open." Sound familiar? If not, look at Mat-16:19 again.
Don't get me wrong, I think Peter's successor today is arguably the most corrupt in history. I don't have to respect the man but I do his office. I look at it like a child with a deadbeat dad or a wife a bad husband. Ultimately, through baptism God is the father, but he left someone as the physical head of the house to stand in for the spiritual one. And he commanded us to respect that authority (4th commandment). "If you love me obey my commandments." (John 14:15) Come back home my friend.
How can you say there is no scriptural support when all I have given you is scriptural support?
When our Lord named Simon a name that means "rock" (Aramaic Kepha) then speaking directly to him in Aramaic said "thou art Kepha, and upon this Kepha I will build my Church." (Mat-16:18) was that just coincidence?
Is it coincidence that all the lists of the apostles have Peter listed first? (Mat-10:2, Mark 3:14, Luke 6:14, & Acts 1:13). Or that the bible repeatedly singles out Peter from the other apostles? (Mark 16:7, Acts 2:37, Acts 5:29, Mark 1:36, Luke 8:45, Luke 9:32) Or that he is referred to as the"first" or "chief" (Mat-10:2, Mat-20:27). Is all that coincidence?
In regards to tradition, was St. Jerome, the enterpreter of the first common bible (died 420) wrong when he said "As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is, with the Chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the Church is built." (Sauce) Was St Ambrose (AD 340-397) wrong when he said, "Where Peter is therefore, there is the Church. Where the Church is there is not death but life eternal. ...Although many call themselves Christians, they usurp the name and do not have the reward." (Ibid) Or Boniface VIII in his Papal Bull Unam Sanctam (A.D. 1302): "We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." (Ibid)
Are all these scriptures coincidences? Were all these Christians wrong? When was it okay to stop following the Roman Catholic Church? When was it okay to enterpret things based on your personal beliefs? Isn't that what's happening with our government?