Byss Kisaragi ✝️🎗️

ܫܒܩܬ ܐܘܪܚܐ ܕܪܓܬܐ ܘܐܬܦܢܝܬ ܠܡܪܝܐ؛ ܠܟܢܘܫܬܐ ܕܥܡܘܕܝ̈ܐ ܐܬܚܒܪܬ ܒܓܙܪ̈ܐ ܕܝ̈ܡܐ؛ ܘܐܬܥܡܕܬ 22/06/25؛ ܘܐܝܬ ܠܝ ܡܫܡܫܐ ܕܚܟܡܐ ܕܫܡܗ ܣ̇ܘܠ.

[Byss Kisaragi ✝️🎗️ @Byss2_]

Nyx, The Wolfbane Fairy

[Byss Kisaragi ✝️🎗️ @Byss2_]

@Rosacetus @tufpraise @Duskbringer13 So you don’t actually have evidence, then — just a story you vaguely remember seeing online.

That’s hearsay, not proof.

[Byss Kisaragi ✝️🎗️ @Byss2_]

@Rosacetus @tufpraise @Duskbringer13 That still sounds like hearsay.

Grok is so restrictive it won’t even touch mild content like swimsuits, so the idea it was generating full nudes doesn’t line up with how it actually behaves.

Do you have an actual source or link, or is this just something you remember seeing?

[Byss Kisaragi ✝️🎗️ @Byss2_]

@RomeGCV @sola_chad How is that mocking God?

Mockery is about intent — ridicule, dishonor, rejection. I’m not seeing that here, just a child celebrating something centered around Jesus.

Not everything that’s informal or different is automatically disrespect.

So what exactly makes this mockery?

[Byss Kisaragi ✝️🎗️ @Byss2_]

@S4H_Church @sola_chad What heresy, specifically?

Throwing the word around without defining it isn’t an argument.

If your issue is representation, then say that. If it’s doctrine, name the doctrine being violated.

Otherwise it just sounds like outrage, not theology.

[Byss Kisaragi ✝️🎗️ @Byss2_]

You’re repeating the claim, not proving it.

Saying “you can’t change Scripture” isn’t evidence that Luther did — it’s just restating your conclusion.

So again: where is your evidence that Luther altered the Greek text itself?

You made the claim, so the burden of proof is on you. Otherwise it’s just an assertion, not an argument.

[Byss Kisaragi ✝️🎗️ @Byss2_]

You’re misunderstanding both points.

Sola Scriptura isn’t “changing the Bible” — it’s the principle that Scripture interprets Scripture, not that you remove authority or rewrite the text.

And moving books to a different category isn’t removal. Luther didn’t delete the Apocrypha — he placed it as useful but not equal to Scripture, which is a distinction, not corruption.

So again, where is your evidence that Luther altered the Greek text itself?

Without that, the claim that he “changed Scripture” doesn’t stand.

[Byss Kisaragi ✝️🎗️ @Byss2_]

You’re shifting the argument.

The original claim was that Luther “changed Scripture.” So again — do you have evidence he altered the Greek text, or not?

Pointing out that English translations don’t include the word “alone” doesn’t prove corruption, because Paul explicitly says justification is apart from works of the law (Romans 3:28, Galatians).

“Faith alone” is a theological conclusion drawn from the text, not a claim that every translation must include that exact word.

So unless you can show Luther changed the underlying text itself, your claim doesn’t hold.

[Byss Kisaragi ✝️🎗️ @Byss2_]

Do you have actual evidence for that claim?

Luther’s German translation of Romans 3:28 includes “alone,” but he didn’t change the meaning — he clarified what Paul argues throughout Romans and Galatians: justification is by faith apart from works of the law.

Even many Catholic scholars acknowledge this was a translation choice, not a textual corruption.

So unless you can show Luther altered the Greek text itself, this isn’t “changing Scripture” — it’s interpretation.

[Byss Kisaragi ✝️🎗️ @Byss2_]

That’s not really accurate.

Islam still has physical focal points in worship — the Kaaba, the direction of prayer, and the Hajj rituals. So it’s not “just pointing into infinite space.”

And if the claim is pure rejection of all prior practices, then why retain pilgrimage structures and rites tied to pre-Islamic Arabia?

More importantly, the God described in Islam is not consistent with the God revealed in Scripture — so the issue isn’t just symbols, it’s identity.

[Byss Kisaragi ✝️🎗️ @Byss2_]

Romans 11 literally warns Gentiles not to be arrogant toward Israel.

If the Church replaced Israel, that warning makes no sense.

Paul also says Israel’s rejection is not final (Romans 11:25–29) — meaning God’s covenant with them still stands.

So it’s not “fake Israel vs real Israel.”

It’s one olive tree — with Gentiles grafted in, not replacing the root.

[Byss Kisaragi ✝️🎗️ @Byss2_]

@IsaiahKoch9 @AnimeBibleVerse @Twilight5parkle What are your exceptions then?

[Byss Kisaragi ✝️🎗️ @Byss2_]

You seem to be shifting the standard.

Earlier the claim was that disagreement suggests a lack of clarity. Now the requirement appears to be that the Bible must definitively settle every question before any interpretation can be considered established.

But that standard would make knowledge impossible in almost every field, since informed people disagree about many things while still recognizing that some interpretations are stronger than others.

So the issue isn’t whether absolute certainty exists, but whether the biblical data consistently points in one direction. If it does, then disagreement alone doesn’t overturn that.

[Byss Kisaragi ✝️🎗️ @Byss2_]

I think you are restating the same point in a more qualified way, but it still rests on the same assumption.

You are treating disagreement among informed people as a strong indicator of a lack of clarity, but that does not necessarily follow. Disagreement can just as easily reflect differences in interpretation rather than a problem with the text itself.

We see the same pattern in other fields where well-informed people disagree, yet we would not conclude that the subject itself lacks clarity.

So the existence of disagreement does not establish that Scripture is unclear. It simply brings us back to the original question of which interpretation best accounts for the whole of the text.

[Byss Kisaragi ✝️🎗️ @Byss2_]

If your standard is that disagreement implies a lack of clarity, then that principle would undermine every field of knowledge, not just Scripture.

People disagree about science, history, and even basic facts. That does not mean those fields lack clarity; it means interpretation and conclusions can be disputed.

So the existence of disagreement does not demonstrate that Scripture is unclear. It simply shows that readers can arrive at different interpretations.

The real question is not whether disagreement exists, but which interpretation best accounts for the whole of the text.

[Byss Kisaragi ✝️🎗️ @Byss2_]

The question assumes the canon was arbitrarily chosen, but historically the Church did not “create” Scripture, it recognized it.

The writings were received based on apostolic authority, consistency with existing Scripture, and widespread use across the early churches. So it was not a case of librarians selecting texts at random, but of identifying the writings that already carried authority.

And once that body of Scripture is recognized, it interprets itself. As 2 Timothy 3:16 says, Scripture is God-breathed, so it is internally consistent and can be tested against itself.

The fact that groups like the Arians used the same texts does not mean the message is unclear, but that interpretation can be disputed. The question then becomes which reading best accounts for the whole of Scripture, not isolated passages.

[Byss Kisaragi ✝️🎗️ @Byss2_]

You keep asserting a contradiction, but you have not actually demonstrated one, you have only repeated the same category mistake in different forms. Your entire argument depends on treating nature and role as identical, when Scripture consistently distinguishes them. Acts 2:36 does not mean Jesus became Lord in essence, it is describing His public exaltation as the incarnate Son after the resurrection. The one who humbled Himself is now openly declared and enthroned. You are reading made as created or acquired in nature, when the text is about vindication and installation, not ontological change.

Your appeal to the Psalms works against you, not for you. Psalm 110 presents a figure David calls his Lord, seated at the right hand of YHWH. That is not a mere agent being honored, that is a figure sharing in divine authority and rule. Jesus Himself uses this passage to show the Messiah is greater than David, not merely his descendant. So instead of proving distinction from YHWH in the way you intend, the text introduces a complexity within the identity of God that your framework cannot account for.

The worship argument collapses just as quickly. Yes, there are instances of people bowing in respect, but Scripture clearly distinguishes that from worship proper. When angels are given worship, they immediately refuse it. When men are treated as divine, it is corrected. Jesus does neither. He receives worship without rebuke, in contexts that go beyond mere honor. And Philippians 2 applies the language of Isaiah 45, where YHWH alone declares that every knee will bow to Him, directly to Jesus. That is not agency, that is identity. You are forced to redefine worship itself to avoid the implication.

Your question about Isaiah 45 is a diversion, not an argument. The issue is not how many persons are speaking, but who the language belongs to. YHWH claims exclusive worship, and that same exclusive worship is given to Jesus. You have not answered that, you have only tried to move the discussion sideways. The text does not say every knee will bow to an agent on behalf of YHWH, it says what belongs uniquely to YHWH is fulfilled in Christ.

Finally, your claim that if Jesus is YHWH then YHWH has a God simply repeats the same misunderstanding. The Son, having taken on human nature, speaks to the Father as His God. That does not negate His divine nature any more than His hunger negates His divinity. You are collapsing the incarnation into a single category and then declaring contradiction when the text refuses to fit your reduction. The problem is not that Scripture is inconsistent, it is that your framework cannot handle what it actually says.

[Byss Kisaragi ✝️🎗️ @Byss2_]

I’m the one who brought up that the Bible is a library, not you. You’re just trying to turn that into a sceptical argument after the fact.

The point was that Scripture is read as a unified canon, not fragmented. And when it’s read that way, there’s consistent agreement across Christianity on who Christ is — Lord and Saviour.

Differences in interpretation don’t prove confusion, they prove people approach the same text differently. And appealing to the “librarians” doesn’t help your case, because the same Church that recognised the canon also affirmed Christ’s divinity.

You’re not challenging my point, you’re borrowing it and misusing it.