The Gospels

[Ouroboros]

"It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are.  For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is scattered throughout all the world, and the "pillar and ground" of the Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life; it is fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side, and vivifying men afresh."

Irenaeus forgot one more explanation to why "four": that he had only four brain cells still working...

[Mythra]

I know I think about shit way too much, but I'm not getting many answers here that are helping me find my way back to Jesus.

 

I got another question:

 

In Mark Chapter 8 - Jesus gets all frustrated cause they asked him for a sign from heaven. He says: "Why does this generation ask for a miraculous sign? I tell you the truth, no sign will be given to it"

 

Now, when I first read this, I figured he was just saying that he wouldn't perform any miracles as a kind of sideshow just for the guys who were asking right then.

 

BUT THAT ISN"T WHAT IT SAYS. It says no signs will be give to THIS GENERATION. So, now I think WTF? Isn't he essentially saying here that there haven't been any miracles, and he isn't going to perform any? I mean it says NO SIGN will be given. No Miracles. Not for this generation. So, we have another problematic passage of scripture that will have to be worked over by more apologetic calisthenics.

[Ouroboros]

Yet another thing I never thought of.

 

Jesus could not have been resurrected then. It was a sign. He promised not to give any.

[Abiyoyo]

I'd like to open up a little dialog about the four gospels themselves.  See what I can learn from you guys, and maybe offer a tidbit or two myself.  And, if Christians want to chime in, we'll try and tolerate ya, if you're not too obnoxious.

 

To start with, it is almost universally agreed that Mark was the first gospel written.  And that it ended at verse 16:8.  The women fleeing from the empty tomb.  End of story.

 

The gospel of John trailed all of the others by at least thirty years.  Yet John is the gospel that is most often used by christians in force-feeding their religion to uneducated unbelievers. 

 

I have a couple of questions. 

 

1.  How is it possible that the book of Mark would have found the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus of so little interest that they were not included in the narrative, if they had actually happened?

 

2.  How is it possible that not one of the seven "I AM" statements attributed to Jesus in the book of John made their way into Matthew, Mark, or Luke -  if indeed there was a man named Jesus who said these things.

 

Here is what "Jesus" says about himself in John.

 

1.  I AM the living bread that came down from heaven.

2.  I AM the light of the world.

3.  I AM the door.  If anyone enters by me, he will be saved.

4.  I AM the good shepherd.

5.  I AM the resurrection and the life.

6.  I AM the way, the truth, and the life.  No one comes to the Father except through me.

7.  I AM the true vine.

 

These are extraordinary things for anyone to say.  They are among the most striking of all of the words or sayings attributed to Jesus.  If they had actually been said by a man named Jesus, it is inconceivable to believe that at least some of these sayings wouldn't have been recorded in Mt, Mk, and Lk.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

If Christ was the Son of God, then He was with God from the beginning. In that, He would be before all things, the I Am.

 

I understand the logic here, but my question is if it mostly concerns you with the agreement of the Gospels, then this should fill the blanks. Hope I helped.

 

Matt 3:17

17 And suddenly a voice came from heaven, saying, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."

(NKJ)

 

Mark 1:11

11 And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

(KJV)

 

Luke 3:22

22 And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.

(KJV)

 

John 1:29-32

29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

30 This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me.

31 And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water.

32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.

(KJV)

 

Thats 5 people if you include John the baptist.

[SkepticOfBible]

Thats 5 people if you include John the baptist.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

How is that five people?

[Abiyoyo]

Another item that cannot be explained away.  500 people seeing the risen christ and no one recorded it except Paul in 1 Corithians?

 

Maybe they were trying to get over the embarrassment of Paul saying that christ revealed himself to the twelve - in the preceding verse (when Judas was dead by then, according to the story)  Paul.  Have a clue, dude 12-1=11. 

 

The shit doesn't add up, I tell ya.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Also keep in mind that Paul (Saul) recorded what he had been told and it is possible that some of the specific numbers where miscalculated. He was not with the disciples every long, and most of them took what he said as a hard thing to hear, according to Peter.

 

Yet, Paul was in a different light than the disciples, according to God.

[Abiyoyo]

How is that five people?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John (The disciple), John the Baptist. John gives his own account by John the Baptists account of His divinity.

[Vixentrox]

The gospels disagree on several points.

[Abiyoyo]

The gospels disagree on several points.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

You know. When I first glanced at your reply I really thought, typical. But then I thought about how many people have given me that same answer, and how many different scriptures and times that I have given this type of reply to the agreeing side.

 

So, in that.

 

Is the glass half empty or half full.

[Ouroboros]

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John (The disciple), John the Baptist. John gives his own account by John the Baptists account of His divinity.

You claim the gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John??? Now you're in trouble, man!

[SkepticOfBible]

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John (The disciple), John the Baptist.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

MMMM,

 

Mark and Matthew never identify themselves as authors of the book. Christians themselves don't know wrote. Most study bibles acknowledge the fact that most probably it came from a common source. Yet again this is hypothesis.

 

Gospel Of Q(Carm.org) - A Christian Apologetic Site

 

The author of Luke, who may have been a person called Luke, states that his gospel is not an eyewitness report, but the compilation of outside witnesses and writings(Luke 1:1-4).

The author of John claims that his gospel account is actually the testimony of an unnamed disciple who "Jesus loved".(John 21:20-24).

 

And let's not talk about Paul, he never once met Jesus. Yet he proclaimed himself to be one of God's greatest prophet.

 

John gives his own account by John the Baptists account of His divinity.

 

That didn't make sense to me. Could you explain how that works.

[SkepticOfBible]

Also keep in mind that Paul (Saul) recorded what he had been told and it is possible that some of the specific numbers where miscalculated. He was not with the disciples every long, and most of them took what he said as a hard thing to hear, according to Peter.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Why didn't the holy spirit correct Paul?

 

Yet, Paul was in a different light than the disciples, according to God.

 

So says Paul. He even goes ahead and contradicts Jesus

[Mythra]

If Christ was the Son of God, then He was with God from the beginning. In that, He would be before all things, the I Am.

I understand the logic here, but my question is if it mostly concerns you with the agreement of the Gospels, then this should fill the blanks. Hope I helped.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Very good try, yo-yo. However, you sidestepped the issue. Christian tradition says that the four gospels were written by eyewittnesses (Luke has been attributed to Peter's or other disciples' accounts)

 

Now, truthfully, I know too much to believe that the gospels are not pseudepigraphical. But I'm going to (for the sake of this argument) assume they are authentic eyewitness accounts.

 

My question was not a generic question about the agreement of the Gospels. It was, how is it possible that Matthew, Mark, and Peter all failed to remember that Jesus said a single one of the I AM statements? Or, for that matter, "I and the Father are one" These statements, had they been genuine utterances of Jesus, could not have escaped being noted in the first three gospels. It is not possible.

 

The correct answer to the question is, of course, that these sayings are the product of the fertile mind of the writer of John's gospel. Who, many in the second century believed to be Cerinthus, an eqyptian educated gnostic christian who lived in Ephesus. The writing then underwent serious tweaking to make it acceptable into the cannon.

[Abiyoyo]

Very good try, yo-yo.  However, you sidestepped the issue.  Christian tradition says that the four gospels were written by eyewittnesses (Luke has been attributed to Peter's or other disciples' accounts)

 

Now, truthfully, I know too much to believe that the gospels are not pseudepigraphical.  But I'm going to (for the sake of this argument) assume they are authentic eyewitness accounts.

 

My question was not a generic question about the agreement of the Gospels.  It was, how is it possible that Matthew, Mark, and Peter all failed to remember that Jesus said a single one of the I AM statements?  Or, for that matter, "I and the Father are one"  These statements, had they been genuine utterances of Jesus, could not have escaped being noted in the first three gospels.  It is not possible.

 

The correct answer to the question is, of course, that these sayings are the product of the fertile mind of the writer of John's gospel.  Who, many in the second century believed to be Cerinthus, an eqyptian educated gnostic christian who lived in Ephesus.  The writing then underwent serious tweaking to make it acceptable into the cannon.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Lets speak about that. Would it be safe to say that the Bible we read, as far as us as people know, is comprised of the early church mainly formed through the works of Peter?

 

The answer is yes. The Bible we have acces to in mainstream America is the same context, meaning, and some literal of the on composed in the early forming of the church, upheld throught the Saints, mainly Peter.

 

The protestant movement is also formed around that same lineage of history of movement around the Word, yet is more based around the forming image and declaration from the Jews to others that believed in Christ, by Paul.

 

What is the right path of scripture?

 

The Protestant demoninations as we know them today use mainly the same Bible that was formed by the early church. The difference is the context taking from the Word to fit the need of the early Protestant movement, exampling Martin Luther.

 

The church put in the Bible what they felt should be there, correct. Though, this may seem as a fallible cause of disbelief to the whole basis of the Bible in general; it still stands through today as the Word of God, by all veils of the church.

 

In that, the truth is that someone who seeks the truth and believes in Christ without the proportions of truth that avail to them specifically, will find the truth they desire. I would believe that Christ is as real to me as the computer I am typing on right now, no matter what anyone says. The reasoning behind that statement is that I cant deny what has spiritually and physically happened to me since my eyes have opened to Christ and His Way.

 

Reminds me of the scripture that says seek the kingdom of God first and all others things will follow.

 

My POV is that if God is all knowing, the I am, of all life and things. The Bible we can purchase at WalMart is the Bible that He wanted to be. All the Protestants, in all hangers of faith, have done is been revealed one of many truths that God has used to enable people to fulfill His word.

 

If we went by Peter's sayings alone and didnt intake the conresponding scripture, Paul or the other writings, we would only, as heriatge Gentiles, be held to the Jeruaslem decree from the Apostles to the Gentiles.

 

Yet, God said that Paul would be a light to us, and he has.

[Mythra]

I read through that twice, and I'm still not sure what your point was. The new testament is not just Paul vs. Peter. We really don't have any evidence, outside of the bible, that the gospels are in any way an account of eyewitnesses (Peter or any of em) to anything.

 

Everyone knows Mark was the first gospel, and Mark was written by a greek. No getting around that.

 

Plus, if you take away John, and the Revelation of John, the religion is a completely different religion.

 

And, saying that God has brought us his word exactly as he wants it, means nothing to a godless dude such as myself.

[daniel_1012]

I'd like to open up a little dialog about the four gospels themselves.  See what I can learn from you guys, and maybe offer a tidbit or two myself.  And, if Christians want to chime in, we'll try and tolerate ya, if you're not too obnoxious.

 

To start with, it is almost universally agreed that Mark was the first gospel written.  And that it ended at verse 16:8.  The women fleeing from the empty tomb.  End of story.

 

The gospel of John trailed all of the others by at least thirty years.  Yet John is the gospel that is most often used by christians in force-feeding their religion to uneducated unbelievers. 

 

I have a couple of questions. 

 

1.  How is it possible that the book of Mark would have found the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus of so little interest that they were not included in the narrative, if they had actually happened?

 

2.  How is it possible that not one of the seven "I AM" statements attributed to Jesus in the book of John made their way into Matthew, Mark, or Luke -  if indeed there was a man named Jesus who said these things.

 

Here is what "Jesus" says about himself in John.

 

1.  I AM the living bread that came down from heaven.

2.  I AM the light of the world.

3.  I AM the door.  If anyone enters by me, he will be saved.

4.  I AM the good shepherd.

5.  I AM the resurrection and the life.

6.  I AM the way, the truth, and the life.  No one comes to the Father except through me.

7.  I AM the true vine.

 

These are extraordinary things for anyone to say.  They are among the most striking of all of the words or sayings attributed to Jesus.  If they had actually been said by a man named Jesus, it is inconceivable to believe that at least some of these sayings wouldn't have been recorded in Mt, Mk, and Lk.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Jesus died for the sins of the world. God offers payment for those sins against HIM, if you confess your wickedness, whereby belief and repentance follow... The reason believing Jesus died for your sins is so important... is because if you believe He died for your sins, you believe that it is necessary. If you believe it is necessary, you confess your sin and you repent. They all go hand in hand.

 

So, if you believe Jesus died for you, then He did. That's all you need to know.

[Abiyoyo]

I read through that twice, and I'm still not sure what your point was.  The new testament is not just Paul vs. Peter.  We really don't have any evidence, outside of the bible, that the gospels are in any way an account of eyewitnesses (Peter or any of em)  to anything.

 

Everyone knows Mark was the first gospel, and Mark was written by a greek.  No getting around that. 

 

Plus, if you take away John, and the Revelation of John, the religion is a completely different religion.

 

And, saying that God has brought us his word exactly as he wants it, means nothing to a godless dude such as myself.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Mythra,

 

What I am saying in a nutshell is that we dont have anything to point toward the Gospels or the writtings other than the educated documents and guesswork of early traditions, in which most (that I have observed) here, considered to be corrupt and more on another type of agenda.

 

As far as what is what upon who wrote what we have, is based upon most of these things mentioned above. The fact of the matter is that the traditions of the Gospels and the Ot are just that, traditions. If one reads and comes to an understanding of Christs agenda; traditions are valuable, but The Word of God is more than that.

 

Jesus pointed this out many times in the Gospels, in different ways.

 

As far as the meaning to you, Myrtha. The topic was based around one of the variances of the Gospels. I know your stanpoint, yet the conversation is based around a God inspired work. I can only, as a follower, speak what I hear and see with my own eyes.

 

Jesus said many times, Those that have ears to hear, let them hear.

 

jk

[Mythra]

Well, I am admittedly spiritually blind. And I don't hear all that well, either.

But I'm not dumb.

 

And, you still haven't explained why we don't hear Jesus saying "I am the light of the world" or any of the rest, in MT, Mk, & Lk.

[Mythra]

ps: As far as I'm aware, it's not a sin to say "I don't fucking know" ;

 

as long as you leave out the "fucking"

 

[MQTA]

I read through that twice, and I'm still not sure what your point was.  The new testament is not just Paul vs. Peter.  We really don't have any evidence, outside of the bible, that the gospels are in any way an account of eyewitnesses (Peter or any of em)  to anything.

 

Everyone knows Mark was the first gospel, and Mark was written by a greek.  No getting around that. 

 

Plus, if you take away John, and the Revelation of John, the religion is a completely different religion.

 

And, saying that God has brought us his word exactly as he wants it, means nothing to a godless dude such as myself.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think the problem at the root becomes clear after a while.

 

People are taught to believe The Gospels are written by the namesakes, that Matthew is first, the serpent was Satan, and Paul was most holy. They only read what chapters and verses they're taught to read, all the rest is extraneous and doesn't matter to what they're told to focus on.

 

There wasn't much conflict when people were talking to other people, in social settings. Those who aren't Christians usually haven't done much research, they just cast aside what doesn't sit right with them, and that's that. So when someone Bible quotes they, they usually don't have any other point of reference.

 

But online, and in the last year or two, more and more people are finding those websites that point out the history, reality, errors and conflicts -- but Christians don't read those sites, they're taught not to, they may click on one and then just say bullshit and close it out without making any attempt to actually read it.

 

The internet has more information available today than in the last 2000 years combined.

 

Online Christians are finding out their bumper sticker slogans are empty. They argue from the point of view that the Bible is the Foundation of Truth, and go from there. They can't imagine how it's not the anchor of reality, it is, to them.

 

When they say "Jesus said ....", they don't get that Jesus didn't say it, the author of the chapter they believe to be written by the namesake said that Jesus said. They believe the texts were written WHEN the event happened, it may take years to accept the new discoveries that are hard to deny nowadays.

 

And when they say "Jesus said..." they could say "God said..." and they are really saying the same thing. Others don't see it that way, so naturally we're wrong, they're not, they were taught otherwise.

 

We really are talking two different languages and two different realities. For someone to see Christianity for what it is and how it unfolded, they need to see both sides, or at least the outside. Those on the inside who have no intention of leaving the inside just can't grasp what anyone else is saying... otherwise, they fear, they wouldn't still be on the inside. Takes a lot of guts to see what's before their eyes. It's a lot easier to reject the rest of the world for the fantasy.

[All Gods Fail]

For someone to see Christianity for what it is and how it unfolded, they need to see both sides, or at least the outside.  Those on the inside who have no intention of leaving the inside just can't grasp what anyone else is saying... otherwise, they fear, they wouldn't still be on the inside.  Takes a lot of guts to see what's before their eyes.  It's a lot easier to reject the rest of the world for the fantasy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

And not to mention honesty. If the believers had a good understanding of the problems of the bible, they would understand we're not saying 'we have definitive proof god doesn't exist'. We're simply saying that if you add up all the evidence of the bible's validity, it doesn't weigh true.

 

If they were honest, they would at least look at the evidence. As you mentioned, thanks to the internet we have more information at our fingertips than ever before. It's out there in plain sight - you don't believe us, look it up yourself.

[MQTA]

yes, they make enormous LEAPS

 

From the Entire Universe down to all of us here on this planet, of course, overlooking all the creatures that seemingly serve no purpose or just don't fit into their equations.

 

To go from God created the Universe, to, so therefore the Bible must be true, is just so strange. While they're speaking bumper stickers, don't their brains ever go "hmmm.. wait a sec, this doesn't really sound right to me"

 

It seems to be everything they point a finger at, they have 3 fingers pointing back at them. They preach love, practice hate; they pursecute and claim pursecution.

 

Without the Bible, they have NOTHING, and they can't accept that.

[SkepticOfBible]

The protestant movement is also formed around that same lineage of history of movement around the Word, yet is more based around the forming image and declaration from the Jews to others that believed in Christ, by Paul.

 

What is the right path of scripture?

 

The Protestant demoninations as we know them today use mainly the same Bible that was formed by the early church.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The early church using the same bible as yours!!!!!!!!. Please support evidence for your claim. Where was this early church? What books did they follow?

 

There wasn't a official list of book uptill about 300-50 AD(that's about 300 years after the death of christ. Even then the list doesn't even come close to what protestant have(mainly because the acrophypha was included)

 

If you are refering to the various list used by various church's and leader, I don't see the similarities between those list or the protestant list.

 

Canons

Canons2

 

At the end of the day Jesus, nor God had any say what goes in his official book. It has been always been decided by either certain individuals or group of men. God/Jesus comes nowhere in these equation

 

Best of all when the books need to be decided, it is decided by vote.

 

The difference is the context taking from the Word to fit the need of the early Protestant movement, exampling Martin Luther.

 

In other words Martin Luther felt like some books don't belong there, so he threw them out. Who gave him the authority to do that? How did he know that certain books belonged there and others did?

Martin Luther also wanted to throw out Book of James and Hebrew.

 

Thomas Jefferson also had a edited bible, maybe you should follow that.

 

Lets speak about that. Would it be safe to say that the Bible we read, as far as us as people know, is comprised of the early church mainly formed through the works of Peter?

 

The answer is yes. The Bible we have acces to in mainstream America is the same context, meaning, and some literal of the on composed in the early forming of the church, upheld throught the Saints, mainly Peter.

 

The RCC claims Peter was the first pope, and the papacy is passed down from each successor to the next

 

So pretty much the early church that you are talking about is the RCC, which has a different bible than yours.

 

The Book of Hebrews also tells believers to submit to authority figures and accept the intpretation of the church

 

Heb 13:17

Be obedient to those leading you, and be subject, for these do watch for your souls, as about to give account, that with joy they may do this, and not sighing, for this is unprofitable to you.

 

The authority of the Catholic Church is deemed by many believers to be the sole vehicle that guarantees that a believer has "proper" faith.

The Church embodies and carries on the teachings of Jesus and the original apostles, and with that comes the ability and authority to interpret scripture correctly. The context of scripture is to be interpreted by the Church Fathers and not left to the private interpretation of believers(ref: Council of Trent 1545-1563).

If a believer is reaching different conclusions than those put forth by the Church, then that believer needs to adjust their thinking. In other words, the traditions and teachings of the Church must be obeyed to be in good standing with God.

The Church, though its hierarchy, imparts wisdom to the masses and makes their lives easier because they are not burdened with the risk of being led astray by their own thoughts.

Of course, many fundamentalist Protestants differ with these claims and consider the Catholic Church to be a corrupted representation of Christianity. They view the Church as interfering with true "faith".

Some Catholics in turn proclaim that Protestants are actually "Protest_Ants", small-minded people who have fallen away from the Church and are biased and rebellious toward its authority, which was established by Jesus himself.

 

The church put in the Bible what they felt should be there, correct. Though, this may seem as a fallible cause of disbelief to the whole basis of the Bible in general; it still stands through today as the Word of God, by all veils of the church.

 

 

Why was the canon not directly revealed by God? Is God content to let uninspired writings falsely be proclaimed as his Word? Furthermore, how do we know the canon is complete? Why has no one been able to describe a consistent objective basis for establishing the canon? Why was the canon established by vote instead of on objective principles? When a group of church clerics gets together, why is it automatically assumed that they have no personal agenda or that they are not being lobbied or pressured by outside influences to vote a particular writing as canon?

 

In that, the truth is that someone who seeks the truth and believes in Christ without the proportions of truth that avail to them specifically, will find the truth they desire. I would believe that Christ is as real to me as the computer I am typing on right now, no matter what anyone says. The reasoning behind that statement is that I cant deny what has spiritually and physically happened to me since my eyes have opened to Christ and His Way.

 

Roman Catholic, Mormons, Jehovah's Witness, Muslims and other religionist would make the same thing about you) would make the same claim

 

It isn't difficult to convert these sort of testomnies to a generic formula:

 

In that, the truth is that someone who seeks the truth and believes in (Fill in the Blank) without the proportions of truth that avail to them specifically, will find the truth they desire. I would believe that (Fill in the Blank) is as real to me as the computer I am typing on right now, no matter what anyone says. The reasoning behind that statement is that I cant deny what has spiritually and physically happened to me since my eyes have opened to (Fill in the Blank) and (Fill in the Blank) Way.

 

So based on the personal testomony, who is right you or the thousand of other people who follow their religion?

 

Reminds me of the scripture that says seek the kingdom of God first and all others things will follow.

 

In other words we must believe that your interpretation of the bible(and not the other thousand of other interpretation) is correct

 

My POV is that if God is all knowing, the I am, of all life and things. The Bible we can purchase at WalMart is the Bible that He wanted to be. All the Protestants, in all hangers of faith, have done is been revealed one of many truths that God has used to enable people to fulfill His word.

 

Since there are so many different version of the bible, it is pretty difficult to select the correct word of god, because there can be only one.

 

As far listening to Protestants, they can't even agree on many of the core doctrine issues, such as salvation by works /faith, whether salvation can be lost, baptism, soteriology, Christology, trinitarianism, satanology, angelology, nature of the afterlife, eschatology, fundamentals of the faith, the standing of Jewish believers in relation to the Law, the standing of Gentile believers in relation to the Law?

 

Honest Bible Study

 

Yet, God said that Paul would be a light to us, and he has.

 

Where did God say such a thing about Paul?

 

For all you know Paul was a test of god for the jews, ie whether they would remain faithful to God's Commandment in the OT

 

Deuteronomy 13:1

The entire word that I command you, that shall you observe to do; you shall not add to it and you shall not subtract from it. [2] If there should stand up in your midst a prophet or a dreamer of a dream, and he will produce to you a sign or a wonder, [3] and the sign or the wonder comes about, of which he spoke to you, saying "Let us follow gods of others that you did not know and we shall worship them!7quot; [4] do not hearken to the words of that prophet or to that dreamer of a dream, for HASHEM, your G-d, is testing you to know whether you love HASHEM, your G-d with all your heart and with all your soul. [5] HASHEM, your G-d, shall you follow and Him shall you fear; His commandments shall you observe and to His voice shall you hearken; Him shall you serve and to Him shall you cleave. [6] And that prophet and that dreamer of a dream shall be put to death, for he had spoken perversion against HASHEM, your G-d Who takes you out of the land of Egypt, and Who redeems you from the house of slavery to make you stray from the path on which HASHEM, you G-d, has commanded you to go; and you shall destroy the evil from your midst

 

The above word also applies to Jesus btw.

 

Miracles means nothing to the OT God, it is merely a test whether the believer would choose to follow the commandments of the God or other God(Jesus)

Of Prophets and Prophecy

[Guest Guest]

For all you know Paul was a test of god for the jews, ie whether they would remain faithful to God's Commandment in the OT

 

Deuteronomy 13:1

The entire word that I command you, that shall you observe to do; you shall not add to it and you shall not subtract from it. [2] If there should stand up in your midst a prophet or a dreamer of a dream, and he will produce to you a sign or a wonder, [3] and the sign or the wonder comes about, of which he spoke to you, saying "Let us follow gods of others that you did not know and we shall worship them!7quot; [4] do not hearken to the words of that prophet or to that dreamer of a dream, for HASHEM, your G-d, is testing you to know whether you love HASHEM, your G-d with all your heart and with all your soul. [5] HASHEM, your G-d, shall you follow and Him shall you fear; His commandments shall you observe and to His voice shall you hearken; Him shall you serve and to Him shall you cleave. [6] And that prophet and that dreamer of a dream shall be put to death, for he had spoken perversion against HASHEM, your G-d Who takes you out of the land of Egypt, and Who redeems you from the house of slavery to make you stray from the path on which HASHEM, you G-d, has commanded you to go; and you shall destroy the evil from your midst

 

The above word also applies to Jesus btw.

 

Miracles means nothing to the OT God, it is merely a test whether the believer would choose to follow the commandments of the God or other God(Jesus)

Of Prophets and Prophecy

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Awesome, no, totally awesome post Pritishd!

[Checkmate]

Lets speak about that. Would it be safe to say that the Bible we read, as far as us as people know, is comprised of the early church mainly formed through the works of Peter?

 

The answer is yes. The Bible we have acces to in mainstream America is the same context, meaning, and some literal of the on composed in the early forming of the church, upheld throught the Saints, mainly Peter.

 

The protestant movement is also formed around that same lineage of history of movement around the Word, yet is more based around the forming image and declaration from the Jews to others that believed in Christ, by Paul.

 

What is the right path of scripture?

 

The Protestant demoninations as we know them today use mainly the same Bible that was formed by the early church. The difference is the context taking from the Word to fit the need of the early Protestant movement, exampling Martin Luther.

..................

Alright, Yo-Yo. Let’s get something straight about this “same bible” issue.

 

The so-called “early church” (approximately 70 CE until 300 CE) and today’s Christians™ did NOT use the same bible! This is IMPOSSIBLE! Here is why:

 

1. The “early church” had NO established scriptures/canon. What writings they did possess were NOT universally accepted, (Shepherd of Hermas, 1 Clement, the Gospel of Thomas, etc.) nor were they available to each church. They depended almost entirely upon ORAL tradition, NOT writings.

 

2. Because of number 1, Emperor Constantine, in an effort to squash all the disparate “Christian” views, orchestrated the Council of Nicea in 325 CE. This Council of Bishops and Elders were to establish once and for all Christian doctrine and the canon of scripture.

 

3. This “Canon” (as well as church doctrine) has been in flux ever since and has NEVER been finalized between churches over the ages, even to this day! Catholics, Protestants, Coptics, Eastern Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, Baptists and so on, have their OWN “bibles” that they consider to be the “true” word of “god”. Some denominations accept the LXX (Septuagint/Greek OT), others do not. (BTW, the early church DID accept the LXX. So those who lay claim to believing as the early Christians did are LYING, IF they reject the LXX!) Even the so-called “perfect” 1611 Authorized King James bible underwent 7 or so revisions before it achieved it’s “perfection!” Including the elimination of the Apocrypha from its later revisions.

 

And speaking of the Apocrypha (“lost books” -- so misnamed by St. Jerome), these books were NOT fabricated by Catholics and ADDED to the bible. They were handed down from the "early church" as part of the LXX, PRESERVED by the Catholics, and subsequently REMOVED by the Protestants and Baptists.

 

Christians, your “bible” is NOT the inspired, inerrant word of “god”. It is a collection of books CHOSEN by man for their political value. The bible you have in your hand today is the result of one of two separate manuscript sources. Either the Alexandrian texts, or the Masoretic texts. And of course, NO ONE can agree on which of THESE are correct!

 

And IF you’re a King James ONLY fan, you must ask yourself some questions.

 

What did Christians do for nearly 1500 years BEFORE “god’s” word was “perfected” in the King James version? Were the books used before this IMPERFECT? If they were, then you’ve got REAL big problems.

 

Not the least of which being that the King James was predicated upon ALL those “false” bibles! The Vulgate, the Bishop’s Bible, Matthew Henry’s bible, the Williams’ Bible, the Wycliffe bible, the Geneva Bible, AND the Septuagint, were all used as source material by the King James translators.

 

Also, IF the preceding generations of Christians had the “wrong” word of “god”, then they must also have had the “wrong” faith! Therefore ALL the doctrinal foundations of the earlier Christians is WRONG!

 

(Funny factoid!: When this new “King James Bible” hit the streets in 1611, it was regarded as a “modern translation” and a “perversion” of god’s word! Nobody wanted to use it. The great John Calvin sneered at it, and his Geneva stuck with their own bible. The KJB was treated much like the NIV is treated today. Ha!)

 

I’m sure no Christian believes that his “bible” descended from “heaven”, leather bound and complete. However, from the assorted posts I’ve read, it appears that Christians are completely in the dark as to HOW they’ve gotten the Bible they cherish today! But you, Yo-Yo, seem to believe there is some unbroken chain of transmission of knowledge and letters from the “early church” until today.

 

Well, THAT is bull cookies. Christians have been picking and choosing and fighting over what IS and IS NOT scripture ever since the fourth century. And the dust hasn’t settled yet. So…why should I believe anything from THIS gaggle of fools? If they can’t agree on what is the “word of god”?

 

It’s a mess. There is NO “perfect”, “inspired” “word of god”. Anyone who believes there is, is simply uneducated on the facts.

 

Yo-Yo, PLEASE intelligently read and consider at least ONE of the posts that have attempted to correct you faulty view of bible lore! YOU are messing up here!