Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

If 'every' tongue shall confess "Jesus is Lord", will all be saved and does free-will exist?

page: 4
2
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Seede
 


You could start on revelation by considering why it was left out of the canon of the bible when it was first introduced...

Revelation was rejected by the church for the first 400 some odd years after the life of Jesus...

It was likely added because the book struck fear into the hearts of men...

And the church prays on fear of the unknown... always has





posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


Yep. My bible history book here says it wasn't accepted by those in charge of the church until ~500 AD .. and even then most of the people didn't buy into it. The church had to really push it. Even Polycarp didn't buy it at all. That's a pretty big name to be rejecting Revelation.



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 01:09 PM
link   
Just for reference... In case anyone thinks im making this up about revelation

CANON LX.

THESE are all the books of Old Testament appointed to be read: 1, Genesis of the world; 2, The Exodus from Egypt; 3, Leviticus; 4, Numbers; 5, Deuteronomy; 6, Joshua, the son of Nun; 7, Judges, Ruth; 8, Esther; 9, Of the Kings, First and Second; 10, Of the Kings, Third and Fourth; 11, Chronicles, First and Second; 12, Esdras, First and Second; 13, The Book of Psalms; 14, The Proverbs of Solomon; 15, Ecclesiastes; 16, The Song of Songs;17, Job; 18, The Twelve Prophets; 19, Isaiah; 20, Jeremiah, and Baruch, the Lamentations, and the Epistle; 21, Ezekiel; 22, Daniel.

And these are the books of the New Testament: Four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; The Acts of the Apostles; Seven Catholic Epistles, to wit, one of James, two of Peter, three of John, one of Jude; Fourteen Epistles of Paul, one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Galatians, one to the Ephesians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Hebrews, two to Timothy, one to Titus, and one to Philemon.


Notice... No revelation...



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 

You could start on revelation by considering why it was left out of the canon of the bible when it was first introduced...
You are talking about an inclusion by a council of the church in a canon.

The first council that accepted the present canon of the books of the New Testament may have been the Synod of Hippo Regius in North Africa (AD 393); the acts of this council, however, are lost. A brief summary of the acts was read at and accepted by the Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419. Revelation was added to the list in 419.[80] These councils were convened under the authority of St. Augustine, who regarded the canon as already closed.
en.wikipedia.org...
If you are talking about an official recognition, but not by a council resulting in a canon, then there is an earlier one.

Pope Damasus's commissioning of the Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible, c. 383, was instrumental in the fixation of the canon in the West.
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 





TextYou could start on revelation by considering why it was left out of the canon of the bible when it was first introduced... Revelation was rejected by the church for the first 400 some odd years after the life of Jesus... It was likely added because the book struck fear into the hearts of men... And the church prays on fear of the unknown... always has - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Yes you could start there but actually it is much more complicated than it appears to be.
To be more accurate we should start with the first and true church of Jesus. That church was the Jerusalem church which flourished up to about 69 to 70 CE. This true church was entirely Aramaic and Hebrew liturgy and the letters of the apostles were originally Hebrew and Aramaic. The Greek Hellenists were later admitted to the congregation and had no influence upon the origin or liturgy of the true church.

The letters of the apostles varied as to their dates of origin but it is believed that when the Gospels were gathered into one collection is when they were known as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John with Luke being separated from Acts and being shared as the third Gospel as with Luke. This true church of Jesus accepted the four (five) Gospels as one Gospel and was known as the first New Testament canon. In fact the Jerusalem church accepted Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts and John as one Gospel and even called them the gospel of Jesus.

As was said the Jerusalem church thrived to about 69 to 70 CE. This is when the church fled Jerusalem to avoid the wholesale murder that took place. After the sacking of Rome the church then returned and rebuilt the church. It then flourished till about 135 CE when Rome finally decimated Jerusalem and tried to destroy its very history. Meanwhile the New Testament Gospel was accepted and used by the Jerusalem church and considered the first canon of Christianity.

It was after Rome murdered the Jews and stole Christianity that we find the Roman Gentile Christians emerge at the end of the first century and beginning of the second century. The first list of New Testament books to be canonized was in (about) 140 CE. (Shortly after the mass murdering of Jerusalem) This list was proposed by Marcion who wanted the entire Old Testament and some of the proposed New Testament literature struck from the canon. At this time of 140 CE all Christian authority came from Rome.

Origen (185-254) mentions the four Gospel (s) (with Acts being separated) the thirteen Pauline letters, 1st John, and Revelation as acknowledged by Gentile Christianity. Hebrews, 2nd Peter, 2nd and 3rd John, James, Jude, Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, and the Gospel According to the Hebrews were being disputed by the Gentile church at this time.

As you can plainly see, it was not just to start with the book of Revelation that arguments were presented but to realize that even though the Roman church had accepted Revelation it was not canonized till all arguments ceased and votes counted. In fact history will confirm the fact that Revelation was generally accepted (by the early church fathers) long before the ten disputed letters as is listed above. Even before Peter (the vicar of Christ) was accepted. So to be fair we must consider canon with acceptance in determining valid scripture. What does that mean? That means that acceptance of literature is not universal and that through acceptance come doctrines and denominations and theological differences.



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 08:43 PM
link   
jmdewey60
reply to post by veteranhumanbeing

Vethumanbeing Why a hierarchy at all. I consider all people angels and representations of Gods intent.


jmdewy60I think it might be hypothetical more than anything else.
It's a way to visualize things to get certain points across.
People make things all ceremony and structured as a way to awe the masses, so you can have things like kings.That thing existing then becomes a language to describe things that really aren't exactly that way, but we don't have yet a commonly understandable way to describe otherwise.

I agree; the only problem is the information as to our truths (being) creation is known and not being shared. This should be first grade primer remedial reading. Why is it hidden; one has to be an anthropoligist, archeologist, theologian, genetisist to find the truth of our existance. There is that other thing, being a 'human lie detector' as well. I wont fall for the story that because we see an airplane in the sky it becomes as fokelore "a silver bird with fixed wings". Thanks for responding JD60.



posted on Mar, 25 2014 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Seede
 

It was after Rome murdered the Jews and stole Christianity that we find the Roman Gentile Christians emerge at the end of the first century and beginning of the second century.
The letter to the Romans by Paul was written before the gospels, and it was mainly written to the Roman gentiles, so they were not a later phenomenon.
There were plenty of Greek speaking Jews in Jerusalem at the time of Christ, and they had a very large synagogue in the city devoted to them specifically.
There is no evidence that Greek speaking Christians was a later development.
Greek was the lingua franca of the eastern Roman Empire.
Aramaic is just another name for Syrian, and is not somehow magically "Jewish".
No one spoke Hebrew outside of rabbinic schools, and that was another form of Hebrew and not Biblical Hebrew, which did not exist outside of the Bible itself.
I think you are just making up a pseudo history to suite your own inclinations, like some sort of misplaced loyalty towards Judaism, and a dislike of the Greek language and Greek speaking people in general.
edit on 26-3-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 12:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Seede
 

Origen (185-254) mentions the four Gospel (s) (with Acts being separated) the thirteen Pauline letters, 1st John, and Revelation as acknowledged by Gentile Christianity. Hebrews, 2nd Peter, 2nd and 3rd John, James, Jude, Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, and the Gospel According to the Hebrews were being disputed by the Gentile church at this time.
Origen was later declared a heretic.
My reading of his works leave me with the impression that he was quite mad.
I think that "the Gospel According to the Hebrews" is really a mythical thing that never existed but gave certain people an income, like the quest for the Holy Grail in later Medieval times.



posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 12:54 AM
link   
reply to post by vethumanbeing
 

I wont fall for the story that because we see an airplane in the sky it becomes as fokelore "a silver bird with fixed wings".
I have to make a conscious effort to detach myself from the mythological aspects of the Old Testament, since I was raised as basically a fundamentalist, and was up until quite recently.
I think it is psychologically quite unhealthy to take any of it at face value, or to subscribe to any of its values other than the ones that Jesus isolated and endorsed.



posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 





TextThe letter to the Romans by Paul was written before the gospels, and it was mainly written to the Roman gentiles, so they were not a later phenomenon.

The Corpus Paulinum or collection of Paul's writings was gathered into one fold at about the same time as the four letter Gospel was recognized but scholars do not know the exact dates of when each were originated. That would be impossible simply because we do not have the original letters. Paul's collection became known as Apostolos. The disputed Epistle to the Hebrews was assigned to Apostolos while Acts, which was severed from Luke, was assigned to the General Epistles. Out of the leading scholars there has been no agreement among them as to the dates of origin. You could argue this all day but the fact is that no one actually knows. Scholars have tried to date the Greek manuscripts which we have today by their historicity but nothing is set in stone.



TextThere were plenty of Greek speaking Jews in Jerusalem at the time of Christ, and they had a very large synagogue in the city devoted to them specifically.

Don't let your pride and ignorance rule the facts. The history of the first Jerusalem Church is well documented and it does not need me to defend its documentation. The first Christian church (congregation) was that group of souls who had met and received the Spirit of God which filled them with the power of Christ Jesus. These were Aramaic and Hebrew speaking people who also spoke Greek. Greek was the tongue of Rome at this time and while it is true that the general population spoke Greek, the devout Jews used their mother tongue of Aramaic and Hebrew. Aramaic and Hebrew were so closely related that if you understood one then you understood the other.

Jacob, the brother of Jesus, was surnamed James the Just and it was James the Just who was elected the first leader of the Jerusalem Ecclesia (Synagogue). This Christian organization was patterned after the Sanhedrin and James the Just was regarded as Nasi or President, This gave James the same power as a Christian as did the Sanhedrin's High Priest. The three leaders of the Christian church were James the Just as Nasi (President), Apostle Simon Peter as Sagan (Deputy to the Nasi), and Apostle John as the AB Beth-Din (Chief officer of the religious court). This was considered the leadership of the first Christian church. The lituirgy of this church was entirely Aramaic and Hdebrew. The Greek Hellenists were not considered as a member of this church.



TextNo one spoke Hebrew outside of rabbinic schools, and that was another form of Hebrew and not Biblical Hebrew, which did not exist outside of the Bible itself.

You have no conception of the truth. Read the following and learn the truth instead of wild tales told in ignorance.

Act_21:40 And when he had given him licence, Paul stood on the stairs, and beckoned with the hand unto the people. And when there was made a great silence, he spake unto them in the Hebrew tongue, saying,

Act_22:2 (And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue, they kept the more silence: and he saith,)

Act_26:14 And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

Now tell me jmdewey, are you trying to tell people that Paul was jabbering in Hebrew to a Greek audience who did not understand Hebrew? You said that only the rabbinical authorities used Hebrew. Are you completely out of reality? You still do not understand and are so blinded by hate that I doubt that you will ever understand. Can you realize that Jesus also spoke Aramaic even on the cross. The scriptures as well as outside literature confirms this and your Anti Semitic rants will not correct your lack of knowledge.



posted on Mar, 26 2014 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Seede
 

The history of the first Jerusalem Church is well documented and it does not need me to defend its documentation.
Could you at least cite the supposed documents?
I'm guessing that there isn't any, other than the Book of Acts, which was written a hundred tears after the time that the things in them supposedly took place, and was written by someone not that familiar with the culture as it existed in the time-frame of the history that he is trying to describe.

You could argue this all day but the fact is that no one actually knows. Scholars have tried to date the Greek manuscripts which we have today by their historicity . . .
It makes sense that Paul was writing when he was actively evangelizing. The gospels have internal evidence that supports a later date to their being written, towards the end of the lives of the actual original Apostles.

Aramaic and Hebrew were so closely related that if you understood one then you understood the other.
I don't know where you got that idea from.The Torah readings had to be translated by Meturgemans for the audience who were Aramaic speakers.

Now tell me jmdewey, are you trying to tell people that Paul was jabbering in Hebrew to a Greek audience who did not understand Hebrew?
The writer of Acts was equating the way that Jews spoke Aramaic, with "Hebrew".

. . . Jesus also spoke Aramaic even on the cross. The scriptures as well as outside literature confirms this . . .
He spoke a few words, that is not unexpected, living not far away from those who spoke that language. Jesus grew up in Egypt, where he would have spoken Greek.
And what "outside literature" are you referring to?
edit on 26-3-2014 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2014 @ 12:11 AM
link   
jmdewey60
reply to post by veteranhumanbeing

VHBI wont fall for the story that because we see an airplane in the sky it becomes as fokelore "a silver bird with fixed wings".


Jmdewey60 I have to make a conscious effort to detach myself from the mythological aspects of the Old Testament, since I was raised as basically a fundamentalist, and was up until quite recently. I think it is psychologically quite unhealthy to take any of it at face value, or to subscribe to any of its values other than the ones that Jesus isolated and endorsed.

I was raised as an anglosaxon Episcopalian so you have my sympathies. I had to wade through perceived or indoctinized truths to get to the real truths involving a detachment of sorts; a better realization as this upbringing was just a springboard..









 
2
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join