Why books were left out of the bible?

Originally posted by ScienceDada
70 were appointed by Christ, not just Peter.

I didn't mean to imply Peter was the only one, but the number you've presented here is new to me. How did you arrive at it?

Originally posted by ScienceDada
You evaded the question: How then does one determine who has authority and who does not?

There is only One authority, my friend. Paul explains that one should subject themselves to the rulings of the church in matters of dispute. One should subject themselves. This takes maturity and humility, not force.

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by ScienceDada
And Paul submits to Anias the High Priest in the kangaroo court.

Uh...what?

Acts 23

Paul does not follows them, is subserviant to them or is their worker. He 'submits' because of scripture which says, "for it is written: 'Do not speak evil about the ruler of your people", so his servanthood is because of this, not merely because of who the priest is. In fact in this very discourse, he states, "However, I admit that I worship the God of our fathers as a follower of the Way, which they call a sect. I believe everything that agrees with the Law and that is written in the Prophets, and I have the same hope in God as these men, that there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked. So I strive always to keep my conscience clear before God and man."

"Paul answered: "I am now standing before Caesar's court, where I ought to be tried. I have not done any wrong to the Jews, as you yourself know very well. If, however, I am guilty of doing anything deserving death, I do not refuse to die."

"On one of these journeys I was going to Damascus with the authority and commission of the chief priests. About noon, O king, as I was on the road, I saw a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, blazing around me and my companions. We all fell to the ground, and I heard a voice saying to me in Aramaic, 'Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.'

"Then I asked, 'Who are you, Lord?'

" 'I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,' the Lord replied. 'Now get up and stand on your feet. I have appeared to you to appoint you as a servant and as a witness of what you have seen of me and what I will show you. I will rescue you from your own people and from the Gentiles. I am sending you to them to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.'

"So then, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the vision from heaven. First to those in Damascus, then to those in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and to the Gentiles also, I preached that they should repent and turn to God and prove their repentance by their deeds. That is why the Jews seized me in the temple courts and tried to kill me. But I have had God's help to this very day, and so I stand here and testify to small and great alike. I am saying nothing beyond what the prophets and Moses said would happen— that the Christ would suffer and, as the first to rise from the dead, would proclaim light to his own people and to the Gentiles."

At this point Festus interrupted Paul's defense. "You are out of your mind, Paul!" he shouted. "Your great learning is driving you insane."

"I am not insane, most excellent Festus," Paul replied. "What I am saying is true and reasonable. The king is familiar with these things, and I can speak freely to him. I am convinced that none of this has escaped his notice, because it was not done in a corner. King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know you do."

Then Agrippa said to Paul, "Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?"

Paul replied, "Short time or long—I pray God that not only you but all who are listening to me today may become what I am, except for these chains."

The king rose, and with him the governor and Bernice and those sitting with them. They left the room, and while talking with one another, they said, "This man is not doing anything that deserves death or imprisonment."

In review of the above, I'd like the reader to simply read and decide for themselves what is going on here. If it's a little unclear, reading the whole of Acts is a help. For those seeking additional info, Paul WAS a member of the Sanhedrin, but AFTER being convicted by Christ, he now followed, served and was subject to Jesus' command. THIS is who's authority Paul submits to.

Originally posted by ScienceDada
He also allows many to leave him when he says, "eat of my flesh and drink of my blood" without trying to clarify anything.

Do you really believe Jesus 'turned people away' by this teaching?

"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him," - John 6:44

Is he telling the truth here?

Originally posted by ScienceDada
Read chapter 6 in the Gospel of John. The Church has always interpreted this in a very literal way, and I challenge you to find any Christian writers who do not support the literal view of the Lord's Supper.

I know not one protestant who has written or believed in literally eating Christ in order to be saved. The only ones I know of that believe in Eucharist/Transmutation are Catholic:

"In 1965, Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I of Constantinople lifted mutual excommunications dating from the eleventh century, and in 1995, Pope John Paul II and Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople concelebrated the Eucharist together. John Paul II, the first Slavic pope, has made the reconciliation of Eastern and Western Christendom a special theme of his pontificate, and he has released a large number of documents and addresses honoring the contributions of Eastern Christendom and seeking to promote unity between Catholics and Orthodox. " - www.catholic.com...

I'm sure many have wondered if only those who have literally eaten Christ would be saved. If so, how can they do so now that he's in heaven? I'd also ask how the criminal on the cross was saved if he died before eating Christ.

Many people read ths: "While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body." - Matthew 26:26

And believe that his physical body did not disappear and become absorbed into the bread. Or,

"And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me." - Luke 22:19

Take note that the word is 'rememberance'. The bread is a foreshadow of his body that he gave on the cross.

Originally posted by ScienceDada
So, these words are spirit and literal. What then? Who has the authority?

God alone has the authority and Christ is our great high priest.

"Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has gone through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess." - Hebrews 4:14

"And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven." - Matthew 23:9


[edit on 22-9-2008 by saint4God]

Originally posted by ScienceDada
The assertion that what is addressed to the Church as a whole applies to an individual is an opinion which leads to schism.

So on judgement day, you're under the impression that entire churches will be let in while entire churches will be kept out?

Originally posted by ScienceDada
The Church holds that this is a mystery and that we are not to judge others. It is "above my pay grade" to say who is going to Hell; it is equally judgmental for me to say who is going to heaven. But the Church does teach that we will be surprised at the diversity we will find there. That is good enough for me.

If there's diversity, then how will some whole bodies of churches be there and whole church bodies be missing? I seem to remember something about every tribe, every tongue and every nation, but it's not in the cherry-pickers edition of The Bible.

Originally posted by ScienceDada
I am not generating opinions, nor am I inciting divisions. Therefore the word heresy does not apply to me. Check what I say. It is scriptural (albeit, not a typical Protestant interpretation).

Then I mean the response to whoever you're parroting.

Originally posted by ScienceDada
You and I both know that Protestant Bible study is always accompanied with interpretation. In fact, typical practice is to read, then immediately to have either the leader expound on the meaning (regardless of the substance or correctness) or to ask "what does this mean to you?" and have those present expound on their own interpretations.

Having a viewpoint or understanding is not the same as interpreting. In fact, saying "what does it mean to you" is exactly what we all should be asking ourselves when reading the Bible because it should not be filtered through a single individual who says, "This is what this verse means to you." See the difference?

Originally posted by ScienceDada
I thought you might kick back on this. If you think that the Apocalypse of John is going to win any debates, then that Hammer will come back to hit you. I, in turn, reserve the right to quote the Church Fathers (consistent wit the historical interpretations by Church Councils) to make a point (which I have avoided doing) and I will quote Church councils as authoritative in the same way that the Epistles in the New Testament Canon. It was though a series of Church councils that established the Canon, and the councils were equally authoritative.

Quote whatever you want, I was just pointing out the inequality of your 'rules of discussion'. I'm not a fan of double standards and will point out whenever anyone uses them.

[edit on 22-9-2008 by saint4God]

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by ScienceDada
70 were appointed by Christ, not just Peter.

I didn't mean to imply Peter was the only one, but the number you've presented here is new to me. How did you arrive at it?

Luke 10

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by ScienceDada
You evaded the question: How then does one determine who has authority and who does not?

There is only One authority, my friend. Paul explains that one should subject themselves to the rulings of the church in matters of dispute. One should subject themselves. This takes maturity and humility, not force.

And yet, so many things that the Church has ruled upon are ignored, especially by Protestants. The ironic thing is that the Canon of the scriptures was not agreed upon for many years. Yet the same Councils that decided the canon also ruled on many other things. We can discuss these if you wish.

(ScienceDada) And Paul submits to Anias the High Priest in the kangaroo court.
(saint4God)Uh...what?
(ScienceDada)Acts 23
(saint4God)Paul does not follows them, is subserviant to them or is their worker.

Then the Church has no authority. How then do the Church councils have the authority to set a scriptural canon? This shoots yourself in the foot, no?

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by ScienceDada
He also allows many to leave him when he says, "eat of my flesh and drink of my blood" without trying to clarify anything.

Do you really believe Jesus 'turned people away' by this teaching?

It says they were offended and left him that day and didn't return. He didn't try to stop them and they said they could not bare his teaching. Read the scriptures. If it were a misunderstanding, neither he nor his disciples tried to stop them or clarify the teaching.

And how did the Early Christians speak of the Eucharist?

Originally posted by saint4God"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him," - John 6:44
Is he telling the truth here?

Of course He was.

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by ScienceDada
Read chapter 6 in the Gospel of John. The Church has always interpreted this in a very literal way, and I challenge you to find any Christian writers who do not support the literal view of the Lord's Supper.

I know not one protestant who has written or believed in literally eating Christ in order to be saved. The only ones I know of that believe in Eucharist/Transmutation are Catholic:

First off, Pope John Paul II and Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople did not commune together. I suppose I do not know what point you are making here.

Second, Martin Luther believed in the real presence. Transubstantiation is a theologically loaded term. The real presence in the Eucharist was held by the early Christians. It is consistent with the scriptures. To say otherwise was condemned by the same Councils which you point to for declaring the canon of the scriptures.

Originally posted by saint4GodI'm sure many have wondered if only those who have literally eaten Christ would be saved. If so, how can they do so now that he's in heaven? I'd also ask how the criminal on the cross was saved if he died before eating Christ.

The same way as with the works argument. God isn't confined in some theological box.

You say that it is Christ who has authority... and this is true. But people also fell at the Apostle's feet. They had authority to proclaim the word, to heal, to cast out demons, and many such things. So Christ wasn't the only one with authority since he gave it to others.

You quote Christ saying "do not call anyone on earth father" yet Paul refers to himself in this very way to Timothy. Did Paul not know Christ's words?

Originally posted by saint4God
So on judgement day, you're under the impression that entire churches will be let in while entire churches will be kept out?

I am saying that there will be people there who we do not expect to see. In the sense that you mean, whole Churches may be absent, yes. Additionally, there will be people who are not "christian." It is a mystery because salvation is a mystery. I do not presume to judge these matters.

Originally posted by saint4God
I seem to remember something about every tribe, every tongue and every nation, but it's not in the cherry-pickers edition of The Bible.

There will be. Literally.

Originally posted by saint4God
Then I mean the response to whoever you're parroting.

Parroting is quite a derogatory term, but I suppose it is true. Lord help me if I introduce original thoughts because I have not been given the authority, nor new revelation. Thus, nothing that I say should be new or innovative. That is kinda the point.

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by ScienceDada
You and I both know that Protestant Bible study is always accompanied with interpretation.

Having a viewpoint or understanding is not the same as interpreting. In fact, saying "what does it mean to you" is exactly what we all should be asking ourselves when reading the Bible because it should not be filtered through a single individual who says, "This is what this verse means to you." See the difference?

Well, then "The Bible" is ambiguous, because it means different things to different people, and to some it means nothing at all. In then end, we all "do what is right in our own eyes" which is the scriptural definition of lawlessness. If your interpretations do not align with those who were taught by Christ and the Apostles themselves, then how you can possibly claim to gather meaning at all, especially from a book as obscured as The Apocalypse of John? Reading meaning into the scriptures is exactly interpretation.

Originally posted by saint4God
Quote whatever you want, I was just pointing out the inequality of your 'rules of discussion'. I'm not a fan of double standards and will point out whenever anyone uses them.

That is fine, but double-standards go two ways. You cannot make the argument that "books are not in the Bible because they are not scriptural" as it is circular reasoning. So, if you try to bat away quotes because they are "not scriptural" this is equally a double-standard for this thread.

As long as is agreed, then there is no problem. If it is a problem, then perhaps you need to examine your own double-standards.

reply to post by jhill76


I do not believe there are any "lost" books of the Bible.

The whole question of lost books of the Bible hinges on what the Bible is. Now the Bible can only be two things. What is it that we mean when we use the word "Bible"? Well, a Bible is either God's supernatural Word -- God supernaturally oversees its production and its care. Or it 's a statement of beliefs of the leaders of Christianity. They say "this represents what we believe." Disregarding any supernatural element, it's based on consensus. Let's just say we're the only Christians in the world. We say we believe in these things, but we don't believe these other things so throw them out because they don't reflect what we believe. Any group has the right to determine what it is they believe.

Now, notice that there are two ways of looking at this: a supernatural or natural perspective. I would contend that there are no other ways of looking at this question; no other options. No matter who you are out there you either think of the Bible as being God's inspired Word (most of the conservative Christian world holds this view, in some form), or the Bible is merely the statement of beliefs of the early church, without any supernatural content. Pretty much the rest of the world looks at it this way.

www.str.org...

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
The whole question of lost books of the Bible hinges on what the Bible is. Now the Bible can only be two things. What is it that we mean when we use the word "Bible"? Well, a Bible is either God's supernatural Word -- God supernaturally oversees its production and its care. Or it 's a statement of beliefs of the leaders of Christianity.

These are not the only two options. Also, it doesn't define what "God's word" means.

Even if Athanasius is taken at this word, the scriptures are the ruler why which all others are measured, that does not mean that they are the only representations of the word of God. For what does he write?

Forasmuch as some have taken in hand to reduce into order for themselves the books termed apocryphal, and to mix them up with the divinely inspired Scripture, concerning which we have been fully persuaded, as they who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word, delivered to the fathers; it seemed good to me also, having been urged thereto by true brethren, and having learned from the beginning, to set before you the books included in the Canon, and handed down, and accredited as Divine; to the end that any one who has fallen into error may condemn those who have led him astray; and that he who has continued stedfast in purity may again rejoice, having these things brought to his remembrance.

Athanasius is reporting the Tradition of the Church through the Church Fathers. And this was not the Universal position of the Fathers; rather, this is a loose consensus which is gaining momentum in the later half of the 300's. In fact, Eusebius reports many of these books are controversial about 40 years earlier.

Athanasius also says that several writings are not "the ruler" by which others be measured (kanon), but should still be read, especially to those converting to Christianity:
* Didache (Teaching of the Twelve Apostles)
* the Shepherd (Hermas)
* the Wisdom of Solomon
* the Wisdom of Sirach
* Esther
* Judith
* Tobit

Note that he does not consider Esther as canonical, but Baruch he does. But even more importantly, Athanasius considers the Council of Nicea to be God inspired, especially the statement of faith, which was held on the same level as the Holy Scriptures in terms of inspiration and authority.

Also important to mention is that Athanasius was the Pope of Alexandria, so he did not speak for the whole Church, just as the Pope of Rome did not speak for the whole Church. This letter was to those under the jurisdiction of Alexandria.

So, the argument you cite above is a false dichotomy, and imposes a structure and expectation on the scriptures that was not held by the Church Fathers.

I don't care what the church fathers held, they were men. I'm a FIRM believer in the providence of God, also a FIRM believer in his omnipotence.

He told us He would preserve His Word. I believe He has the power to do just that.

I trust NO man, only the Word of God. Now, those books are valuable to Christians, but they aren't canon. No one said these books shouldn't be written, but if they aren't canon, they are not the inspired words of our living God. They are words of man.

Out of Alexandria came the perverted Septuagint, I'm NOT fond of Egypt.

Brother, did you read the essay I posted a link to? That is a MUST read for any Bible loving Christian. Please read it, it will only take about 2 hours of your time, but it's a must read to understand why some books are rejected, why some Greek was rejected.

Please read it.

Here

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
I don't care what the church fathers held, they were men. I'm a FIRM believer in the providence of God, also a FIRM believer in his omnipotence.

Please read it.

Here

I can read it as I have time. I have read loads on KJV-only from both sides, so I would be surprised if there is anything there that is substantial which I haven't heard before. I will try to find 2 hours to read it, to be respectful. However, in skimming the text, here are some key arguments that I would like to address:

Therefore, we can have confidence in the Massoretic Old Testament text

This is still putting faith in men. Why should I believe what the Masoretes did any more than the Church? Even the dead sea scrolls show the deficiencies in the Masoretic text. One very interesting point is the omission by the Masoretes of the "raise the dead" text in Isaiah that was preserved in the Dead Sea codex. Christ refers to this in Matt 11:5, xref Luke 7:22.

The last of the Apostles to pass away was John. His death is usually placed about 100 A.D. In his closing days he co-operated in collecting and forming of those writings we call the New Testament

Show evidence of this. I have looked, and it didn't happen. This is a Protestant fabrication (i.e., a lie).

We now have about 5,000 manuscripts of the New Testament. These manuscripts were written in Greek. And, as we have said earlier; the Greek Text used in the King James Bible, agrees with 90-95% of these 5,000 manuscripts.

Most of these fragments are much later than 300 A.D. and are Byzantine texts. I have no problem with that, but to someone who wants to point to very early evidence of the scripture, it is a problem. The earliest extant texts do not have the Trinitarian proof passages, and are also missing the end of Mark.

The arguments that surround the Received Text and its use are weak from the fundamentalist point of view, because it starts with the very point it seeks to prove, i.e. that the Bible is God's word and the basis for the Church. Then necessarily, God would need to preserve His word in order to protect the foundation of the Christian faith from crumbling. Therefore the Bible is the basis for the Christian faith and has perfectly been preserved in the Received Text.

This whole argument crumbles when actual history is analyzed, because the Bible was not the basis for the Church, in the very least during the lifetimes of the Apostles. The Early Christian writers quote from the canoncial and non-canonical texts alike; they also assert things were essential to the faith that have been rejected by Biblical fundamentalists. One such thing is the real presence in the Eucharist. Perhaps the clearest writing on this subject is from 150 A.D. where Justin speaks of the practices in the Apology to the Emperor:

And this food is called among us Eucharista, of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;" and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood;" and gave it to them alone.

Justin died for this faith. There are others that write of these things, but Justin's was very direct, not speaking to a believer, and was very early.

So, who understands what the scriptures mean? Men 1600 years later rebelling against a corrupt Roman Catholic Church, or men taught by the Apostles who were tortured and killed for this faith? Or was it rather the corrupt Jewish hierarchy that was hunting down Christians and having them murdered, who measurably omitted scriptural text?

I want to make a statement here for all on the forum to read, because I am obviously ruffling some feathers.

I am not trying to train-wreck anybody's faith. Seriously. And it would be a sin for me to cause anybody else to stumble. I mean this from the bottom of my heart. So please, to not take what I write as a personal attack, nor as an attack on Christianity as a whole, nor Protestantism as "evil."

I am simply debating the issue of what "The Bible" actually is. Period.

I am one who thrives on consistency, and when the evidence is inconsistent, I feel an obligation to address that inconsistency. Ultimately, I have faith in Christ and that his scriptures are consistent, that the Church is consistent. Otherwise, how true it is that we are to be pitied above all men.

saint4God, NOTurTypical, and others I have engaged in debate with in the past have tried to figure out just where the heck this stuff I come up with comes from, because I sound like a mix between some crazy hybrid "Biblical fundamentalist, Cathlic, conspiracy theorist schizophrenic" who at one minute says something so right, then the next pipes up with some obnoxiously out-of-left-field remark that is so wrong. I am certain that this is unnerving.

The irony of the whole thread is that I believe that the canonical scriptures are inspired by God. So let me make one thing abundantly clear! This is the faith that was handed down by the Apostles, and has been held by the Church throughout the ages. It was affirmed by individuals and Councils.

What I am debating here is what inspired actually means, both as a term and what logically follows. This is the pivotal point in the argument. The opinion that most Protestants have fallen into is that the scriptures are inspired and that effectively puts Christianity into a book (or as I commonly say, "a box") and is effectively worshiped as any idol. Having God nailed down by text in a book gives "Bible thumpers" a position of power... many of them recognize this, as it gives victory over Satan, but many also use it to abuse others.

The Church, while holding that the canonical scriptures are inspired, never limited the Christian faith to the pages of "The Bible." The Protestant attitude toward non-canonical scriptures is not Christian, and I use The Shepherd (Hermas) as a very good illustration of why, because it was widely regarded by the Early Christians, many of whom said it was inspired. I personally hold this view. The reason why it is not in the canon is because it was not authored by an Apostle. Period. But from a Protestant point of view, this is very troublesome, because it does not support the Protestant tradition (but rather it exposes it as a tradition of men) which is very uncomfortable to many. One of these is Sola Fide (i.e., salvation by faith alone).

What I am doing here is likely perceived by many as sacrilege. But I will not lie, and the evidence for things like "the four spiritual laws" and "the five points of Calvinism" are that these are traditions of men, not of Christ nor his Apostles. Please keep this in mind when reading my posts, because it may clarify why I am even bothering to write.

In the Authorized King James Bible the Old Testament comes from a
Hebrew text called the 'Massoretic Text'; and, the New Testament comes
from a Greek text called the 'Textus Receptus'.

Do you disagree?

MANY PEOPLE ASSUME THAT MODERN VERSIONS ARE SIMPLY WORDING 'UPDATES' TO THE SAME HEBREW AND GREEK TEXTS (i.e. updates to the Massoretic Text and updates to the Textus Receptus).

Agree or disagree?

As to the Old Testament, we learn that: "The NKJV and all new
versions have abandoned the Traditional Hebrew, Ben Chayyim Massoretic
Text, and follow Rudolph Kittel's 1937 corruption, Biblia Hebraica ..."

Disagree? Are you aware of this? Let's examine who Rudolph Kittel is, and REMEMBER: "No evil tree can bring forth good fruit, and no good tree can bring forth evil fruit." Contrast that passage by our Lord with this next bit of information:

Rudolph Kittel was "... a German rationalistic higher
critic ... [who rejected] Biblical inerrancy and [was] firmly devoted
to evolutionism". And the younger Kittel (Gerhard Kittel) was
the chief architect of Hitler's anti-semitism. It was Gerhard Kittel who
made the extermination of Jews "theologically respectable".

Yeah, let's trust that man to bring us the "true" Hebrew scriptures. NOT!

There are more than 110 versions of the Bible on the shelves today, ONLY 1 version uses the Textus Recepticus Greek, the KJV. EVERY single modern translation uses the Westcott and Hort Greek text.

Who were Westcott and Hort? They were two satanists, both were involved in the Theosophy Society of Russia, Westcott also formed the Hermes Club.

Are we to truly believe satanists to tell us what the Greek means? God forbid ScienceDada, absolutely NOT!

When this Westcott and Hort Greek text is compared with the more than
5,000 known Greek New Testament manuscripts, it is found to DIS-AGREE
with them in 90-95% of the cases!

Hmmmm, that's odd don't you think?

When the Textus Receptus is compared with the 5,000 known Greek New
Testament manuscripts, it is found to AGREE with them in 90-95% of the
cases.

Rudolph Kittel's corrupted O.T. text and Westcott and Hort's
corrupted N.T. text form the basis for more than 110 'modern' versions.

Hmm, interesting.

You don't like the the Massoretes?? That's odd to me brother, these scribes were the FIRST to standardize the Hebrew text. The FIRST. I'm sure you know of the exhausting lengths they took to copy these Hebrew books, they couldn't even use the wrong ink, the wrong paper, even mess up a single "title", or the work was rejected.

"The Jews cherished the highest awe and veneration for their sacred
writings which they regarded as the 'Oracles of God'. They maintained
that God had more care of the letters and syllables of the Law than of
the stars of heaven, and that upon each tittle of it, mountains of
doctrine hung ... In the transcription of an authorized synagogue
manuscript, rules were enforced of the minutest character. The copyist
must write with a particular ink, on a particular parchment. He must
write in so many columns, of such a size, and containing just so many
lines and words. No word to be written without previously looking at the
original. The copy, when completed, must be examined and compared within
thirty days; if four errors were found on one parchment; the examination
went no farther - the whole was rejected"

How can you say 300AD? The Greek Vulgate was translated into Syrian at Antioch in 150 AD, and we learn in Acts that the church at Antioch was the church of the first "Christians". This translation from the Greek Vulgate into Syrian was called the 'Pe#ta Bible'.

"The Pe#ta Syriac version agrees closely with the Traditional text
found in the vast majority of the Greek New Testament manuscripts ..."
and he says: "... the Pe#ta was regarded as one of the most important
witnesses to the antiquity of the Traditional text"

Why is this critically important?

The statement above is VERY, VERY, important. The original reason
(i.e. excuse) given by Westcott and Hort to make a 'new' (i.e.
corrupted) Greek New Testament was that the Textus Receptus did not date
back to the early manuscripts. The quote above shows the 'Traditional
Majority Text', i.e. the text used in the King James Bible, dates back
to the early Syrian Church, and thus to the earliest manuscripts.

It used to be that: "... some scholars of the nineteenth century
believed that the 'Majority Text' was a fourth century recension and did
not represent the earliest manuscripts ... This [theory] has been
abandoned by most present day scholars".

Isn't it appropriate that the Traditional Majority Text can be
traced back to the early Church in Syria. I say this because it was in
Syria, specifically at Antioch the capital of Syria, where believers
were first called 'Christians'! ( Acts 11:26 ).

Now, please read my study I linked, don't take here and there from it brother, agree to suspend your judgment and look at it. That's what we all MUST do, to constantly examine ourselves, to rightly divide the Word of Truth, and to consider all me liars.

All men make mistakes, even the Apostles, Paul rebuked Peter on a certain issue, consider all men liars, and cling to the Word of God. God is omnipotent, if he can part the Red Sea, raise His Son from the Dead, and doesn't allow even a sparrow to fall from the sky without His blessing, He MOST CERTAINLY can preserve His word.

There is a reason the early church rejected the Greek from Alexandria Egypt, it's because it was heretical.

www.jesus-is-lord.com...

Come on dude, read the WHOLE study, I'm going no where, you can comment back to me when you have finished it. I'll still be here I assure you.

reply to post by ScienceDada


Lemme ask you a Q...

Did the thief on the cross have anything other than Sola Fide?

I'm not sure, but I think it's safe to say he never received a baptism or communion while hanging on the cross.

His faith that Jesus Christ was the Son of God and had the power to save him was all he needed.

Tell me when this thief was baptized or partook of communion and I'll reject my belief in Sola Fide.



[edit on 23-9-2008 by NOTurTypical]

In the Authorized King James Bible the Old Testament comes from a Hebrew text called the 'Massoretic Text'; and, the New Testament comes from a Greek text called the 'Textus Receptus'.

Do you disagree?

Agree.

MANY PEOPLE ASSUME THAT MODERN VERSIONS ARE SIMPLY WORDING 'UPDATES' TO THE SAME HEBREW AND GREEK TEXTS (i.e. updates to the Massoretic Text and updates to the Textus Receptus).

Agree or disagree?

Disagree. All translation has depended on previous translations. This includes the Septuagint(s), Vulgate, Geneva Bible, KJV, American Standard, NASB, NIV, etc. That is how translators operate, and they typically do not simply update a text. What you say is true of the NKJV only.

It is difficult to describe without a familiarity with the languages. I will try in another posting to give a feel for what I am talking about.

As to the Old Testament, we learn that: "The NKJV and all new versions have abandoned the Traditional Hebrew, Ben Chayyim Massoretic Text, and follow Rudolph Kittel's 1937 corruption, Biblia Hebraica ..."

Disagree?

The Masoretes and their text are fine. It is only in the jots and tiddles that this argument matters. Christianity transcends the text.

My translation was on the Masoretic texts. Discoveries such as the Dead Sea Scrolls make the argument moot. Were their texts perfect? No. Is Kittel's text perfect? No. Does it really matter? Not really.

The KJV text was a politically motivated translation to improve on the Bishop's Bible. Many Anabaptists rejected it in favor of the Geneva Bible.

The argument really focuses on the notion that God would not allow the Textus Receptus to be corrupted. Because if the Church is based on the scriptures, and the contents are corrupted, then the Church and the Christian faith have been corrupted. It is an understandable argument, but it is also not true, because the Church was not based on the scriptures in this way. So, from that point of view, the argument is irrelevant.

This may be a difficult thing to accept, but the Byzantine texts do not agree with the earliest texts in several

There are more than 110 versions of the Bible on the shelves today, ONLY 1 version uses the Textus Recepticus Greek, the KJV. EVERY single modern translation uses the Westcott and Hort Greek text.

Then go to other texts. The message really isn't changed. A lot of issues were as a result of scribal error. Does this propagate in a text family? Yes. It does not have to be malicious.

There are issues of in-text glosses, scribal methods, and even smears on the paper due to sweating! To agonize over a few letters or words here-and-there is very error-prone.

When this Westcott and Hort Greek text is compared with the more than 5,000 known Greek New Testament manuscripts, it is found to DIS-AGREE with them in 90-95% of the cases!

That is because more weight is given to the older manuscripts. The bulk of the Greek texts are later manuscripts. If you find two given manuscripts that were copied by hand over generations, weight is typically given to the older text unless there is reason not to do so.

You don't like the the Massoretes?? That's odd to me brother, these scribes were the FIRST to standardize the Hebrew text. The FIRST. I'm sure you know of the exhausting lengths they took to copy these Hebrew books, they couldn't even use the wrong ink, the wrong paper, even mess up a single "title", or the work was rejected.

Standardization meant that you had dozens of little Wescott and Horts synchronizing the Hebrew and adding vowel-points in interpretation of ambiguities. These occurred between 500-1000 A.D. by men who had rejected Christ and had a theological axe to grind in this respect. I do not place my faith in the Massoretes, no. The Dead Sea Scrolls are to be preferred to the Massoretic text.

But even from the standpoint that other factors are considered, why not the Samaritan Pentateuch? When the woman at the well raises the differences in the texts where the Samaritans argue over the worship in Jerusalem vs. Mount Gerazim, what does Christ say? He basically tells her it is irrelevant because the time is coming when His followers will worship in spirit and in truth. And since the Old Covenant has been fulfilled, it is really irrelevant.

Also look at the arguments revolving around the Pesh-itta and the Received Text. The Pesh-itta is a Syriac text, and some have even tried to argue about that text family (as you raise the issue). But then you just transfer the problem. Which Pesh-itta texts do we use? Murdock then is villified along with Wescott and Hort.

To drive this point home even further, Papias wrote that Matthew originally penned his Gospel in his native tongue (Aramaic) so the Syriac translation of this would likely preserve more of the message than the Greek translation would.

But in the end, the letter kills but the spirit gives life.

The statement above is VERY, VERY, important. The original reason
(i.e. excuse) given by Westcott and Hort to make a 'new' (i.e.
corrupted) Greek New Testament was that the Textus Receptus did not date
back to the early manuscripts.

This is not so. Early unicals and miniscules are used by people like Wescott and Hort. Often, these arguments revolve around this ambiguous term "early" which often means before the year 1200 or something like that. Let us instead define early to mean "500 A.D." and all of a sudden the KJV-only arguments really fall apart. Again, the concept is that God would not allow any text family to be corrupted because "The Bible" is the basis for Christianity.

The quote above shows the 'Traditional Majority Text', i.e. the text used in the King James Bible, dates back to the early Syrian Church, and thus to the earliest manuscripts.

The Received Text is Byzantine type. It was propagated through the Byzantine Church, of which the Reformers rejected the Tradition as they did the Roman Catholic Church. And the arguments still are an appeal to the goodness of God to not allow the Received Text to see corruption, despite being in such an "evil empire." But the facts do not support this model. I am sorry, but it is the truth.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Lemme ask you a Q...
Did the thief on the cross have anything other than Sola Fide?

Christ knows the heart, and it is not for me to judge.

Also true: exceptions don't make the rules. But faith without works is not faith. The Bible as a whole attests to this fact. Both are necessary as the rule, and James the Brother of the Lord expounds on this at length in his epistle.

So then, should we demote James as Martin Luther attempted to do? Or do all the writings of the scriptures hold equal weight? Even Christ taught that we are judged by our works. And what was the work of the thief on the cross? He was limited, but had he gotten down and lived, I have little doubt that this works would have followed.

We have already discussed these points in previous postings. Do you wish to comment on them?

Originally posted by ScienceDada

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Lemme ask you a Q...
Did the thief on the cross have anything other than Sola Fide?

Christ knows the heart, and it is not for me to judge.

Also true: exceptions don't make the rules. But faith without works is not faith. The Bible as a whole attests to this fact. Both are necessary as the rule, and James the Brother of the Lord expounds on this at length in his epistle.

So then, should we demote James as Martin Luther attempted to do? Or do all the writings of the scriptures hold equal weight? Even Christ taught that we are judged by our works. And what was the work of the thief on the cross? He was limited, but had he gotten down and lived, I have little doubt that this works would have followed.

We have already discussed these points in previous postings. Do you wish to comment on them?

There is a huge difference between works and salvation, salvation is through the shed blood of Jesus Christ, offered as a free girt to those who accept is as payment for the sins they owe.

Works are "proof" to another man that a person has faith, God requires no works for salvation. Romans 4:5:

"But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness."

Now, works are judged for crowns or rewards, but there are 2 judgments, the judgment of the condemned, and the judgment of the believers. No one at the first judgment has his or her name written in the book of life, the second judgment is for those in heaven, believers, where their works are judged.

It's very important not to mix the two up. Salvation is NOT faith + works, that's a damnable heresy, salvation is by grace through faith alone. Rewards from our Lord are based on works, but none at that particular judgment are condemned to hell, but there will be great sorrow and weeping when other believers have crowns to cast to our Lord's feet and they have none, there will be great sorrow for those believers who never had good works.

Salvation is through faith in Christ alone... period. Rewards/crowns are works based, but works don't have ANYTHING to do with salvation.

"Lest no man can boast"

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
There is a huge difference between works and salvation, salvation is through the shed blood of Jesus Christ, offered as a free girt to those who accept is as payment for the sins they owe...

I appreciate the response, and the vigor. We run the risk of being off-topic here, so another thread would be more appropriate for these issues. I have sent a U2U with more detail.

reply to post by jhill76I for one believe these books were left out because of paranormal happenings that Christians did not believe in and, thought all was caused by evilness. To me this proves that the paranormal did exist in those days because now we are hearing more and, more of this everyday. I want to say that a few years ago my life was changed dramatically and, I will say that whatever happened to me has made me have a whole new outlook on life and, what really goes on
through out the universe. What ever happened to me made me so much closer to God and, now I have the ability to see ghosts and, spirits,. I also can do channel writing. Maybe God has given me this gift to prove that
there is life after death. I now have a wonderful realtionship with God and, I do believe these books were meant to be heard. What is happening now is what was happening in the missing books of the Bible.
We must not ignore all theses writings brought forth. Every word that was written was meant to be told. I hope in the future that theses missing books will be brought forth again and, mankind shall not intervene with Gods wishes. It seems like we have chosen only what we thought was
acceptable and, this is not what God wanted. We must pay attention to Gods signs so that we may learn our lifes journeys. I once was told that
what ever is written shall be committed. Our world is full of evilness that
progresses in our lives everyday. Unless we have faith in God our lives will be disrupted with evilness.

Originally posted by jhill76
reply to post by Marshall Ormus

 

I see what you are saying to a point, but what about the book of enoch, that answers about everyones question on the afterlife. Why would such a monumental book like that be left out. But thanks to everyone for posting on the subject.

A lot of clerics think that The Book of Enoch is the most dangerous book ever written. First because it speaks of Angels consorting with humans and procreating causing the birth of children with special powers. It speaks of talents being taught to the mates of the Angels which means that the special gifts and talents of the Angels can be had by man if given the information. This information was made available by fallen angels which may encourage many to seek them out. That is not what clerics want you to do. They do not want to advertise for the opposite side.

Ive heard, although I have no evidence, that a Gospel was written by Mary Magdalene but the Church wouldnt allow it to be in the Bible. Again, no proof and I dont remember where Ive heard it.