- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Hello all,
I'm new so I figured I'd give this a try. I'm also not well versed in the Scriptures themselves, though I've read much of the history of the past three+ millenia. Rome has been my one delight for about three years now and I am somewhat familiar with the early Church. Anyway, here's an overview of what I think.Gospels:
The four Gospels that have been passed down ( in original Greek) form are authentic. We can believe what the authors say about themselves and the message and ressurection of Christ.
Matthew was the first written account of Jesus (Yaheshuah)And was most likely written in ancient Hebrew, NOT ARAMAIC. The document known to the ancient world as the Gospel of the Hebrews is probably the original of St. Matthew plus some teachings of both St. James and St. Peter. Only part of this document was translated into Old Syriac (called Chaldee).
The Syriac is the basis for the Greek. The Greek is reliable because there are NO VARIATIONS THAT AFFECT DOCTRINE.Mark was probably written in a southern/Egyptian dialect of Aramaic. John Mark is probably not the publican who is named as one of the Twelve. My personal belief, without any hard evidence, is that he was a disciple of that St. Mark and recorded his teacher's words VERBATIM in the manner of all ancient scribes. He may have actually translated his text into Greek himself, this would explain Greek wordplay that doesn't make much sense in Hebrew or Aramaic.
Luke was a disciple of St. Paul. He may have followed St. Peter earlier (still looking for more evidence), I have heard there was a 7th or 8th century legend that he was the centurian whose servant Jesus healed but have foun no evidence for the tradition. Luke himself admits he did not see all of what Jesus did but that he asked those who had. His Gospel and the book of Acts were written in Greek (though later pseudo-scholarship still refutes even this), and might predate Mark ( I'm probably alone on that one).
St. John wrote in Greek. My only explanation for this is the Pentacost. His Gospel is authentic, though one must read it the way the Church Fathers read it, remembering that “TON THEON” (The God) refers only to The Father of All and “theos” (divine) refers to The Logos. I am not aware of any instance in the NT were Jesus is called “TON THEON”.
The First Epistle of St. John is authentic, the Second probably is, the Third might not be. All three are consistent with St. John's message of Agape. He was probably martyred during the reign of Domition.Acts was written by Luke.
St.Paul's Epistles are authentic and were written in Greek. Hebrews was not written by St. Paul.
Next to St. John, St. Paul probably had the most complete grasp of Chist's teaching. He understood that ALL PEOPLE could be (perhaps shall be) saved. He also understood what Christ meant when He said “the Sabbath was created for Adam, not Adam for the Sabbath”. Many other things that the Church in Jerusalem didn't quite get, St. Paul got.Hebrews was rejected as Scripture by most of the early Church until the fourth century on the basis that it was not written by an Apostle. The book may have been written by Barnabas (a disciple of St. Paul) or possibly Clement (a disciple of St. Peter). This is actually one of my favorite books to read. I don't find any problems with doctine here, but I am just a worm.
The Epistle of St. James was disputed from the third century until, and in some cases after, the Canon of Athanasius was published by Constantine. It was likely written in Hebrew or Aramaic.
St. Peter's first epistle is likely authentic. Second Peter was probably written by Clement. Both were disputed in the fourth century. I am not overly familiar with their contents though I have of course read them two or three times.
Jude was disputed in fourth century but appears to have been almost universal in the second. I haven't found any explanation for this.
John of Patmos is not St. John the Beloved. Revelations is not even mentioned until ca. 185 (Irenaeus) and was regected in the eastern churches until 367 AD. It may have actually been written in Latin before being “refined” in the Greek. I consider proof-texting from this book to be void. Many people will deny Christ when He returns because they are still awaiting false prophesies to be fulfilled.
Clement of Rome was a student of St. Peter and third bishop of Rome. He seems to have been a kind of personal scribe for the Apostle. His first Episle to the Corinthians is authentic. I believe it should be canonical (but I am just a worm). Most of his authentic writings were intentionally destroyed.
The Septuagint is the better Old Testament. It was translated directly from the Jerusalem Scriptures in 252 b.c.
Most of the “Jerusalem tradition” texts were destroyed along with the Temple. For six centuries Jews relied on the “Alexandrian tradition” texts in the empire and the “Babylonian tradition” texts in Persia. During the Muslim conquests the Babylonian Jews were protected, the North Africans were not. The Masoretic text is an EDITED version of the Babylonian and was not universally accepted by Jews until the eleventh century. That being said, the LXX as we now have does contain some books that may have been written in the lifetime of Christ and some chapters that were almost certainly added later.Well, that's most of the pseudo-scholarly part. I think I'll post the meat and potatoes later.
These are just opinions and I am not a teacher/scholar, so I might not be able to quickly find documentation to support all my views. I reccomend everyone read the writings of the Church Fathers and study at least some Greek. But each must decide for themselves, I am just a worm.
Need to concentrate on my Bible for awhile. (I prefer NKJV supplimented by Concordant NT)
May the Light shine on and through us all,
JQuote (J_47-2 @ Sep. 06 2012,20:57) Clement of Rome was a student of St. Peter and third bishop of Rome. He seems to have been a kind of personal scribe for the Apostle. His first Episle to the Corinthians is authentic. I believe it should be canonical (but I am just a worm). Most of his authentic writings were intentionally destroyed. J
Hi J,The FIRST EPISTLE of CLEMENT to the CORINTHIANS;
IClement a MUST read for all Christians (Link)God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgWELCOM TO HN
Quote Clement of Rome was a student of St. Peter and third bishop of Rome. He seems to have been a kind of personal scribe for the Apostle. His first Episle to the Corinthians is authentic. I believe it should be canonical (but I am just a worm). Most of his authentic writings were intentionally destroyed. this I would like to know more about ,like dates ,when Peter died,and when Clement was his student ,and became the third bishop in Rome
? then also who was the first and second bishop of Rome terraricca,
Easy enough,
First the Roman Catholic Church considers St. Peter to be the first Pope, however according to the Orthodox Catholic Apostolic Church the title Episcopos (Bishop) only applies to those leaders who oversaw the churches in the absence of the Apostles. Using this standard, the first Bishop of Rome is most likely Linus. The early records are conflicting, but general consensus seems to agree with earlier dating. Tradition and Apocrypha claim that St. Peter was martyred under Nero in 64AD. Linus held the bishopric until 76AD. What actually happened to him is unknown (to me at least). He was succeeded by Anacletus who held the bishopric until 88AD. He may have been literally fed to wolves. Clement then held the bishopric until ca. 98AD and probably died naturally (I'll check on that). As to his discipleship, I'll need to dig through my bookshelves [read BOXES], however there is a legend that he actually sat on the Lord's lap (I'll find documentation for this as well).
Also there are a few decent, though opinionated articles at NewAdvent.org.
I hope this will at least suffice for now. As I said, I'm no scholar; I graduated high school many years ago and have not gone to college. History has been only a hobby for over a decade and I avoided the Bible and the Church for most of that time. Perhaps I'm still avoiding the Church, but I need to find out what's really in the Scriptures before I can truly accept any theological precepts. I realize that many consider it to be unwise to attempt to study alone, but I am not aware of any modern Orthodox Arian Church.
I've read much ABOUT Christianity and much ABOUT the Bible, now I'm finally reading the Bible itself. I'm going to return to that now.
Much Love,
JQuote (J_47-2 @ Sep. 07 2012,08:01) terraricca,
Easy enough,
First the Roman Catholic Church considers St. Peter to be the first Pope, however according to the Orthodox Catholic Apostolic Church the title Episcopos (Bishop) only applies to those leaders who oversaw the churches in the absence of the Apostles. Using this standard, the first Bishop of Rome is most likely Linus. The early records are conflicting, but general consensus seems to agree with earlier dating. Tradition and Apocrypha claim that St. Peter was martyred under Nero in 64AD. Linus held the bishopric until 76AD. What actually happened to him is unknown (to me at least). He was succeeded by Anacletus who held the bishopric until 88AD. He may have been literally fed to wolves. Clement then held the bishopric until ca. 98AD and probably died naturally (I'll check on that). As to his discipleship, I'll need to dig through my bookshelves [read BOXES], however there is a legend that he actually sat on the Lord's lap (I'll find documentation for this as well).
Also there are a few decent, though opinionated articles at NewAdvent.org.
I hope this will at least suffice for now. As I said, I'm no scholar; I graduated high school many years ago and have not gone to college. History has been only a hobby for over a decade and I avoided the Bible and the Church for most of that time. Perhaps I'm still avoiding the Church, but I need to find out what's really in the Scriptures before I can truly accept any theological precepts. I realize that many consider it to be unwise to attempt to study alone, but I am not aware of any modern Orthodox Arian Church.
I've read much ABOUT Christianity and much ABOUT the Bible, now I'm finally reading the Bible itself. I'm going to return to that now.
Much Love,
J
47thanks but no thanks,
I have read your comment ;this is something out of the scriptures ,and so it is of men ,not of God ,
I do not care for the Catholic church ,or any other ,
ONLY FOR THE WAY OF THE SON OF GOD ,AS IT SPELL OUT IN SCRIPTURES NO MORE NO LESS,
QUESTION ;ARE YOU ONE OF THE SEVEN DAYS ADVENTIST
Welcome to Heaven Net J-47,
I enjoyed reading the info you posted, and look forward to reading the “meat and potatoes” when you post it.
I am happy to hear that you are finally going to delve into the scriptures themselves. Like you, I also study alone, having read the Bible for the first time about 3 years ago. Since I started, I haven't stopped, and am now finishing Genesis on my 5th time through the scriptures.
I agree with some of what you said, disagree with other parts, and was educated by most of it, because it was stuff I never knew.
peace and love to you and yours,
mike1. John 1:1 -1:18 is a Pythagorean (or Neo-Pythagorean) hymn that was added in mid-100's AD
2. John actually began with a one or two sentence intro. immediately preceeding verse 1:19
3. John is primarily a theological work meant to counter millenarism hysteria (i.e. “Apocolypse of John”, “Apocolypse of Peter”, etc.)
4. John was the last canonical book witten (many scholars would disagree with this, but none can disprove it or even present evidence to discredit it)
5. Jesus' message was one of love and unity, not hate and division. IF he ever said we should hate this world, he meant the condition of mankind (i.e. the strong dominating/ exploiting the weak)
6. Faith without works is dead !
7. “Sola Scriptura” is an oxymoronic phrase (just another tradition of men) and is actually anti-Biblicalterraricca,
I did not offer you anything except an answer to YOUR questions. If you're only interested in what is written in the Bible, you should not ask about post-Biblical dates.
I am not currently a member of any church organization. I believe the Seventh Day Advetists and Church of God organizations have a very twisted doctrine that is essentially anti-Christian and anti-Judaic even anti-God.
The Holy Orthodox Catholic Apostolic Church (eastern orthodoxy) is not the Holy Roman Catholic Church (catholicism).
A person who does not CARE for any church is not of God ( “Feed my sheep” ), I truly hope you find a church family that you can/ will care for.
May God bless those you do care for.
-JHi J,
Then you don't believe in 'Sola Fide' then right?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orghttp://www.ancient-hebrew.org/bookstore/e-books/gzqp.pdf
This is an interesting interperetation of Genesis for those who don't outright dismiss science.
Parts of it are “hoakey”, but it does shed some light on the Jewish understanding of ancient Hebrew.
Not to be considered “TRUTH”Quote (Ed J @ Sep. 24 2012,09:45) Hi J, Then you don't believe in 'Sola Fide' then right?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Bump for “J”J-47-2,
What do you mean, “7. “Sola Scriptura” is an oxymoronic phrase (just another tradition of men) and is actually anti-Biblical?
You have raised the arguments and one of them is the “Sola Scriptura”. You should support it by reliable
proofs.Because I am holding the pronouncements of the apostles of Christ, regarding the guidelines they have given to us.
1 Corinthians 4:6
GOD’S WORD Translation (GW)
6 Brothers and sisters, I have applied this to Apollos and myself for your sake. You should learn from us not to go beyond what is written in Scripture. Then you won’t arrogantly place one of us in opposition to the other.Hi limjunus,
“Sola Scriptura” simply means “Scripture Alone”.
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (limjunus @ Sep. 24 2012,20:17) J-47-2, What do you mean, “7. “Sola Scriptura” is an oxymoronic phrase (just another tradition of men) and is actually anti-Biblical?
You have raised the arguments and one of them is the “Sola Scriptura”. You should support it by reliable
proofs.Because I am holding the pronouncements of the apostles of Christ, regarding the guidelines they have given to us.
1 Corinthians 4:6
GOD’S WORD Translation (GW)
6 Brothers and sisters, I have applied this to Apollos and myself for your sake. You should learn from us not to go beyond what is written in Scripture. Then you won’t arrogantly place one of us in opposition to the other.
Limjunus.I am sure that you have studied all the prophecies.
With the knowledge you have received:Can you tell me where you can fit in your picture:
Isiah 11:6–10. 65:17–25.
zech.14:11–21.
Thank you in advance.Your brother in the lord.
wakeup.Quote (limjunus @ Sep. 24 2012,20:17) J-47-2, What do you mean, “7. “Sola Scriptura” is an oxymoronic phrase (just another tradition of men) and is actually anti-Biblical?
You have raised the arguments and one of them is the “Sola Scriptura”. You should support it by reliable
proofs.Because I am holding the pronouncements of the apostles of Christ, regarding the guidelines they have given to us.
1 Corinthians 4:6
GOD’S WORD Translation (GW)
6 Brothers and sisters, I have applied this to Apollos and myself for your sake. You should learn from us not to go beyond what is written in Scripture. Then you won’t arrogantly place one of us in opposition to the other.
Limjunus.1 Cor.4:6.
Dont think of men above what is written.
Dont glorify the man above what is written in scripture.
One say I am of Apolos; and the other say I am of paul.This can only cause strife.
It seems that you have misunderstood that scripture.
wakeup.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
