- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Hi WJ,
You say
“Did you guys notice NH even comments on his abhorance of the scriptures?”
Could you be more clear?
I love scripture.You guys are supporting Catholic Scriptures.
There are thousands of “christian holy writings” you completely ignore in favor of the council of rome's selections.
These other scriptures disagree with Greco/Roman traditions completely.
Why the faith in Rome?
What prophecy or prophet or oracle informs you that your repetoire of documents chosen and forged by Rome is correct?
Seriously, I am sincerely asking.
My only guess is that you philosophically assume that God used wicked people to hand down to you a letter explaining his will.
In order to do that you have to ignore the prophecies that fortell of Satan deceiving THE WHOLE WORLD.
You also have to ignore the centuries of scholarly work that prove my position on the history of the canon.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 07 2008,18:45) Quote (IM4Truth @ Jan. 07 2008,04:09) Quote (kenrch @ Jan. 07 2008,03:08) Quote (Son of Light @ Jan. 07 2008,02:42) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 06 2008,17:41) Quote (Is 1:18 @ Jan. 06 2008,17:22) Quote (Is 1:18 @ Jan. 06 2008,17:16) Psalm 97:9
For you, O LORD (YHWH), are the Most High over all the earth; you are exalted far above all gods.Hmmm….looks like YHWH is the Most High.
have you any comments on this verse SOL?
Hi Isa 1:1:18I think SOL is trying to say that when the Hebrew text dosnt agree with his theology then it is the lying pen of the scribes.
Pretty convenient wouldnt you say?
When the scriptures say God is evil or hateful and not Love the Yes that is a lie.I use scriptures because they do contain truth.
The Old Testament contains historical truths.
The New Testament contains some of the teachings of Yahshua. After all in is a corruption of his original teachings they couldn't get rid of all the good things he taught.
I use scripture to help demonstrate that even though they have corruptions they themselves contain evidence of their own corruption.
The bible contains many gems of love and truth, but without a knowledge of the True God of Love the scriptures can be twisted into books of pure evil by those fueled by the hate of the god of this world.
TRUE! Even though the Bible was put together by the RCC the very word they assembled is a witness against them
Call no man Father!
If God wants you to know… YOU WILL KNOW!
Amen,and Amen to that.Peace and Love Mrs.
mrs and kenrchIs there anything in my post that you disagree with concerning trusting the scritpures?
My post was not directed to you.
It is directed to SOL for his disrespect and critisism of the scriptures.
He said…
Quote
I believe the scriptures to be works of men.I believe they are corrupt.
I believe that “orthodoxy” determined what writings were to be called canon by their dogma and not writings determining their dogma. They tried to destroy and suppress evidence of the original movement of Jesus.
I believe that the spirit gives life and the letter kills.
I believe God is Love and Light and in him is NO shadow of turning. Anything else is a lie.
Modern scholarship has been unveiling these truths and for Christians it is a hard pill to swallow.
Now the question would be do you and kenrch agree with this?
Which books or scriptures would you remove from the Old and New Testament and call them the “works of men” and that they are corrupt?
This guy places himself above the scriptures! He thinks he has some special revelation above scriptures. He completly removes or disregards what dosnt agree with his theology.
I am not talking about ambiguity and disagreement in interpretation. He believes that they are not scriptures at all.
Mrs, as far as Eph 4:4-6 that you keep throwing at me, I have ignored you because I have already answered your post and addressed those scriptures in the trinity thread.
You have a right to believe that those scriptures are proof the trinity is false if you want, but you sure havnt convinced me and in fact those scriptures im my mind support the Trinity.
And you havnt responded to my answer to you on those scriptures.
I believe in those scriptures but not like you. SOL dosnt believe in the scriptures, he like tow picks and chooses what he thinks is right and throws the rest out or claims it is corrupt or written by men.
I am surprised you guys jump on board with this guy.
Although I should realize its because Isa 1:18 and myself are the evil trinitarians even though we support and believe all the scriptures whereas these guys dont.
Did you guys notice NH even comments on his abhorance of the scriptures?
WJ my post wasn't directed at YOU But that's alright that's the way its been since I've been here. I didn't know it was a sin to post if YOU weren't posting to me. As I said my post wasn't to you but if you would prefer I don't post on your comments then I respectfully will ignore your post.
However I was Posting to SOL who was posting to you. NOT TO YOU!My point (and Mrs understood) was that even though the RCC put together the bible they could not keep out the truth!
Their doctrines are just what Jesus said NOT to do! Statues, calling themselves Father, the LONG robes and respectful greetings.
I suppose you would bow down and kiss the Popes ring and you very well should since you keep her doctrines.
You talk of scripture but you ignore scripture that disagrees with YOU! Are you so different than SOL.
Actually SOL seems to have a HUMBLE spirit!
But that doesn't mean I agree with him.Death is separation from God. The flesh did not die but was cursed to die because of disobedience. Being born again means to once again have a relationship with the Father th
rough His Son. Does it mean knowing scripture? Scripture IS NOT MY GOD
it His HIS word.Lets get down to the real truth shall we. If we are all led by the same SPIRIT then why do we disagree? Could it be that we disregard what the Spirit says and twist scripture to where it says what WE believe. That's why the “book' is written the way it is ONLY a CHILD can understand it and NOT one who approaches His words with an intellectual, secular prideful attitude.
Seems clear to me that the Spirit tried to share the truth with you about the Trinity doctrine BUT instead of accepting WHAT THE SPIRIT SAYS you refuse to let go of your “deep rooted” doctrine of man and so change the Trinity doctrine meaning so you can have your cake and eat it too! “OH their are STILL three but not equal”! It's ALMOST funny!
God recognizes the HEART not the words of your prideful intellectual tongue.
1Co 2:5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
One does not receive the Holy Spirit by believing their Or other secular prideful reports.
It's the Heart PEOPLE not the intellectual mind!
Rev 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.
Again the END TIME saints will be keeping the commandments of GOD NOT men and have faith in Jesus, Rev. 14:12.
kenrch
Quote
Lets get down to the real truth shall we. If we are all led by the same SPIRIT then why do we disagree? Could it be that we disregard what the Spirit says and twist scripture to where it says what WE believe. That's why the “book' is written the way it is ONLY a CHILD can understand it and NOT one who approaches His words with an intellectual, secular prideful attitude.Seems clear to me that the Spirit tried to share the truth with you about the Trinity doctrine BUT instead of accepting WHAT THE SPIRIT SAYS you refuse to let go of your “deep rooted” doctrine of man and so change the Trinity doctrine meaning so you can have your cake and eat it too! “OH their are STILL three but not equal”! It's ALMOST funny!
God recognizes the HEART not the words of your prideful intellectual tongue.
Look in the mirror my friend.
If you base your accusation of me being proud on the fact that I dont believe nor accept yours and others interpretations of the scriptures then how are you any different?
Have you changed your theology since comming to this sight? Then I could say you are proud. But you see I dont know your heart and will not make that judgment.
Jesus said…
Matt 7:1
Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam [is] in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.Do you also put yourself above the scriptures?
You say…
Quote
God recognizes the HEART not the words of your prideful intellectual tongue.So are you God that you can say my heart is proud?
You know nothing of my relationship with God! You know nothing of my love for him!
You are not my judge. You constantly patronize me with accusations of being of the harlot the RCC and I have never brightened the door of the RCC.
It seems to me that you think that you are the only one to have the truth or who is led by the spirit.
Before you condemn me of being proud and not accepting of scriptures, and not listening to the Spirit of God of whom you claim you are listening too, you should consider that maybe you also could be proud by not listening to the Spirit as may be seen by those two yellow blocks by your avatar.
Quote (Son of Light @ Jan. 07 2008,19:27) Quote
You guys are supporting Catholic Scriptures.
SOLThe scriptures were written long before the RCC.
What of all the major translations today that has nothing to do with the RCC?
Quote There are thousands of “christian holy writings” you completely ignore in favor of the council of rome's selections. Maybe so, but the reasons they were not included in the Bible were justified. The Bible contains the writtings of eyewitnesses to Jesus life and the Acts of the Apostles.
For this reason as well as many others the works were rejected as part of the Cannon.
So I would rather believe them over other writtings that may contradict.
Quote These other scriptures disagree with Greco/Roman traditions completely. Exactly! They disagree with the eyewitnesses and the early Fathers of the Faith. That should answer your questions.
Quote
Why the faith in Rome?What prophecy or prophet or oracle informs you that your repetoire of documents chosen and forged by Rome is correct?
Because there are no records that are more credible. Why would you believe others over the eyewitneses?Quote Seriously, I am sincerely asking. I am sure you are. But I have seen no revelation in the records that you speak of that would convince me that they should be believed over the canon.
Quote My only guess is that you philosophically assume that God used wicked people to hand down to you a letter explaining his will. Can you prove that these men were wicked? Can you prove where they changed the text?
There are litterally thousands of documents that are an exact match.
Quote In order to do that you have to ignore the prophecies that fortell of Satan deceiving THE WHOLE WORLD. Yes it does seem there is a lot of deception going on but I dont think it is found in the scriptures.
Quote You also have to ignore the centuries of scholarly work that prove my position on the history of the canon. Yes, but there is also hundreds of scholars that are on the other side that disagree with your position. I will go with them.
SOL. Why isnt there another Bible being written with all the wonderful truths that you speak of?
Maybe you should write one. But I think the answer is if it was done it wouldnt go anywhere because there would be to much evidence stacked against it.
You have a right to base your beliefs on what ever you want.
But if you are gonna just pick and choose scriptures that fits your theology like tow, then how can anyone believe you when you quote from the scriptures?
For to you and tow they are corrupt.
W.J. I do not know how many time that i asked you about Ephesians 4:4-6 ….God the Father who is above all….
Which makes the trinity wrong according to this scripture. How do you explain that?Preace and Love Mrs.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 08 2008,06:05) Quote (Son of Light @ Jan. 07 2008,19:27) Quote
You guys are supporting Catholic Scriptures.
SOLThe scriptures were written long before the RCC.
What of all the major translations today that has nothing to do with the RCC?
Quote There are thousands of “christian holy writings” you completely ignore in favor of the council of rome's selections. Maybe so, but the reasons they were not included in the Bible were justified. The Bible contains the writtings of eyewitnesses to Jesus life and the Acts of the Apostles.
For this reason as well as many others the works were rejected as part of the Cannon.
So I would rather believe them over other writtings that may contradict.
Quote These other scriptures disagree with Greco/Roman traditions completely. Exactly! They disagree with the eyewitnesses and the early Fathers of the Faith. That should answer your questions.
Quote
Why the faith in Rome?What prophecy or prophet or oracle informs you that your repetoire of documents chosen and forged by Rome is correct?
Because there are no records that are more credible. Why would you believe others over the eyewitneses?Quote Seriously, I am sincerely asking. I am sure you are. But I have seen no revelation in the records that you speak of that would convince me that they should be believed over the canon.
Quote My only guess is that you philosophically assume that God used wicked people to hand down to you a letter explaining his will. Can you prove that these men were wicked? Can you prove where they changed the text?
There are litterally thousands of documents that are an exact match.
Quote In order to do that you have to ignore the prophecies that fortell of Satan deceiving THE WHOLE WORLD. Yes it does seem there is a lot of deception going on but I dont think it is found in the scriptures.
Quote You also have to ignore the centuries of scholarly work that prove my position on the history of the canon. Yes, but there is also hundreds of scholars that are on the other side that disagree with your position. I will go with them.
SOL. Why isnt there another Bible being written with all the wonderful truths that you speak of?
Maybe you should write one. But I think the answer is if it was done it wouldnt go anywhere because there would be to much evidence stacked against it.
You have a right to base your beliefs on what ever you want.
But if you are gonna just pick and choose scriptures that fits your theology like tow, then how can anyone believe you when you quote from the scriptures?
For to you and tow they are corrupt.
The gospels where not eyewitnesses.Justyn Martyr didnt even know they existed and he lived in 160 AD.
The names at the top of the gospels are just Tradition.
The early “fathers” of the faith. Even though we have no father but God. They are one division of early Christians who gained the aid of Rome and stamped out the others. Later tradition tries to claim they had apostolic authority starting with Peter. This is just tradition and lies.
Actually we have do have more credible records from those accusing the proto-orthodox as heritics.
You seem to assume a book was planned to be written. The faith was just spreading the news. No book was prophecied to be written that was to be called scripture.
Later Catholics took an eclectice selection of scripture that they didnt even all agree on and then made interpolations and forgeries then stacked them together into an official cannon.
The Church Fathers called themselves “Catholic” the Catholic church grew out of there movement. They did indeed have an evolution of dogma from the early church but they are a continuation of them. Just has over the first 3 centuries the early church writings themselves reflect a continued change of dogma.
Hi SOL,
Are you gnostic?
You seem to have set yourself up to judge the Word of God.
But do you have any idea at all where you are going before you try to lead others away from Christ?Quote (Nick Hassan @ Jan. 08 2008,07:46) Hi SOL,
Are you gnostic?
You seem to have set yourself up to judge the Word of God.
But do you have any idea at all where you are going before you try to lead others away from Christ?
I am not trying to lead anyone away from Christ.I am trying to seperate the doctrine of Love that Christ taught from the traditions of men.
I am not judging the word of God. I am judging a book that those who follow the catholic tradition (even unknowingly) call the word of God.
The real word of God is the Logos, the Spirit reaching for your heart inside you.
I wouldn't call myself gnostic, but I do believe that the gnostics where far closer to the teachings of Christ than the catholics.
The bible did not even exist for 400 years. A time period almost twice as long as the time the United States has been an independant country.
The catholics forged most all of the scriptures. Only a few of the Pauline epistles are actually authentic. And guess what Paul was a scismatic from the Jerusalem church.
Quote (IM4Truth @ Jan. 08 2008,07:19) W.J. I do not know how many time that i asked you about Ephesians 4:4-6 ….God the Father who is above all….
Which makes the trinity wrong according to this scripture. How do you explain that?Preace and Love Mrs.
mrsDo you even read my post?
Again, I have responded to your ambiguous interpretation of Eph 4.
Its in the trinity thread. Page 956
Why dont you take what I have written there concerning those scriptures and show me where I am in error?
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Jan. 07 2008,18:53) Hi WJ,
You say
“Did you guys notice NH even comments on his abhorance of the scriptures?”
Could you be more clear?
I love scripture.
NHActually I was complimenting you on your faith in the Canon.
Sorry for the confusion. My point was that even you who is diabolically appossed to the trinity recognizes the fallacy of SOLs claim of the scriptures being corrupt.
You didnt jump on the bandwagon in defence of SOL simply because he is appossed to the RCC and the Canon and just because he is not a Trinitarian.
In my opinion they should have at least agreed with you.
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Jan. 08 2008,05:11) kenrch Quote
Lets get down to the real truth shall we. If we are all led by the same SPIRIT then why do we disagree? Could it be that we disregard what the Spirit says and twist scripture to where it says what WE believe. That's why the “book' is written the way it is ONLY a CHILD can understand it and NOT one who approaches His words with an intellectual, secular prideful attitude.Seems clear to me that the Spirit tried to share the truth with you about the Trinity doctrine BUT instead of accepting WHAT THE SPIRIT SAYS you refuse to let go of your “deep rooted” doctrine of man and so change the Trinity doctrine meaning so you can have your cake and eat it too! “OH their are STILL three but not equal”! It's ALMOST funny!
God recognizes the HEART not the words of your prideful intellectual tongue.
Look in the mirror my friend.
If you base your accusation of me being proud on the fact that I dont believe nor accept yours and others interpretations of the scriptures then how are you any different?
Have you changed your theology since comming to this sight? Then I could say you are proud. But you see I dont know your heart and will not make that judgment.
Jesus said…
Matt 7:1
Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam [is] in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.Do you also put yourself above the scriptures?
You say…
Quote
God recognizes the HEART not the words of your prideful intellectual tongue.So are you God that you can say my heart is proud?
You know nothing of my relationship with God! You know nothing of my love for him!
You are not my judge. You constantly patronize me with accusations of being of the harlot the RCC and I have never brightened the door of the RCC.
It seems to me that you think that you are the only one to have the truth or who is led by the spirit.
Before you condemn me of being proud and not accepting of scriptures, and not listening to the Spirit of God of whom you claim you are listening too, you should consider that maybe you also could be proud by not listening to the Spirit as may be seen by those two yellow blocks by your avatar.
Well gees you are quick to judge SOL! Do you know SOL's heart?The fact remains that you and the “other” Trinity boys are NOT Trinity boys at all! Why is that? You even twist the trinity doctrine to suit your beliefs.
The scriptures and Jesus Himself said the Father is greater. Gee that should open anyone's eyes that the trinity doctrine is “ANOTHER” false doctrine of the harlot. But instead of accepting that the Trinity doctrine is false YOU decide to change the definition of the Harlot's doctrine because YOU are so deeply rooted in HER that you can't OR won't SEE.
Now you can go on and rattle your blah blah. I have no love, I judge, I this I that. The truth is there is no one on this site that does not judge if that is what you call my speaking the truth about your Harlot~ judging~!
Hey I'm proud of my stripes! The judgments of men!
Who knows perhaps I'll EARN another with this post! Hi WJ,
SOL is way out there and conversing with him with no common basis of scripture can be like trying to talk to a martian[oops]Quote (Nick Hassan @ Jan. 08 2008,08:50) Hi WJ,
SOL is way out there and conversing with him with no common basis of scripture can be like trying to talk to a martian[oops] Quote (Nick Hassan @ Jan. 08 2008,08:50) Hi WJ,
SOL is way out there and conversing with him with no common basis of scripture can be like trying to talk to a martian[oops]
We could have alot of common things to converse about.You stop at the bible with a belief it is the perfect word of God.
Yet we all know that is not COMPLETELY true. 1 John 5:7 alone prooves that.
History, scholarly work, comparetive religion, the dead sea scrolls, the collective whole of the christian scriptures.
We can also discuss topics like TRUE GOOD and TRUE LOVE and TRUE LIGHT. Ethics, morality, and honesty. What does the spirit within you really really say?
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Jan. 08 2008,09:05) Hi SOL,
Humanitarian religion has always been popular.
But we serve God.
So your God isn't interested in humanitarian efforts?God is Love.
In Fact look at this verse very very very very closely.
James 1
27Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.
Everything else religiously is bunk. God is Love in him is no darkness at all. God does not hate. God does not kill. God is not sometimes are friend and sometimes our enemy. God does not demand blood sacrifices let alone human sacrifice.
You have accused the God of Love of having the demonic characteristics of Baal or Molech and yes even Jehovah. God is not a petty simpleton of a deity who can't control himself and flies into berserker rages of death and hate.
The God of Love sent a messenger to set us free from the evil traditions of men and angels and to kick down the gates of hades that keep us trapped in this corpse world.
The God of Light sent his spirit into the hearts of men to know true good and true love. If you listen you will hear it. Each of us has a moral compass fine tuned by the hand of God.
You give lip service that God is Love but the actions and doctrines of God that you teach say something different.
Quote (kenrch @ Jan. 08 2008,08:49) [/quote] WorshippingJesus,Jan. wrote:kenrch
Quote
Lets get down to the real truth shall we. If we are all led by the same SPIRIT then why do we disagree? Could it be that we disregard what the Spirit says and twist scripture to where it says what WE believe. That's why the “book' is written the way it is ONLY a CHILD can understand it and NOT one who approaches His words with an intellectual, secular prideful attitude.Seems clear to me that the Spirit tried to share the truth with you about the Trinity doctrine BUT instead of accepting WHAT THE SPIRIT SAYS you refuse to let go of your “deep rooted” doctrine of man and so change the Trinity doctrine meaning so you can have your cake and eat it too! “OH their are STILL three but not equal”! It's ALMOST funny!
God recognizes the HEART not the words of your prideful intellectual tongue.
Look in the mirror my friend.
If you base your accusation of me being proud on the fact that I dont believe nor accept yours and others interpretations of the scriptures then how are you any different?
Have you changed your theology since comming to this sight? Then I could say you are proud. But you see I dont know your heart and will not make that judgment.
Jesus said…
Matt 7:1
Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam [is] in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.Do you also put yourself above the scriptures?
You say…
Quote
God recognizes the HEART not the words of your prideful intellectual tongue.So are you God that you can say my heart is proud?
You know nothing of my relationship with God! You know nothing of my love for him!
You are not my judge. You constantly patronize me with accusations of being of the harlot the RCC and I have never brightened the door of the RCC.
It seems to me that you think that you are the only one to have the truth or who is led by the spirit.
Before you condemn me of being proud and not accepting of scriptures, and not listening to the Spirit of God of whom you claim you are listening too, you should consider that maybe you also could be proud by not listening to the Spirit as may be seen by those two yellow blocks by your avatar.
Quote Well gees you are quick to judge SOL! Do you know SOL's heart? Nope. Never said anything about his heart or him being proud.
I simply defend the scriptures as being inspired and not corrupt. Do you?
Quote The fact remains that you and the “other” Trinity boys are NOT Trinity boys at all! Why is that? You even twist the trinity doctrine to suit your beliefs. Your opinion!
Quote The scriptures and Jesus Himself said the Father is greater. Straw. Are you less human than the president?
How is Jesus any less God than the Father since you can not come to God apart from Jesus. Jesus is everything the Father is. Can you show me a scripture that says otherwise?
Quote Gee that should open anyone's eyes that the trinity doctrine is “ANOTHER” false doctrine of the harlot. There we go again weak accusations. Missrepresentation.
I am not a Catholic. As far as her doctrines you also hold on to some of their doctrines like the death and burial and ressurection of Jesus. Are you of the whore?
Quote But instead of accepting that the Trinity doctrine is false YOU decide to change the definition of the Harlot's doctrine because YOU are so deeply rooted in HER that you can't OR won't SEE. I base my faith in scriptures like you say you do.
You are right I am rooted and grounded in my faith. I have been since the day I accepted Christ. I didnt change Gods after I got saved.
Quote Now you can go on and rattle your blah blah. I have no love, I judge, I this I that. Never said you have no love. But I have never called you proud or judged your heart or motives for what you believe either.
Quote The truth is there is no one on this site that does not judge if that is what you call my speaking the truth about your Harlot~ judging~! Sure we should prove all things and hold fast to that which is good and what we have believed. The problem comes in when men disagree and start judging character and hearts by name calling rather than addressing the reasons for their disagreements.
Jesus said he that is for us is not against us.
Quote Hey I'm proud of my stripes! The judgments of men! Who knows perhaps I'll EARN another with this post! So you admit you are proud? I certainly dont make that judgment.
http://www.holysmoke.org/hs00/the-nt2.htm
I find it rather amusing that the vast majority of Christians, demonstrating their well-known ignorance, appear to believe that when Jesus ascended into heaven, just before he left, he turned to his disciples and said, “Here lads- your 27 writings. This is your New Testament. Byeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!”. And off he went – never to be seen again (fortunately………)
In reality, the fact is that what constitutes the New Testament today took hundreds of years to sort out. Secondly it is rather “odd” that present-day Christians reject writings that the early Christians did use, and in contrast, they do not accept writings that the early Christians did (Who presumably were in the best position to choose ?). Thirdly, the fact that as the church selected the New Testament canon, it simply selected those writings that agreed, and did not conflict with its already established (manmade) doctrines. Fourthly, if the New Testmaent is the word of God, why did it take God over 300 years to get the right writings accepted ?In sum, the Church and the New Testament are entirely manmade and lacking any sign of any divine origins.
The following relates to the composition of the New Testament.
——————————————————————————–
The New Testament Canon.
For Paul any question was decided by a 'word of the Lord', eg. 1 Thess 4:15; in 1 Cor 9:9,13f he places alongside scriptural proof, the instruction of the Lord. In 1 Cor 11:23f he describes the words of Jesus at the eucharist as the norm for such celebration in the church.A further development arises when Paul is forced to make a decision himself; here he appeals to the fact he has been 'commissioned by the Lord' and possesses the Spirit (1 Cor 7:25,40). Paul even presupposed his letters would be read in the churches and be exchanged (1 Thess 5:26f, 2 Cor 13:12, Rom 16:16- Col 1:1, 4:16).
Side by side the church had the scriptures and the words from the prophets, as well as those from the apostles. Ignatius designates as authorities the 'prophets, but above all, the Gospel' (Sm 7:2); the cross was a voice above the written word (Phil. 8). There is no agreement whether 1 Clem or Ignatius knew of a written Gospel – the letters do not say this; as time passed and the voice of the apostles faded, a search began for the written word.
The collection of writings most likely began with Paul's – Marcion (ca. 140) did this and 1 Clem originating in Rome uses Rom, Heb and refers to 1 Cor. Ignatius knew of a collection also. In 2 Pet 3:15f there is a ref. to Paul's letters. It has been suggested that the collection arose in Asia Minor and this effec- ted more letter-writing (eg. Rev). In fact, it is not known when this first collection took place.
Kummel points out that Ignatius does not refer to any written source and has no knowledge of written Gospels – the idea that the 4 Gospels were brought together at the beginning of the second century 'cannot be proved'. Towards the middle of the 2nd cent, the situation appears to have changed. Tatian then later composed his Diatessaron ('harmony') of all four Gospels. However during this time there was still use of apocryphal gospels and oral Jesus-traditions; there is no evidence the Gospels were read in worship.
The main section of the letter of Polycarp uses Gospel material and Paul's letters and 1 Peter. A little later in 2 Clem, the apostles are placed as living authorities alongside the O.T. Barnabas (4:14) gives a saying of Jesus (Matt 22:14) and it is introduced by 'It is written' (ie. Scripture), although the situation is unclear how this arose.
In Polycarp's letter (Phil 12:1), there is a quote from Eph 4:26 which is referred to by the expression he uses for the O.T and it seems that he intended to refer to the O.T, although is is possible, though unlilkely, he is referring to Eph in this. About the mid-2nd cent, Justin refers to the service of worship when the 'memoirs of the apostles' were read. Corresponding to this, there are frequent quotes from the synoptics; he stresses these were written by the apostles or their disciples; he includes Mark and Luke in this category. It is not known if Justin knew John although there is an echo of John but this may come from tradition. It is even possible some of the Gospel quotations are from oral tradition. Despite this, he places the Gospels on the same level as the O.T. The Pauline letters are not quoted but he mentions Rev.
Marcion in ca. 140 AD, produced a canon of 10 Pauline letters and Luke. This were altered to remove Jewish references. He had a prologue to these letter which attacks the false apostles who taught the Jewish law. It is argued that Marcion took his canon from a church canon already existing, but Harnack believed Marcion was the first to promote the idea. Marcion's canon did not force the canon to be made, but he certainly furthered it. In fact the church adopted the Marcion text forms (Roms doxology) and the Laodiceans, which was rejected by the Muratorian canon as a Marcionite forgery, ie. it is found in some 6th cent Latin Bibles.
The next stage was Tatian who was a disciple of Justin. In ca. 170 AD, he constructed a harmony of the four Gospels and showed there was now 4 accepted Gospels.
The apologist Athenagoras (ca. 180 AD) cited both Gospels and the O.T. and treated them the same. At this point Paul's writings and the Gospels were being treated as having equal value, although they may not have achieved full equality.
One further event assisted the formation; this was the Montanist sect; one result of this sect was the 'Alogi' who threw out John and Rev which they attributed to the Gnostic Cerinthus. Bishop Serapion of Antioch (ca. 200), allowed the Gos of Peter to be read although he later withdrew permission for this.
Irenaeus (180 AD) stressed the acceptance of all 4 Gospels which were expanded by Acts; he also adds thirteen letters of Paul. However at this time there was still no fixed canon.
Tertullian (220 AD) recognised the 4 Gospels, but the acceptance of the apostolic writings was still fluid. He accepted Acts, the 13 letters of Paul, 1 Pet, 1 John, Jude and Rev. He does not mention the Catholic epistles, 2 and 3 John, James and 2 Pet. He called Hebrews the epistle of Barnabas; at one stage he accepted Hermas also.
Clem. Alex (190 AD) accepted the 4 Gospels and 14 letters, incl- uding Heb, of Paul and Acts and Rev. However he used the Gos. of Hebrews and Egyptians and also regarded the Rev of Pet, Kerygma of Peter, Barnabas, 1 Clem, Didache and Hermas as scripture. The canon was therefore still very much open at the beginning of the 3rd century and still undecided/unsettled.
It appears that at this time the 'canon' was 4 Gospels, the 13 letters of Paul, Acts, 1 Pet, 1 John and Rev whilst the other writings were still disputed.
The Muratorian frag. attests to this fact. This is an 8th cent Latin MS and came from a Greek text from the end of the 2nd cent. The beginning is missing and goes on to list the accepted writings; the role of the eyewitness is here emphasised. Wisdom and Rev of Peter were also accepted. Hermas was being read, but not publicly. It lists the writings to be received and details some rejected. 1 Pet is missing and so is Heb, James and 3 John. What becomes clear here is that a writing is not accepted on its content but rather, whether it was written by an apostle or through one. Whilst rejected writings are now known, the apostolic part was still in flux.
The Christian apologist Origen (220 AD) had 3 classes of writings – (1)Those uncontested – the 4 Gospels, the 13 letters of Paul, 1 Pet, 1 John, Acts and Rev. (2)The doubtful- 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Heb, James and Jude. He cited Hermas and the Didache but does not appear to have accepted them into the canon; he doe
s list Barnabas within the N.T though. (3) Those that were rejected.The view on 'accepted writings' was more open-minded in Alexand- ria; different areas did not necessarily agree with others.
In the Codex D, Phil, 1 and 2 Thess are missing – no doubt through oversight, but so are the 7 Catholic letters, Rev, Acts and Heb. However Hermas, Acts of Paul, Rev of Peter are included. Methodius of Olympus, an opponent of Origen, quotes all the N.T writings as canonical but also the Rev of Peter, Barnabas and the Didache.
Eusebius (330 AD) had three classes of writing – accepted, disputed and those completely rejected. The first set was the Gospels, Acts, l4 letters of Paul (ie. Heb included), l Pet, l John, and 'if one will' Rev. In the second class, this is broken into two groups – the first set that are still esteemed – James, 2 Pet, 2 John; the second group included the Acts of Paul, Rev of Pet, Hermas, Didache, Barnabas and 'if one will' Rev. He says that some accepted the Gos of the Hebrews. In Eusebius' day, the Catholic letters were still disputed and so was Rev. Cyril of Jerusalem, ca. 350, in the 59th or 60th canon of the synod of Laodicea (after 360) and Gregory of Nazianus (d. 390) there are 26 writings – Rev being omitted. In 367 Athanasius issued his Easter letter and lists 27 writings as the only canonical ones; in addition to these and rejected writings, he mentions a 3rd group – those that could be used in instruction – Didache and Hermas. Athanasius was the first to name this collection as the 'kavwv'. Athanasius' authority was such that the canonicity of the 7 Catholic letters was rapidly established although Rev was still disputed. A number of leading Christians did not accept it. There is a list from the 9th cent that omits it and in reality, it was only from the 10th cent that the number of 27 prevails in the Greek church.
The Greek influence on the West in deciding about Heb is discernible. The Latin church did not view it as Pauline and Tertullian attributed it to Barnabas. Hilary of Poitiers (d.367) quoted Heb, James and 2 Pet as did others. Doubts remained about it but it was was gradually accepted. Variations continued, eg. Laodiceans is found in MSS of the Vulgate. However it does appear the N.T was settled for the Latin church from the 5th century.
*The following deals with the acceptance of two specific books – Hebrews and Revelation – into the canon.
Whilst there were a number of books received into the canon, with little or no hesitation, and at an early date, there were several writings that remained on the fringe and were viewed with doubt and only received after a considerable length of time; two such writings were Hebrews and the Revelation.
In the case of Heb, there were a number of problems; there is no introductory form that would be found in a letter and it almost appears to be a sermon; early Christian preaching has certainly been identified within Heb, and as its style is reminiscent of the Hellenistic synagogue preaching, as presented for example by Philo of Alexandria, it is not surprising that its unusual style created doubts about its suitability for the canon.
One of the principle problems concerning Heb was authorship; the writing is quoted as early as l Clement (17:1, 36:2-5); although the West did not accept Heb as Pauline until the fourth century, the church in the East did; it was through the influence from the East that the West did finally accept it as a Pauline writing.
Attributing Heb to Paul inevitably created problems; the language and style of Heb is quite different from that of Paul; there are some 124 words within Heb that are not found in the Pauline writings. The language of Heb corresponds to a sophisticated Hellenistic Greek and manifests a regular carefully rounded sentence structure unlike Paul who sometimes even failed to complete his sentences. One noticeable feature in Heb is that quotations from the O.T are never introduced by the formulas usually used by Paul, eg. 'it is written', 'the scripture says', etc.
The unusual features in Heb also distinguishes it from Paul's writing; the title of high priest is frequently attributed to Jesus in Heb, but this title is never used by Paul; unlike Paul's stress on Jesus' resurrection from the dead, Heb is more concerned with his ascension into heaven and his activity there. The problem over authorship is illustrated by the list of 'possible authors' supplied by early Christian writers, eg. Clement of Alexandria (200 AD) believed that Luke could have translated Heb from a letter written by Paul in the Hebrew language; Origen (220 AD) was acquainted with the idea that Clement of Rome had written Heb; since the time of Tertullian (220 AD) ,the person of Barnabas has been suggested as a possible author; Apollos was also suggested. Despite all these suggestions, the authorship is unknown, and it has, traditionally, remained a letter written by Paul.
Therefore the obvious problems that Heb created, not only by its unknown authorship, but the contents within it, delayed its acceptance into the canon for a lengthy period of time. It was not recognised as canonical by the West before the third century. In the case of Rev, this was undoubtably written for a specific period of time, ie. the beginning of state persecution in the closing years of the first century. The author identifies himself as 'John' (1:1,4,9, 22:8) and this later led to Rev being attributed to the apostle John. However there is no indication that the writer had seen the earthly Jesus and in fact virtually nothing is said about Jesus' life.
Some statements in Rev conflict with Jesus' teachings as in the Gospels (eg. Rev 6:10 when the martyred saints cry for vengeance, with Matt 5:44, when Jesus teaches that persecutors should be loved and prayed for). The realised eschatology of John's Gospel is missing in Rev; instead, there are a number of events to occur before the final climax when Jesus returns and the present system, including the earth itself, is ended (Rev 20-21).
The contents of Rev therefore, not surprisingly, led to discussion and dispute about whether it should be received into the canon. Its attitude to the church's enemies was viewed as 'sub-Christian' and its stress on God's wrath eclipses any suggestion of God's love.
Doubts about Rev are very clear from early Christian writings; it is omitted in several lists of 'received books' and as early as the third century, some Christians even thought it appropriate to question Rev's authorship in writing; Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria challenged the belief that the apostle John (who he believed had written the Gospel and the three Johannine letters) could have also written Rev; he deals with the differences in style, vocabulary and ideas. In the case of Heb, Dionysius did use this and furthermore, he did view it as a Pauline writing.
The Muratorian fragment which is a Latin translation of a Greek canon list usually dated ca. 180-200 AD (although some date it as a century later) lists the accepted writings in Rome, and Rev is included in this; although it mentions writings to be rejected, it does not mention Heb.
Irenaeus (180 AD) used most N.T. writings, but he did not use Heb; in the case of Tertullian (220 AD), he used Rev but did not accept Heb. Clement of Alexandria (200 AD) quoted extensively from the N.T writings and although he used Heb, he also quoted from pagan writings, so Clement is not an ideal guide to the church's view towards certain N.T. writings.
In the region of Antioch, the canon did not include Rev and even after doubts about the seven 'Catholic' letters had been cleared up in the fifth/sixth centuries, doubts about Rev still continued.
Although doubts continued over certain N.T.writings, one significant event in the church's history in relation to settling its canon was Athanasius' Easter letter of 367; in
this he lists the twenty-seven writings as those that were to be received; despite this, doubts did however still linger on.Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem in the mid-fourth century omitted Rev (Catech. IV.36) as did Gregory Nazianzen, bishop of Constantinople in the latter part of the fourth century. Philastrius, bishop of Brixia shortly afterwards omitted Heb from his list. Other Christian leaders, eg. Chrysostom and Theodoret, also rejected Rev.
The fourth cent. Codex Sinaiticus has all twenty-seven writings, but it also has 1 and 2 Clement. The fourth century historian Eusebius of Caesarea stated that Heb had been rejected by some as it was not seen as being written by Paul (H.E. III.3.1-5). In H.E. 25.1-7, he lists the accepted writings, but with regard to Rev, this was accepted only 'if it seems right'. He also lists Rev under the category of those writings deemed 'spurious' (ie. doubts about authorship), and adds that Rev was accepted by some, although others rejected it. According to H.E. III.39.12, Eusebius clearly had doubts about Rev himself.
In H.E.IV, he comments on Origen's view of accepted writings and states it was unlikely that Heb's author was Paul, but it was possibly Clement bishop of Rome, or Luke. Origen had also classed the different writings into groupings, ie. those to be accepted (he included Rev in this), the doubtful (which included Heb), and those that were rejected.
Jerome (ca. 347-420 AD), who was responsible for the Vulgate translation of the Bible did include Heb in his N.T, but was aware of the doubts that had been raised about it. In the same period, Ambrose did not view it as a Pauline letter.
The Codex Claromontanus, which is dated ca. sixth century, and apparently of Western origin does include Rev and 'an 'Epistle of Barnabas' which some feel may be Heb. Although it is dated ca. sixth century, some believe that it reflects a view that existed in the third/fourth century.
With regard to the formation of the canon, J.N.D. Kelly in Early Christian Doctrines, states,
“For example, Hebrews was for long under suspicion in the West, and Revelation was usually excluded in the fourth and fifth centuries where the school of Antioch held sway….”
The Stichometry of Nicephorus, usually dated as mid-ninth century omits Rev. The 'Catalogue of the Sixty Canonical Books', transmitted in several MSS, reflects the view of the Greek church at a later date – this however also omits Rev. Therefore even at this late stage in the church's history, it appears some did not accept Rev into the canon.
——————————————————————————–
Errors that arose in manuscripts.
Examination of different MSS shows the variants which have occurred in the time of copying.In 1707 some 30,000 variants were listed from Greek MSS by John Mill; early this century von Soden printed evidence of some 45,000 variants that he had found in N.T MSS.
There are a number of reasons for these variants, eg.
(1)If the eye skipped over a word, letter, word or line(s), the error is 'haplography' (“single writing”); (1a) If it was a case of seeing something twice, the error is termed 'dittography' (“double writing”). One example of this can be found in 1 Thess 2:7 – the difference between 'we were gentle' and 'we were babes' (as per RSV footnote), is whether one or 2 'n's' belong in the Greek. In Matt 27:17, the insertion of 'Jesus' before 'Barabbas' in some MSS may arise through repetition (dittography) of the last two letters of the Greek word 'for you' which in fact was the regular abbreviation for 'Jesus'. In contrast to this, it may in fact be a case of haplography where 'Jesus' has been omitted.
(2)If the confusion is due to similiar endings on two words or lines, so the intervening words are omitted, this error is termed 'homoeoteleuton' (“similiar ending”); if it is the case of omission due to a similar beginning, it is termed 'homoeoarcton'; an example of this arises in the O.T, ie. 1 Sam 14:41 where several clauses have dropped out in the Hebrew between 'Israel' – the LXX and the Vulgate however preserve the correct reading.
(3)A cause for another type of error was the copyist mishearing; if a letter was being dictated, a scribe could mishear things; such a situation appears to have arisen in Rom 5:1 – 'we have peace' and 'let us have peace' (RSV Footnote) which sounded the same in first cent. Greek.
This error was possible in N.T copying but not for the O.T -there are no rabbinic references to a practice of reading aloud to a copyist.
(4)There were also errors through poor judgement. A copyist might misinterpret the abbreviations that were often used in MSS, especially for 'God' and 'Christ' which were frequently abbreviated. The variants found in 1 Tim 3:16 undoubtably involved this point.
On occasion a copyist would have to divide a word; as Greek uncials were written continuously, without a break, a scribe introducing his own word divisions would have to decide upon the position of the word-break. It is was not always clear where a sentence ended; Rom 9:5 is a good example of this and is important as some believe Paul calls Christ 'God' here (although unlikely).
(5)Liturgical instructions also appear to have been added in some cases, eg. Acts 8:37 (RSV footnote) which most likely reflects the baptismal confession in the church of the second cent. copyist.
1 Cor 4:6 is a good example of the errors that could arise when notes were added in the margin or under the text; the phrase 'to live according to the scripture' is literally 'not above what is written'; it is suspected that a copyist made an error in the first verses of l Cor 4, then made a note for the next copyist not to repeat this error, but instead, the next copyist not only did this, but also included the instruction which had been left for him.
(6)Deliberate alterations also occur in the text; this is due to a number of reasons.
Copyists made changes for theological reasons, eg. to remove what appeared to be a contradiction, to expand upon something that he felt was important, to change the meaning to suit his own viewpoint, or changing the statement simply to clarify the meaning. On occasions the copyist might simply make changes to supply a more familiar word, eg. the unusual verb in Mark 6:20 when Herod was 'perplexed' was changed in later MSS to 'did'. Clarification of a verse can be seen by Mark 14:12 'lest…it be forgiven them' becomes in certain MSS 'their sins should be forgiven them'. In John 5:3b-4 (RSV footnote), there is an insertion to explain the conversation that follows.
When Matt (27:9) quotes an O.T passage which is mostly from Zechariah but it is attributed to Jeremiah, some MSS show that a copyist has attempted to remove this. In Mark 1:2, two statements are brought together, one from Isaiah and the other from Malachi, but Mark attributes both to Isaiah; again some MSS omit 'Isaiah' to try and remove this error.
In time, some copyists felt it would be useful to add further details, eg. in one Old Latin MS, the two thieves being crucified with Christ are given names in Mark 15:27. In Matt 24:36 Jesus states that even the Son did not know when the parousia was to occur and obviously some copyists felt this impugned Jesus' omniscience, and in some MSS 'nor the Son' is missing.
It is suspected a copyist's marginal protest note has been included in Luke 16:16-18. In v.16 Jesus states that the law and the prophets were only until John, and in v.l8, Jesus forbids divorce (against the Deut 24:1-2 ruling), but in v.17 he states that not one dot of the law will pass away.
Some feel this is a marginal protest against 16:16 (and possibly v.18) by a Jewish-Christi
an copyist that has been incorporated into the text and hence the apparent contradiction.The view of the copyist towards Jesus' status is reflected in the MSS; in John 1:18 'the only Son' becomes 'the only God' in some MSS; therefore the Christology of the copyist sometimes led to changes being made on occasion. Heb 1:8 has two different renderings and one of these has the Son being addressed as 'God'. The personal view of the copyist could sometimes result in word changes that drastically altered the meaning of the sentence; in the Western text, the Jews 'act evilly' when crucifying Jesus, but in the Codex Vaticanus, the Jews merely act 'in ignorance'. In Acts 2:17 when Peter explains about the prophesy of Joel – that the spirit would be poured out on all flesh – the Codex Bezae has the noun for flesh in the plural to stress that this promise was for all nations and peoples, and not just the Jews. In Vaticanus, the wounded side of Jesus, as detailed in John l9:34 is also introduced at Matt 27:49.
One of the most significant additions to N.T writing is Mark 16:9-20; here the abrupt ending of Mark has been continued to include post-resurrection appearances by Jesus to his disciples. The critical time for this was most likely ca. 70-ca. 150 AD; at this time Christian writings were not seen as 'Scripture', but 'guides to Christian living' so there was no real difficulty in making changes. Later on, Origen condemned copyists who made deliberate changes for their 'depraved audacity' and Jerome reported to pope Damascus that 'numerous errors' had arisen through attempted harmonisation by copyists.
One rule adopted by those endeavouring to ascertain the original reading is to choose the reading that (a)is the most confused (ii)contradicts or is least likely to agree a statement in another N.T. writing (iii)is shorter. It was usual for a copyist to change a statement to make it clearer, or if it contradicted another passage, or if it could be made to support another passage; a longer passage is therefore most likely the one that has been changed as a copyists would tend to lengthen it to include an explanatory note. The general rule is 'Lectio difficilior probabilior', ie. it affirms the more difficult expression as the one to be regarded as more likely the original.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
