Search Members

[J_47-2]

http://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”

[J_47-2]

1. 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-Biblical

terraricca,
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.
-J

[J_47-2]

Ed J,
I should have used a better (as opposed to “better”) adjective.
The trans. you're using is fine; I just like being able to see the alternate renderings and places where translator(s) diverted from the literal.

Agape,
J

[J_47-2]

This is a “better” translation in KJV English with footnotes. (vol 1)
http://www.ccel.org/fathers.html

God bless,
J

[J_47-2]

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

[J_47-2]

Kerwin,
I think you sort of answered what I was getting at, THANX.
As for Theophilus, I would NOT reccomend his extant writings. All Eng. translations (3) I've found are skewed toward modern tastes and the Greek doesn't seem to be available online. Also he was considered a heretic in his own lifetime.
I however, am not truly worthy to give advice on such matters. My knowledge of Scripture is elementary at best. It is only my taste for history and my distaste for trinitarianism (along with some few other things I don't wish to discuss right now) that led me back to the Bible.
May God guide you to correctly divide the Scriptures!
J

[J_47-2]

Kerwin,
I'm new to this site and I haven't read this entire thread (just skimming).
Your last comments sound odd to me. They are in keeping with the teachings of Theophilus in mid-second century. Do you believe Sophia (Wisdom) to be the same as Pneuma (Spirit)? Is she twin of Logos? Mother of Christ?
Just curious.
May God shine His Light on us all..
Seeking Truth,
J

[J_47-2]

Quoting The Shepherd is not to quote Hermas the Elder (d. ca. 113- 118). The Shepherd was known to be written by the grandson of Hermas, also called Hermas, ca. 145, during the papacy of Pius I who was the elder brother (in the flesh as they say) of Hermas the Younger.

[J_47-2]

Luther did not use Revelations as a proof-text because he thought it was not canonical. The book is last in our Bibles because that’s where Luther’s German translation placed it. No printer would publish his Bible without the book.

[Author]

Posts