|
|
|
|
|
| Oct 5th entry in My Utmost for His Highest....defining sin
Posted: 11/7/2009 1:56:42 PM |
Paul believed that human beings didn't have to follow the rules of God, as long as they spread Christianity.
Paul brought Christianity and the Word of God to many who already did not know either, and were not practicing them. Paul did not judge them for their activities (but was ever mindful of the right/wrong of the activities themselves). Rather, by spreading Christianity and the Word of God to those who did not know before, Paul then left it to God and the Spirit to guide from there. | |
|
| Oct 5th entry in My Utmost for His Highest....defining sin
Posted: 11/7/2009 1:59:40 PM | Elm from the Reich said:
Paul believed that human beings didn't have to follow the rules of God, as long as they spread Christianity.
You need to support your statements with documentation and scripture verses or it is only so much hot air with no validity.
But hatred for many of Christ's beliefs, such as the Covenant of Moses.
Again, some documentation to support your statement of Paul's HATRED for Christ's beliefs.
The entire book of Romans and the book of Hebrews are devoted to how Christ FULFILLED the covenant of Moses. If you understood what the covenant was and why God gave it (which Paul explains in detail) then you would also understand HOWand WHY Christ fulfilled it. I would explain it to you here, but I think it would be a waste of typing and Paul did a much better job than I ever could.
You are certainly adept at making outrageous statements, but not at backing them up with any supporting evidence.
Also, if Paul had been so committed to tearing down Christ and His work, then he would have gone and preached to the Jews, since has had been educated in the highest levels of Judaism (Pharisee son of a Pharisee). But no, God sent Paul to the Gentiles to preach Christ and to prove it was He, God, working and not just Paul. Totally contrary to what man would have done. | |
|
| |
| Oct 5th entry in My Utmost for His Highest....defining sin
Posted: 11/7/2009 2:49:43 PM | Elm from the Reich,
Is post #174 you villify Paul for not giving more credit to Christ. Now you are calling Christ a charlatan. You seem so confused theologically speaking.
How come we have to hear about it from people who lived 40 or so year after he died, and were writing in a language Jesus didn't even speak?
Most historians put the death of the Apostle Paul c. mid 60s under Nero. He quotes from the gospel of Luke (1 Tim. 5:18, Luke 10:7) and calls it Scripture, dating the book of Luke prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. The crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ occurred in the spring of 32 AD, so this means the book of Luke was written within 35 years of the events. That it VEY current when compared to other historical records from ancient times.
MANY scholars, both Christian and not, place the dates for the New Testament books between 40 and 90 AD., and these are the dates for completed books, not when they were first begun. Portions were most likely in circulation much before those dates. It is clear that early church fathers, like Irenaeus (mid 100's ) and Origen (early 200's) were using the same 27 books we call the New Testament.
Additionally, a letter to the church at Corinth in the name of Clement of Rome in 95 quotes from 10 of the 27 books of the New Testament . His letter is one of the oldest Christian documents still in existence outside of the New Testament. Additionally, a letter to the church at Philippi in the name of Polycarp in the year 120 quotes from 16 books.
For these books to be IN USE and used in quotes at these early dates, they had to have been in circulation for some time. Remember, they did not have paper as we know it or copy machines, but everything was painstakingly written by hand on fragile papyrus scrolls. They were written as letters and circulated throughout the region from church to church. So, Iranaeus and Origen and Clement were already using handwritten COPIES of the original books. In his Easter letter of 367, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of exactly the same books in our modern New Testament. Copies of the Bible dating to the 14th century A.D. are nearly identical in content to copies from the 3rd century A.D. Even many hardened skeptics and critics of the Bible admit that the Bible has been transmitted over the centuries far more accurately than any other ancient document.
None of the books of the New Testament refers in any way to the catastrophic event of the fall of Jerusalem to the Roman legions under Titus in AD 70 and the subsequent persecution. Had they been written after that date, they would surely have at least alluded to that crucial event, as it was a fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy in Luke 19:41-44. | |
|
| Oct 5th entry in My Utmost for His Highest....defining sin
Posted: 11/7/2009 4:44:42 PM | You know what Boomer, while I agree with you once again, there is one thing I am very weary of and that is trusting the "church fathers" from even 150 years out. Just look at how quickly things have changed in the few hundred years of the USA. Sure, we have been through accelerated growth due to the industrial revolution, but really, just look at the Bible and look at the Catholic Church. There is hardly any similarity at all. Of course the same can be said for nearly all churches, but the most obvious is the Catholic Church, who base everything they do on what those "church fathers" did.
I'm so glad we do have the Bible at least. I do believe there should be more to it because there are references in the Bible to books we don't have, but what we do have is extremely reliable, including the writings of Paul. | |
|
| Oct 5th entry in My Utmost for His Highest....defining sin
Posted: 11/7/2009 5:48:12 PM | The "church fathers" were men. All doctrine must be measured against a standard. In matters of faith there has to be a final arbiter of what is error and what is truth. God did not leave us in the dark on such an important matter. We HAVE a standard by which to measure what is true and what is not. That standard is the Bible--The Word of God. It has stood the test of time.
There are many errant doctrines floating around throughout Christendom, but when measured against the whole council of God (the ENTIRE Bible, not just pieces) they all fall. The doctrinal errors of sects and cults all stem from one root--they are based on a few scriptures, usually taken out of context, and have not been reconciled with the entire Word. There ARE rules for proper interpretation of any text, be it Biblical, historical or legal, called hermeneutics which include context, social-cultural issues and more. When these rules are broken, error is the result. Add to that doctrines and rules that have been thrust on people from a cultural, political or just plain made up viewpoint and you have trouble...and error.
2 Peter 1:20-21
first you must understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter]of any personal or private or special interpretation (loosening, solving). For no prophecy ever originated because some man willed it [to do so--it never came by human impulse], but men spoke from God who were borne along (moved and impelled) by the Holy Spirit. (AmplVer)
2 Timothy 3:16-17
every Scripture is God-breathed (given by His inspiration) and profitable for instruction, for reproof and conviction of sin, for correction of error and discipline in obedience, [and] for training in righteousness (in holy living, in conformity to God's will in thought, purpose, and action), so that the man of God may be complete and proficient, well fitted and thoroughly equipped for every good work. (AmplVer) | |
|
| Oct 5th entry in My Utmost for His Highest....defining sin
Posted: 11/7/2009 5:56:17 PM |
Is Wikipedia OK? The poster in question flatly denied using it--despite the fact he has.
You have to know your subject well enough to know if what Wikipedia is saying is valid or not. Then you must support your position with other supporting documentation and your own reasoning for your position on any point. That does not seem to be the case with some here. If someone just cuts and pastes Wikipedia, they are being no more than a parrot, i.e a birdbrain.
Original thought is a rare and wonderful thing. | |
|
| Oct 5th entry in My Utmost for His Highest....defining sin
Posted: 11/7/2009 8:00:17 PM | Well I don't disagree that the Bible has stood the test of time, but that doesn't make it perfect or complete. What's there is very reliable for what it does say, but there are missing books mentioned within the Bible.
I agree with your uproach to reading and understanding what is written. Putting that into practice can be quite tricky because people have their emotions wrapped around their pre-conceived or post-conceived "original thinking". | |
|
| Oct 5th entry in My Utmost for His Highest....defining sin
Posted: 11/7/2009 8:11:02 PM |
but there are missing books mentioned within the Bible.
What and where? Please cite the references for what you are referring to.
people have their emotions wrapped around their pre-conceived or post-conceived "original thinking".
Which is exactly why the rules of hermeneutics and interpretation must be followed. You let the Biblical text interpret itself, you do not squeeze the text to fit your interpretation. You do not pull select verses out of context and ignore others that disagree with your viewpoint. That is dishonest and bad scholarship..
| |
|
| Oct 5th entry in My Utmost for His Highest....defining sin
Posted: 11/7/2009 10:37:28 PM | Paul said that following the Torah wasn't necessary for salvation. That's basic New Testament.
So-called "Christians" no longer follow the Sabbath or the Mosaic diet. Most of them don't even know what day of the week the Sabbath is. Do you? | |
|
| Oct 5th entry in My Utmost for His Highest....defining sin
Posted: 11/7/2009 10:43:48 PM |
Most historians put the death of the Apostle Paul c. mid 60s under Nero. He quotes from the gospel of Luke (1 Tim. 5:18, Luke 10:7) and calls it Scripture, dating the book of Luke prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. The crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ occurred in the spring of 32 AD, so this means the book of Luke was written within 35 years of the events.
How could the Book of Luke be written before 70 AD when it MENTIONS the destruction of the Second Temple?
That it VEY current when compared to other historical records from ancient times.
Not really. Nearly every major philosopher, author and major political figure of the era is discussed by contemporary sources. EXCEPT JESUS!  | |
|
| |
| Oct 5th entry in My Utmost for His Highest....defining sin
Posted: 11/8/2009 1:03:52 AM | Okay. Let's just mention the major Greek philosophers and writers who lived 300 to 500 years before Christ:
Socrates' life was chronicled extensively by Xenophon and Plato. He lived 400 years before Christ did. The writings of Aristotle, Plato, Achaeus of Eretria, Xenophon, Sophocles, Aeschylus, Euripedes, Eumenides, Achaeus, Leucippus, Plotinus, Antisthenes, Zeno of Citium, Epicurus, Herodotus, Thucydides, Diogenes Laërtius and Heraclitus still exist in the language they were written, some very extensively.
NOTHING Jesus said in the language He said it was ever written down, and there are no contemporary accounts of his life. Almost every Greek philosopher who lived between 300 and 500 years before Christ was born either wrote something that exists to this day in the language he wrote it, or was chronicled by his contemporaries.
Basic archaeology tells us we know very little about Christ except around the myths surrounding Him, especially compared with the other major thinkers of Ancient times. | |
|
| Oct 5th entry in My Utmost for His Highest....defining sin
Posted: 11/8/2009 7:19:37 AM |
How could the Book of Luke be written before 70 AD when it MENTIONS the destruction of the Second Temple?
WHERE? Site the reference to support your statement.
Any reference to the temple at the end of Luke is a prophecy about its destruction in 70.A.D. | |
|
| Oct 5th entry in My Utmost for His Highest....defining sin
Posted: 11/8/2009 9:16:19 AM | Elm from the Reich said in post #698
I don't think He did those things. I mean, how come no one who saw Him do these things ever wrote it down? How come we have to hear about it from people who lived 40 or so year after he died, and were writing in a language Jesus didn't even speak.
Your statements demonstrate a total lack of research and scholarship on known historical events. Multiple biblical scholars, both Christian and non-Christan, soundly contradict your statements. By many of your statements, I have come to the conclusion that you have not actually READ the New Testament for yourself.
Biographies usually are not written until AFTER the death of the subject and until the events of that life can be properly documented. Luke, a highly educated Gentile physician, wrote his gospel and the Book of Acts as a biography of the life of Jesus Christ in order to accurately record His life and ministry. His writings have been proven to be historically accurate. The other 3 gospels were written by EYEWITNESSES to all of the events recorded.
Within just a few short years of Jesus' life, as a result of His resurrection from the dead, the hundreds of eyewitnesses to this event, and the miracles being done by the apostles, the church had spread far beyond the confines of Jerusalem into most of the Roman empire. The Gospels were written in Koine Greek as a historical record to a larger audience because Aramaic was not as widely spoken and many who spoke Aramaic also spoke Greek. There is no evidence that Jesus did not speak Greek, the language of Galilee.Though he grew up in a small town, he was not at all cut off from the broader Roman world. In fact Jesus grew up with ample exposure to Roman language, culture, commerce, politics, religion, and philosophy. And in His conversation with Pontius Pilate and other Roman authorities during His trial, most scholars conclude Pilate would not have spoken the language of his lowly subjects, so Jesus addressed him in Greek.
Post #713
Basic archaeology tells us we know very little about Christ except around the myths surrounding Him, especially compared with the other major thinkers of Ancient time.
There are thousands more New Testament Greek manuscripts than any other ancient writing. The internal consistency of the New Testament documents is about 99.5% textually pure. That is an amazing accuracy. In addition there are over 19,000 in copies in the Syriac, Latin, Coptic, and Aramaic languages. The total supporting New Testament manuscript base is over 24,000.
There are presently 5,686 Greek manuscripts in existence today for the New Testament. If we were to compare the number of New Testament manuscripts to other ancient writings, we find that the New Testament manuscripts far outweigh the others in quantity.
Author Date
Written Earliest Copy Approximate Time Span between original & copy Number of Copies Accuracy of Copies
Lucretius died 55 or 53 B.C. 1100 yrs 2 ----
Pliny 61-113 A.D. 850 A.D. 750 yrs 7 ----
Plato 427-347 B.C. 900 A.D. 1200 yrs 7 ----
Demosthenes 4th Cent. B.C. 1100 A.D. 800 yrs 8 ----
Herodotus 480-425 B.C. 900 A.D. 1300 yrs 8 ----
Suetonius 75-160 A.D. 950 A.D. 800 yrs 8 ----
Thucydides 460-400 B.C. 900 A.D. 1300 yrs 8 ----
Euripides 480-406 B.C. 1100 A.D. 1300 yrs 9 ----
Aristophanes 450-385 B.C. 900 A.D. 1200 10 ----
Caesar 100-44 B.C. 900 A.D. 1000 10 ----
Livy 59 BC-AD 17 ---- ??? 20 ----
Tacitus circa 100 A.D. 1100 A.D. 1000 yrs 20 ----
Aristotle 384-322 B.C. 1100 A.D. 1400 49 ----
Sophocles 496-406 B.C. 1000 A.D. 1400 yrs 193 ----
Homer (Iliad) 900 B.C. 400 B.C. 500 yrs 643 95%
New Testament 1st Cent. A.D. (50-100 A.D. 2nd Cent. A.D.
(c. 130 A.D. f.) less than 100 years 5600 99.5%
Almost all biblical scholars agree that the New Testament documents were all written before the close of the First Century. If Jesus was crucified in 30 A.D., then that means that the entire New Testament was completed within 70 years. This is important because it means there were plenty of people around when the New Testament documents were penned who could have contested the writings. In other words, those who wrote the documents knew that if they were inaccurate, plenty of people would have pointed it out. But, we have absolutely no ancient documents contemporary with the First Century that contest the New Testament texts. NONE!
Furthermore, another important aspect of this discussion is the fact that we have a fragment of the gospel of John that dates back to around 29 years from the original writing. This is extremely close to the original writing date. This is simply unheard of in any other ancient writing and it demonstrates that the Gospel of John is a First Century document.
If you want to dismiss the New Testament as reliable information, then you must also dismiss the reliability of the writings of Plato, Aristotle, Caesar, Homer, and the other authors mentioned in the chart above since the evidence for the New Testament's reliability is far greater than the others. Christians have a substantially superior criteria for affirming the New Testament documents than exists for any other ancient writing. It is good evidence on which to base the trust in the reliability of the New Testament.
in post 710
So-called "Christians" no longer follow the Sabbath or the Mosaic diet. Most of them don't even know what day of the week the Sabbath is.
Christ was raised on the first day of the week (Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:1-2; Luke 24:1; John 20:1), after the Sabbath was over. Because of this, the apostles, who had been strictly raised to never break the Sabbath (our Saturday), changed their primary worship to the first day of the week, our Sunday, in honor of the resurrection and the fulfillment of Mosaic Law. | |
|
| Oct 5th entry in My Utmost for His Highest....defining sin
Posted: 11/8/2009 9:35:28 AM | Elm --
The books of the Bible were struggled with as far as placement by scholars and translators. You will find songs/poetry, prophecy and history in the OT stategically placed in sections. The NT contains prophecy as well as instruction and history combined.
To 'see or read (which has been the case in history)' what was foretold before the events actually occurred is prophecy (and what ties a believers faith moreso than just blind-belief itself). The prophetic writings also serve as proof in this way for some like me with an investigative mind focused on logic and not pure emotion or upbringing in a church or any sense or need to belong to a group or to otherwise need any explanation to deal with death.
The true beginning of the week is Sunday and the Sabbath falls on Saturday which is the 7th and last day of the week. Beyond the Catholic Church and rulings thereof throughout history -- many Christians are aware of this fact. In scripture you will read that Christ was sent not only for peace, but to divide households if reading carefully. It's no mystery as to why.
Apostle Paul, a Jew and once a pharisee was set over the gentiles for a purpose. He carried forth His teaching regardless of this infliction to a greater extent than many unbelieving historians might choose to document. Looking at Jewish historian's writing might leave one with a clearer picture (regardless of thier belief that Christ was only a prophet). | |
|
| Oct 5th entry in My Utmost for His Highest....defining sin
Posted: 11/8/2009 10:20:41 AM | Boomer,
Along the lines of your post #715 talking about the history and purity of translations of the bible through time, -=
Along these lines, a couple of years ago now in San Diego, some of the Dead Sea Scrolls were on display. Alongside just being able to simply see them, there was also a presentation along the same lines as what you wrote. They made it clear how purely the bible has been translated through time. As a footnote to the exhibit, just as you'd leave the path of the exhibit next to the door in the last room, they showed three bibles. One from very early on if I remember, something like the 12 or 14 hundreds, then another from a couple hundred years later, then one from the late 1800's.......and they had them all open to the same page and right below them they showed a current translation of their respective texts. They were identical. It's really amazing! | |
|
| Oct 5th entry in My Utmost for His Highest....defining sin
Posted: 11/8/2009 10:59:25 AM | "but really, just look at the Bible and look at the Catholic Church. There is hardly any similarity at all. Of course the same can be said for nearly all churches, but the most obvious is the Catholic Church, who base everything they do on what those "church fathers" did."
Most people - even Catholics - don't know that there are very very few basic statements that are 'the Catholic Church' and only a few canon laws that apply those basic statements. Everything else... all the things the pope's, cardinals, bishops, priests say ... are only current teachings based upon current interpretations of traditions.
Catholicism is based solely on those few basic statements and canon laws which have not been changed in many decades. (I'd have to look it up, but the last I recall might have been in an encyclical in the 1950s). Those statements are still highly aligned with the first century Catholicism (which was the only form of Christianity at that time). | |
|
| Oct 5th entry in My Utmost for His Highest....defining sin
Posted: 11/8/2009 11:09:17 AM | Here are some people you might want to study and understand when it comes to others who have been recorded well, around the time of the beginning of Christianity.
Philo of Alexandria (20BC-50CE)
http://www.jesushistory.info/philo_of_alexandria_laid_foundations.htm
“Philo’s ideas about Logos-Wisdom are ... indispensable for New Testament studies ... most directly and dramatically in the interpretation of the Gospel of John ...” Philo’s descriptions of the Word of God (the Wisdom of God, the son of God, the Archangel, the mediator of God, who offers his life for the sins of mankind), appear in the Gospel of John and in the letters of Paul. Philo’s ideas about the Word-Wisdom are indispensable in the study of Jesus. Philo is regarded by Christian scholars as a forerunner of Christian theology.
The Church father Origen read the writings of Philo. He wrote, “We {Christians} maintain that the law has a twofold interpretation, one literal and the other spiritual {allegorical-symbolic}, as was also taught by some of our predecessors {i.e. Philo}.” Epiphanius, too, read Philo, and so did Clement of Alexandria and Justin Martyr. There is considerable evidence indicating that Paul, John, and the writer of the letter to Hebrews read Philo. They, too, interpreted the law spiritually (allegorically, symbolically). Origen wrote, “In fact, the reason why we do not live like the Jews is that we think the literal interpretation of the laws does not contain the meaning of legislation.” Origen said, the meaning of the law is not literal. It is spiritual (allegorical). This is what Philo taught and this is what the Gentile Christians practiced.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo
http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/philo.php
Origen (185-254)
http://www.iep.utm.edu/origen-of-alexandria/
Origen lived through a turbulent period of the Christian Church, when persecution was wide-spread and little or no doctrinal consensus existed among the various regional churches. In this environment, Gnosticism flourished, and Origen was the first truly philosophical thinker to turn his hand not only to a refutation of Gnosticism, but to offer an alternative Christian system that was more rigorous and philosophically respectable than the mythological speculations of the various Gnostic sects.
To learn more about those who were well recorded in that time will give more insight into what happened from the time of the Crucifixion.... to the time of all the Councils....starting with the Council of Nicaea.
In the second and third centuries it was a turbulent time in Christianity.... little or no doctrinal consensus existed.... Like today, there were many different sects or groups that saw things a bit different... Gnostics Flourished.. But by the time the forth century came around.... The Orthodox gained control of the ear of the Emperor, and squashed all that did not adhere to their way... calling them Heretics. I hate to say it, but the Orthodox were the rich and powerful, controlling the Churches and large Cities, while those that were Gnostic and others... were of a more humble rural community.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen
For Origen, God was the First Principle, and Christ, the Logos, was subordinate to him
Read about the Cathars.... another humble rural community, believed to also be Gnostics... Squashed by those who wanted control over mens souls.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catharism
http://www.midi-france.info/cathar/
http://www.cathar.info/1204_origins.htm
We in general have bought into the Norm.... saying... That's unorthodox... for anything that is not normal... Where do you think this comes from?
Well, I believe it comes from an Orthodox machine that was so big, it could squash anything and say anything or anyone who disagrees with them are wrong.... It's all about control... And not finding the truth.
Here are a couple other interesting people to read about... From around the time of Christ.
Josephus (CE37-100)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus
http://www.allabouthistory.org/josephus-and-christ-faq.htm
Apollonius of Tyana (around 3BC-97CE) considered a contemporary of Christ
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollonius_of_Tyana
http://www.themystica.com/mystica/articles/a/apollonius_of_tyana.html
Ovid (43Bc-17or18CE)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovid
http://www.all-creatures.org/hr/hra-ovid.htm
All though Ovid lived around the time of Christ, not much would say he Knew of Jesus. But this famous poet had something to say about religion that was interesting.
(An interesting take on Animal Sacrifice and VEGETARIANISM) | |
|
| Oct 5th entry in My Utmost for His Highest....defining sin
Posted: 11/8/2009 1:18:36 PM |
Read about the Cathars.... another humble rural community, believed to also be Gnostics... Squashed by those who wanted control over mens souls.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catharism
http://www.midi-france.info/cathar/
http://www.cathar.info/1204_origins.htm
We in general have bought into the Norm.... saying... That's unorthodox... for anything that is not normal... Where do you think this comes from?
Well, I believe it comes from an Orthodox machine that was so big, it could squash anything and say anything or anyone who disagrees with them are wrong.... It's all about control... And not finding the truth.
Why must it be so darkly assumed that matters are always about control? This reminds me of 4th Century Antisthenesian cynicism. The incident with the Cathars was an isolated aspect of history, it was a doctrinal issue that created division and it does not reflect the beliefs and ill motives of an entire Church--in light of the great writing flowing out of the Church at this time, this is nothing more of evidence of an illogical generalized assumption about Catholicism at work, in my humble opinion. I mean, the evidence you share here shows the problem some Christians had with the Cathers more than clearly:
1) "Cathars believed in reincarnation..."
----> Scriptural? Probably not! The resurrection boldly disproves reincarnation. To a Christian, life is in or outside of Christ. Life is not in our next life as a duck or a goose.
2) "They were strict about biblical injunctions - notably those about living in poverty, not telling lies, not killing and not swearing oaths."
-----> Talk about controlling, control a man's pocket book and you control the man. We all know this.
3) Cathars "had no doctrinal objection to contraception, euthanasia or suicide."
-----> For a Cathar, its ok for man to play God because he can reincarnate and get it right eventually? How very disrespectful to God, who brings forth life and takes it away, and to Jesus, who in Him we can do and survive all things--meaning the challenges of multiple children, aging and personally misery can be overcome in Christ. You bet such heresy would be opposed. Its ok to oppose the ideas of another, we ourselves do it all of the time, but ohhh...now, the Church must be more flexible and accepting of heresies, lest be accused of being control freaks? Ok, why? Do tell.
Anyway... | |
|
| Oct 5th entry in My Utmost for His Highest....defining sin
Posted: 11/8/2009 3:26:14 PM | What and where? Please cite the references for what you are referring to.
Boomer, sorry I missed this question earlier. I didn't intentionally ignore it. Here is the wiki link that spirred my comment. look at the "Lost Epistles" section. I didn't go looking for lost epistles, I was just looking up the word "epistles" and ran across it. While I don't agree with the whole list, there are some that do seem quite legitimate to me, plus the other info on epistles is quite informative. | |
|
| Oct 5th entry in My Utmost for His Highest....defining sin
Posted: 11/8/2009 3:39:42 PM | Thanks GG. I was patiently waiting for your reply.
Your original post :
What's there is very reliable for what it does say, but there are missing books mentioned within the Bible. (bold put for emphasis).
I was asking you to cite chapter and verse IN the Bible that mention the missing books you are referring to. You will not be able to cite any such reference because there are none. I did not need to check Wikipedia to know this. In all of my reading of the New Testament I have never seen such a statement. | |
|
| Oct 5th entry in My Utmost for His Highest....defining sin
Posted: 11/8/2009 3:55:39 PM |
Its ok to oppose the ideas of another, we ourselves do it all of the time, but ohhh...now, the Church must be more flexible and accepting of heresies, lest be accused of being control freaks? Ok, why? Do tell.
This topic is about sin, and who we realize that fact... Sure people can oppose others ideas, and agree or not with another persons belief... But this doesn't give one group the right to completely eliminate another group because you disagree.
I believe God will be the judge of who is right or wrong. | |
|
| Oct 5th entry in My Utmost for His Highest....defining sin
Posted: 11/8/2009 4:27:08 PM | ^^^ At what point does a person stop sticking it to the group they "think" caused the medieval Cathar heretic faith to be wiped off of the planet? So, perhaps there have been corrupt popes who sat in the chair for a year or so. Perhaps some berry, berry, berry bad men took time to define sin--and advise the flock. Oh well! This is life. People err. Still, such summaries have no bearing on Christians, as a whole, Catholic, Protestant or Orthodox, in my humble opinion. There's still no excuse to try to reinvent Christianity by bashing the original churches in favor of some lost and forgotten fly by night church.
Nobody ties anybody hands these days about what books can be studied. The dead sea scrolls exhibit was absolutely fascinating (I saw it in Charlotte). Those ancient written words were so fascinating that it made me want to learn the language they were written in. We are all free to read!
Anyway, holding the atrocities of the past against the same groups today is just like black people holding what white people did against them... its way too general of an approach and it makes for unhealthy social relations. I mean, sinful social relations. :) | |
|
| Oct 5th entry in My Utmost for His Highest....defining sin
Posted: 11/8/2009 4:49:11 PM |
I believe God will be the judge of who is right or wrong.
Ultimately that, of course, is true. But we are commanded to weigh, prove and judge truth from error. Heresy is listed as one of the works of the flesh in Galatians 5:20.
Every New Testament author warned against false teachers and false prophets, so we would do well to take heed to such warnings. I see no place in the Word for complacency or tolerance. We are to be on guard and aware. This is a spiritual battle with eternal consequences.
Matthew 7:15 (Jesus)
Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Matthew 24:11 (Jesus)
And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.
Matthew 24:24 (Jesus)
For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
2 Peter 2:1 (Peter)
But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
1 Timothy 4:1-2 (Timothy warns against apostasy)
But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, by means of the hypocrisy of liars eared in their own conscience as with a branding iron,
1 John 4:1 (John)
Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
We judge prophets and teachers against the written Word of God and the fruit in their life, but even fruit is judged by the Word. Jesus gave us no other standard of measurement. The 3 most powerful words He uttered is, "It is written."
Galatians 1:6-10 (Paul gives a standard by which to judge error)
I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!
Pretty bold words from Paul!! He is saying the gospel he preached is the standard by which we measure truth and error. We would do well to now what gospel Paul preached.
Some of the saddest words in the New Testament are Acts 20:27-31 where Paul warned the elders of the church against false teachers:
"For I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole purpose of God.
"Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.
"I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them. "Therefore be on the alert, remembering that night and day for a period of three years I did not cease to admonish each one with tears.
1 Thess 5:21 Prove (test) all things, hold on to what is good. | |
|
|
| Page 29 of 47
|
7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47 |
|
Home
login 
