 |
Cliff Kincaid, one of my favorite political analysts and commentators will guest host my internet radio program this Saturday morning at TMERadio.com. You can join him in the chat room and/or call in live at 208-935-0094. |
Friday, August 26, 2016
Cliff Kincaid will guest host my program this week -- I'm a delegate to the Republican State Convention
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
271 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 271 of 271As an aside, while I do like some renderings in the KJV, I find the translation of "Ghost" for Spirit quite puzzling. The Greek word pneuma can mean wind, breath, or S/spirit depending on the context, but "Ghost"?
Since these verses in Hebrews came up for discussion a while back (another forum), I recalled a commentary on this; so, I figured I’d submit it here:
It is clear enough that complete apostasy is the author’s meaning, but just to reinforce the point, he declares that those who recrucify Jesus “are holding him up to contempt” (paradeigmatizontas). There is an ironic twist in the author’s use of this term. It alludes to Jesus’ crucifixion and the shame he endured from the Romans, both as a Jew and as a supposed criminal. But this sort of public humiliation was also administered by Rome in the political sphere to its conquered enemies. Thus, there is a double condemnation for those who committed this sin. The author writes to those who knew how offensive Roman humiliation was to a Jew, having tasted it themselves (cf. Heb. 10:32-34), so he writes that one who crucifies Jesus in this way not only humiliates him but humiliates him as a pagan would.
Andrew H. Trotter, Jr. Interpreting the Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1997), pp 217-218.
Craig,
There are people that will receive the truth, come under conviction by the Holy Spirit, and will for a time even come to an understanding of spiritual things, and yet not be converted.
This is precisely what is being declared in the parable of the sower in Mark 4:14-20. I believe that these are those that is being referred to in your Hebrews 6:4-6 verses. In effect, they are only temporary "believers" that will no longer follow Christ when the cost comes into conflict with their own personal wants and desires. I refer you also to Jesus' discourse with the Jews that "believed" on Him in John 8 beginning at verse 30 - 59. This is a very important chapter in John that is paid little attention, yet it is very revealing, and verifies what I stated; there are "temporary believers" that have never truly been born again.
Believers that have truly been converted will "endure to the end" because God is the one that is lovingly His sheep to be faithful, to hear His words, to follow none other, and will chastise them if necessary in such a way that they will see the error of their ways and eventually repent ... just as any loving Father will chastise his earthly children.
Many other verses can be quoted, but I'll just leave you with this for now:
"Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ." Philippians 1:6
"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and the renewing of the Holy Ghost; Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ, our Saviour; That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life." Titus 3:5-7
RayB,
For me to be able to fully understand your viewpoint, it would be very helpful to know if you adhere to 5 point Calvinism (TULIP). Do you or do you not?
You wrote above in response to my quoting of Heb 6:4-6: There are people that will receive the truth, come under conviction by the Holy Spirit, and will for a time even come to an understanding of spiritual things, and yet not be converted.
I would think that I Corinthians 2:14 refutes your position here: But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
In any case, I’m assuming that a person who is ‘yet not converted’ lacks the indwelt Spirit. Assuming this is true, I’ll proceed. By the context of Hebrews 6:4-6 one can easily infer that “those who were once enlightened” is equivalent to ‘those who were once renewed’, since “it’s impossible for those once enlightened…to renew them again unto repentance. We could rephrase: “it’s impossible for those once enlightened/renewed…to renew/enlighten them again unto repentance”. So, what does it mean to be “once enlightened” or ‘once renewed’ if not regenerated, i.e. being converted / having the indwelt Spirit in the first place?
RayB wrote (3:53PM in the last block of 200 comments): Paul again writes in I Corinthians 2:14: “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: FOR THEY ARE FOOLISHNESS UNTO THEM, because they are spiritually discerned.” Clearly, this verse is stating that the “natural man,” without the sovereign grace of God, CANNOT receive spiritual truths. Why? Because of his sinful, self-willed, rebellious nature.
And, in the next comment (4:05PM): Just a quick add on ...
Without the "New Birth," the "natural man" is lost spiritually and is completely vulnerable to the lies of Satan. It is only through the "New Birth" that mankind can and does have a relationship with God. The "test" as to whether or not one is born again, is whether or not "they continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;" John 8:31 And again, Jesus declares: "He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God." John 8:47 This exact theme is repeated in the NT.
So, I suppose that answers my question in my comment just above, and you’ve just contradicted yourself in your comments at 9:56PM just above my last comment. That is, you cannot state There are people that will receive the truth, come under conviction by the Holy Spirit, and will for a time even come to an understanding of spiritual things, and yet not be converted and harmonize these words with your words I’m quoting in this comment here.
Craig,
I haven't contradicted myself at all. Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. What I am stating is that fallen man cannot receive spiritual truths TO THE EXTENT that it leads to them ultimately being truly born again and sealed forever with God's Holy Spirit. Jesus stated that "many shall be CALLED, but few CHOSEN." The "calling" is obviously being done from a spiritual aspect. Many people come under conviction by the Holy Spirit (part of His ministry is to convict people of their sin), and even "partake" (albeit temporarily) in the things of the Spirit, but, as the example of the parable of the sower illustrates, the spiritual seed (God's Word) often does not take root, and therefore dies.
It seems to me (correct me if I am wrong), that you believe that those that are "enlightened" in your Hebrews reference HAVE been born of God's Spirit, and yet, this birth can somehow be aborted through their actions. Again, I thoroughly believe that your reference is an illustration of the parable of the sower ... they received the word for a time, temporarily tasted of spiritual things, but were not born again, as proven by their eventual "falling away." In John Chapter 6, there were "disciples" that left Jesus, and were never heard from again. Were they "born again?" Of course not. Once they, through their natural sinful rebellious state, REJECT (which, without God's sovereign grace, they ALWAYS will, eventually), they will never be able to actually to return again to that "enlightened" state of true repentance. In other words, they have been exposed to the light, but ultimately rejected that light, because their deeds were evil. Check out John 3:19
As to your question re: TULIP. I don't like to be labeled with anything other than being a "Christian." However, being that you asked the direct question, I believe that deserves a direct answer. I do hold to the doctrine of election, as defined, if you will, by "TULIP," as I believe it is clearly taught in the Scriptures. Obviously, if you hold to Arminianism, which it appears you do, we won't agree on much, now will we?
Susanna said...That is false. Where is your historical evidence to prove it? The deuterocanonical books that non-Catholic Christians refer to as "Apocryphal" ARE quoted or alluded to in the New Testament by Jesus and the Apostles who were Jews and I have posted a link to a list. But here are a few examples:
Matt. 2:16 – Herod’s decree of slaying innocent children was prophesied in Wis. 11:7 – slaying the holy innocents.
Matt. 7:16,20 – Jesus’ statement “you will know them by their fruits” follows Sirach 27:6 – the fruit discloses the cultivation.
Matt. 9:36 – the people were “like sheep without a shepherd” is same as Judith 11:19 – sheep without a shepherd.
Matt. 22:25; Mark 12:20; Luke 20:29 – Gospel writers refer to the canonicity of Tobit 3:8 and 7:11 regarding the seven brothers.
John 5:18 – Jesus claiming that God is His Father follows Wisdom 2:16.
Luke 21:24 – Jesus’ usage of “fall by the edge of the sword” follows Sirach 28:18.
(continued on next post..)
Hi Susanna
Well those examples don't prove that there origin is the Apocrypha or acceptance of the Apocrypha.
That's as silly as to say the pagan writings of Plato and Socrates should be in the canon because Paul says something similar (see the below examples which are way more closer in wording structure than the obscure examples used by yourself to justify Apocrypha inclusion.)
TO MAKE IT CLEAR I DO NOT ENDORSE THE PAGAN WORKS OF PLATO OR SOCRATES IN ANY WAY.
THE QUOTES BELOW ARE INTENDED TO SHOW THE DANGER AND FOLLY OF QUOTEING SIMILARITIES IN SPEACH OR WRITING AS PROOF OF THE SAME AUTHORSHIP ETC.
1Cor 9:24a
Paul says, “Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize?
Plato says, “But such as are true racers, arriving at the end, both receive the prizes and are crowned”
Rom 7:22,23
Paul says, “But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.”
Plato says,”There is a victory and defeat – the first and best of victories, the lowest and worst of defeats – which each man gains or sustains at the hands not of another, but of himself; this shows that there is a war against ourselves – going on in every individual of us.”
Phillip 3:19
Paul says, “Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things“.
Plato gives a vivid description of those gluttonous and intemperate souls whose belly was their God, in Plato’s work called “the Republic”.
Rom 8:5
Paul says, “For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh;”
Gal 6:8
Paul says, “For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption”
Plato speaks of “to be carnally-minded was death” in Phaedo
Php 1:21
Paul says, “For me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.”
Plato says, “Now if death is like this, I say that to die is gain.”
2Tim 4:6
Paul says, “I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand
To be with Christ, which is far better.”
Plato says, “The hour of departure has arrived, and we go our ways, I to die and you to live. which is better God only knows.
1Cor 13:12
Paul says, “For now we see through a glass, darkly, but then face to face.”
Plato says, I am very far from admitting that he who contemplates existences through the medium of thought, sees them only “through a glass, darkly,” anymore than he who sees them in their working effects.
1Thess 5:15
Paul says, “See that none render evil for evil unto any man.”
Plato says, Then we ought not to retaliate or render evil for evil to anyone, whatever evil we may have suffered from him.
1Cor 9:16
Paul says, “For necessity is laid upon me ; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel!”
Plato says, But necessity was laid upon me – the word of God I thought ought to be considered first.
Acts 14:15
Paul and Barnabas say, “We also are men of like passions with you“.
Plato says, I am a man, and, like other men, a creature of flesh and blood, and not of ” wood or stone,” as Homer says.
2Cor 7:2
Paul says, “I speak because I am convinced that I never intentionally wronged anyone“.
Plato says, We have wronged no man ; we have corrupted no man ; we have defrauded no man.
Rom 12:4
Paul says, “For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office“.
Socrates says “To begin with, our several natures are not all alike but different. One man is naturally fitted for one task, and another for another.”
Eph 1:22,23
Paul says, “And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.”
Plato says “First, then, the gods, imitating the spherical shape of the universe, enclosed the two divine courses in a spherical body, that, namely, which we now term the head, being the most divine part of us and the lord of all that is in us; to this the gods, when they put together the body, gave all the other members to be servants.”
(Continued...)
1Cor 12:14-17
Paul explains that “a body is not one single organ, but many. … Suppose the ear were to say, ‘Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body’, it does still belong to the body. If the body were all eye, how could it hear? If the body were all ear, how could it smell? But, in fact, God appointed each limb and organ to its own place in the body, as he chose.”
Socrates asks Protagoras, “Is virtue a single whole, and are justice and self-control and holiness parts of it? … as the parts of a face are parts-mouth, nose, eyes and ears.” Socrates then probes into the metaphor further by asking Protagoras if they agree that each part serves a different purpose, just as the features of a face do, and the parts make the whole, but each serves a different purpose–“the eye is not like the ear nor has it the same function.”
So tradition was established as infallible authority in 1545 A.D and Apocryphal books were added to the Bible in 1546 A.D. by the Catholic Church.
1500+ years of what went on?.
RayB,
You wrote: I haven't contradicted myself at all. Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. What I am stating is that fallen man cannot receive spiritual truths TO THE EXTENT that it leads to them ultimately being truly born again and sealed forever with God's Holy Spirit. Jesus stated that "many shall be CALLED, but few CHOSEN." The "calling" is obviously being done from a spiritual aspect…
So, the Father calls/draws “many” but only a few of those called/drawn are actually “chosen”, i.e. ‘elected’ by the Father, is that correct? If so, doesn’t that imply that some rejected the Father by choice and others were elected through no choice of their own?
You wrote: It seems to me (correct me if I am wrong), that you believe that those that are "enlightened" in your Hebrews reference HAVE been born of God's Spirit, and yet, this birth can somehow be aborted through their actions…
Of course the “enlightened” have been born of God’s Spirit, otherwise why is it “impossible for those once enlightened…to renew them again unto repentance.” What is “repentance” in this context if not regeneration? If not regeneration then what is “repentance”? You can’t, for example, equate this to those in Acts who’d received “John’s baptism” and not yet the Holy Spirit because Hebrews clearly states that they were “partakers of the Holy Spirit”. And, as you say, quoting 1 Cor 2:14, the natural man cannot receive Spiritual things. You can try to dance around this, but being a ‘partaker’ of the Holy Spirit cannot mean some sort of halfway point of ‘almost but not quite’ receiving the Holy Spirit. As 1 Cor 2:14 indicates the natural man simply cannot accept anything from the Spirit of God at all.
Why would the writer of Hebrews state the impossibility of such who have been “partakers of the Holy Ghost” to be ‘renewed’? If one cannot be ‘renewed again’, one must ask what the initial renewing was. If, by your reasoning, the initial ‘enlightenment’ is not actual conversion, then why would it be impossible for them to be ‘re-enlightened’ in this context?
And, you’ve not adequately answered these questions; using the Parable of the Sower does not actually directly address these issues here. In order to answer these issues you have to harmonize the initial “enlightened” with the assertion of the impossibility for such to be “renewed again unto repentance”.
Craig,
Please detail exactly what it is that you find fault in the passage that I quoted previously from Romans:
God’s sovereignty in Romans Chapter 9, beginning in verse 11: “(For the children being not yet born, neither having DONE AND GOOD OR EVIL, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, NOT OF WORKS, BUT OF HIM THAT CALLETH;” “It was said unto her (Rebecca), the elder shall serve the younger.” “As it is written, Jacob HAVE I LOVED, BUT ESAU HAVE I HATED.” “What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.” “For he saith to Moses, I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I WILL HAVE MERCY, and I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I WILL HAVE COMPASSION.” “SO THEN IT IS NOT OF HIM THAT WILLETH, NOR OF HIM THAT RUNNETH, BUT OF GOD THAT SHEWETH MERCY.” For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.” “THEREFORE HATH HE MERCY ON WHOM HE WILL HAVE MERCY, AND WHOM HE WILL HE HARDENTH.”
For those that argue against God’s sovereign will, He answers them directly:
“THOU WILT SAY THEN UNTO ME, WHY DOTH HE YET FIND FAULT? FOR WHO HATH RESISTED HIS WILL?” “NAY BUT, O man, WHO ART THOU THAT REPLIEST AGAINST GOD? SHALL THE THING FORMED SAY TO HIM THAT FORMED IT, WHY HAS THOU MADE ME THUS?”
God goes on to explain WHY He does this:
“What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also the Gentiles?” Romans 9:11-24
Your "argument" is not with me, Craig.
RayB,
I've asked very simple, direct questions, which you continue to refuse to answer directly. So, let me break it down simply, by going through Heb 6:4-6. Within the context of these verses:
1) What does it mean to be "enlightened" in verse 4, given that they were "partakers of the Holy Ghost"?
2) Why is it "impossible...to renew them (the "enlightened") again unto repentance"?
You may wish to consider 2 Peter 1:3-4 here:
3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:
4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.
With your 10:04AM post you've identified your view as regards election, which I wasn't clear on before, for Calvinism posits (the "I" in TULIP) that once drawn by the Father one cannot resist. I don't disagree with you with regard to God's sovereignty by my understanding of the Romans passage and what I believe your understanding to be.
Just thinking out loud...
Should we press with these questions to be answered so directly, since we are not the Holy Spirit? Only individual souls can answer for themselves (and to the Lord) and not for others, since each is enlightened by God and He alone knows who is partaking and who isn't.
Calvinism and Arminianism do not have to be at odds really. Those understandings are basically the 2 sides of the same coin. The tension God placed there (and rightfully so) between the two, is for us to personally let God reveal (faith given by God in the first place, will probe all this to locate what is needful in the heart of each to "know"), as we are each shown grace on His terms and no two hearts are alike, but His grace is tailored to us because Jesus paid for it all so he can afford to love us in our individual freewill choice that he bestowed to the human heart. We may see examples from an outsiders view, but final outcomes on the inside are not in our realm to know, thank you God.
That is why it is good to let these big questions just hang in the balance unanswered by us regarding another (what is that to you?, follow ME Jesus said), because it is the Sovereign Lord's perfection that balances all things.
Do I mind seeing this topic brought up? No.
Do I need an answer directly from another concerning it? No.
God is the one to properly sort it.
To each their own.
Give God the glory.
Anonymous 8:23 AM, 8:29 AM, and 8:33 AM,
The deuterocanonical books of the Septuagint are "Apocryphal" only by Protestant standards......not by Catholic or Eastern Orthodox standards.
Since you are the ones questioning their canonicity, the burden of proof falls on you, not me.
Moreover, if you rule is "sola scriptura" where in the Bible does it say that the deuterocanonical books are "apocryphal?" Where in the Bible does it say which books belong - or do not belong - in the Bible to begin with?
Historically, the authenticity of the Septuagint is verified by Church Fathers that include Irenaeus and Augustine. Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp, who was the Bishop of Smyrna and a martyr - probably the bishop alluded to in the letter to the church at Smyrna in the Book of Revelations. Polycarp was a disciple of St. John the Evangelist, inspired author of the fourth Gospel and the Book of Revelations.
“1. God, then, was made man, and the Lord did Himself save us, giving us the token of the Virgin. But not as some allege, among those now presuming to expound the Scripture, [thus:] “Behold, a young woman shall conceive, and bring forth a son,” as Theodotion the Ephesian has interpreted, and Aquila of Pontus, both Jewish proselytes. The Ebionites, following these, assert that He was begotten by Joseph; thus destroying, as far as in them lies, such a marvelous dispensation of God, and setting
aside the testimony of the prophets which proceeded from God. For truly this prediction was uttered before the removal of the people to Babylon; that is, anterior to the supremacy acquired by the Medes and Persians. But it was interpreted into Greek by the Jews themselves, much before the period of our Lord’s advent, that there might remain no suspicion that perchance the Jews, complying with our humor, did put this interpretation upon these words…
cont.
cont.
2. For before the Romans possessed their kingdom, while as yet the Macedonians held Asia, Ptolemy the son of Lagus, being anxious to adorn the library which he had founded in Alexandria, with a collection of the writings of all men, which were [works] of merit, made request to the people of Jerusalem, that they should have their Scriptures translated into the Greek language. And they — for at that time they were still subject to the Macedonians — sent to Ptolemy seventy of their elders, who were thoroughly skilled in the Scriptures and in both the languages, to carry out what he had desired… the Gentiles present perceived that the Scriptures had been interpreted by the inspiration of God. And there was nothing astonishing in God having done this…
3. Since, therefore, the Scriptures have been interpreted with such fidelity.. and since from these God has prepared and formed again our faith towards His Son, and has preserved to us the unadulterated Scriptures in Egypt.. and [since] this interpretation of these Scriptures was made prior to our Lord’s
descent [to earth], and came into being before the Christians appeared — for our Lord was born about the forty-first year of the reign of Augustus; but Ptolemy was much earlier, under whom the Scriptures were interpreted.. our faith is steadfast, unfeigned, and the only true one, having clear proof from these Scriptures, which were interpreted in the way I have related; and the preaching of the Church is without interpolation. For the apostles, since they are of more ancient date than all these [heretics], agree with this aforesaid translation; and the translation harmonizes with the tradition of the apostles. For Peter, and John, and Matthew, and Paul, and the rest successively, as well as their followers, did set forth all prophetical [announcements], just as the interpretation of the elders contains them.”
(Against Heresies on CCEL http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.xxii.html Accessed 02/25/2010)
Irenaeus not only stated that the LXX existed, he called it the “preserved”, “unadulterated Scriptures”! Not only so, but he stated that it was a translation that was carried out with “fidelity”, and that they indeed existed before Christian and before Christ Himself was born. He also informs us that the apostles quoted from the LXX.
You can believe whatever you like, but this is proof enough for me that the deuterocanonical books belong in the Old Testament canon known as the Septuagint.
That the Jews settled their canon at a council at Jamnia is a hypothesis worked up from a discussion of much more specific issues that is mentioned in Talmud and Mishnah. Few schoalrs accept this hypothesis today:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Jamnia
St Jerome, translator of the Vulgate, did not regard the apocrypha as canonical. Not one apocryphal book claims to be God speaking in the first person. Tobit was supposedly alive when the Assyrians invaded Israel in 722BC (Tobit 1:3), and also alive more than 200 years earlier when Jeroboam’s revolt against Jerusalem (Tobit 1:4-5) divided Israel into northern and southern kingdoms. Yet he is said to have lived less than 130 years (Tobit 14:2). Also, the Letter of Jeremiah (often printed as the 6th chapter of Baruch) says (in verse 2) that the Jews would be in Babylon for seven generations, whereas Jeremiah (25:11) stated (correctly) 70 years.
RE: St Jerome, translator of the Vulgate, did not regard the apocrypha as canonical. Not one apocryphal book claims to be God speaking in the first person.
Who says that a book of the Bible necessarily has to explicitly claim to be God speaking in the first person in order to be regarded as canonical?
From a Catholic perspective, a book doesn't necessarily have to explicitly claim to be God speaking in the first person in order to be regarded as canonical.
Do all of the books of the NEW TESTAMENT make this claim?
Whether or not you want to call the anti-Christian group of Jewish rabbis who gathered in Jamnia after the fall of the Temple at Jerusalem (at the pleasure of Vespasian,) and put together their own Scriptures the "council of Jamnia" or "Jamnian school," this is the origin of the Hebrew Bible however long it took.
Regarding Jerome: First, from a Catholic perspective, no Church Father is infallible. This charism is reserved uniquely to the successors of Peter.
That said, initially, Jerome did appear to challenge the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books, but Jerome clarified his position and in his later years he did indeed accept the Deuterocanonical books of the Bible. In fact, he wound up strenuously defending their status as inspired Scripture, writing, "What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susanna, the Son of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume (ie. canon), proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. For I wasn't relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they [the Jews] are wont to make against us" (Against Rufinus 11:33 [A.D. 402]). In earlier correspondence with Pope Damasus, Jerome did not call the deuterocanonical books unscriptural, he simply said that Jews he knew did not regard them as canonical. But for himself, he acknowledged the authority of the Church in defining the canon. When Pope Damasus and the Councils of Carthage and Hippo included the deuterocanon in Scripture, that was good enough for St. Jerome. He "followed the judgment of the churches."
Also, the overwhelming majority of Church Fathers and other early Christian writers regarded the deuterocanonical books as having exactly the same inspired, scriptural status as the other Old Testament books. Just a few examples of this acceptance can be found in the Didache, The Epistle of Barnabas, the Council of Rome, the Council of Hippo, the Third Council of Carthage, the African Code, the Apostolic Constitutions, and the writings of Pope St. Clement I (Epistle to the Corinthians), St. Polycarp of Smyrna, St. Irenaeus of Lyons, St. Hippolytus, St. Cyprian of Carthage, Pope St. Damasus I, St. Augustine, and Pope St. Innocent I.
If you don't accept the deuterocanonicals as inspired Scripture, fine. I am more than willing to acknowledge and respect your not accepting them and your reasons for doing so - even though I might not agree with them. I am simply explaining why I do accept them. And I wouldn't even be doing that if it were not for certain persons here who claim to be "just asking questions" under the feigned pretext of "seeking information."
Indeed the absence of any phrase such as "Thus says the Lord" doesn't prove a book is non-canonical. At 7.36am above, I did not make such a claim. I was accumulating evidence.
What you say about Jamnia is pretty much the line disputed in that Wikipedia article. I think we both need to read the scholars cited there in their own words before taking the Jamnia debate further. But the Tobit and Jeremiah internal contradictions are knockdowns against a couple of the Apocryphal books. God can do math.
That all depends on which "scholars" we are talking about.
Heinrich Graetz was said to be the first to propose that Jamnia finalized the canon. There were also those who claimed that Esdras closed the canon, so he is not the first.
As for Esdras, there is no evidence that Esdras closed the canon, and if he did, there is no evidence that he was allowed to do so.
As for Jamnia "finalizing the canon" how could they do so if they were still awaiting the Messiah?
I trust the writings of the Church Fathers.....notably Irenaeus.... more than I do scholars. He is one who mentions Aquila.
The following is from the Encyclopedia Britannica.
Because of a belief that something almost magical occurs—with an element of secrecy—when a transmitted oral tradition is put into writing, there was, in both the Old and New Testaments, an expression of reluctance about committing sacred material to writing. When such sacred writings are studied to find the revealed word of God, a settled delimiting of the writings—i.e., a canon—must be selected. In the last decade of the 1st century, the Synod of Jamnia (Jabneh), in Palestine, fixed the canon of the Bible for Judaism, which, following a long period of flux and fluidity and controversy about certain of its books, Christians came to call the Old Testament. A possible factor in the timing of this Jewish canon was a situation of crisis: the fall of Jerusalem and reaction to the fact that the Septuagint was used by Christians and to their advantage, as in the translation of the Hebrew word Ê¿alma (“young woman”) in chapter 7, verse 14, of Isaiah—“Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel”—into the Greek term parthenos (“virgin”).
https://www.britannica.com/topic/biblical-literature/New-Testament-canon-texts-and-versions#ref597958
The fact that the rabbis at Jamnia had no authority ditch the Septuagint and "fix the canon" - other than that which they conferred upon themselves - is refuted by the fact that to this very day the Old Testament canon for the Jews of Ethiopia is the Septuagint.
By the way, where does it explicitly say that a book necessarily have to be literally historical in order to be canonical? What about Christ's parables? They were not literally historical.
Susanna said (in part) @ 12:32 PM ...
"By the way, where does it explicitly say that a book necessarily have to be literally historical in order to be canonical? What about Christ's parables? They were not literally historical."
I really don't want to get into the middle of your discourse above, but feel compelled to make this point: the parables were not meant to be "historical." Jesus himself explained to his disciples what the purpose of his parables were, and it had nothing to do with history.
RayB,4:56PM
Here, I am happy to say that we appear to be in agreement on this particular point.
Anon 11:41am:
If I understand the basic tenor of your comment, I’m in agreement. With respect to salvation it’s a work of God the Father who draws (Calvinism/Arminianism), but then it’s up to the individual to accept the invitation (Arminianism); yet, the invitation to repentance unto salvation cannot be accepted by the natural man (Calvinism). It’s like the chicken and egg thing. I cannot know who has really accepted this free gift of salvation, as only God knows.
And, no doubt, one cannot lose one’s salvation. However, can one renounce their salvation? I think this is what Hebrews 6:4-6 is all about.
In the Book of Judges is the Deuteronomic Cycle, which runs like this:
1) Israel purposefully turns from God
2) God allows an enemy to oppress Israel
3) Israel cries out to God for help
4) God sends a deliverer (judge)
5) Repeat
In the NT God has sent his final deliverer in his Son, whose perfect, once-for-all sacrifice brings about God’s presence inside the individual in the ‘Person’ of the Holy Spirit. And, this is what the Book of Hebrews is all about. No longer does God send a deliver. He’s already sent The Deliverer. Once an individual has accepted this once-for-all gift, sins committed are freely granted upon repentance. However, should an individual with the Holy Spirit indwelling renounce The Deliverer, God, being the gentleman that he is, grants this request, but with the understanding that this decision is final. See Hebrews 10:26-38 for a parallel passage.
Cont.
Cont.
In Hebrews 6:4-6 what is clearly described are individuals who initially accepted Christ’s sacrifice, receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit. If they subsequently renounce this, they can never be ‘re-renewed’, as it’s as if they, as pagans, are (continually) crucifying Christ all over again.
To establish that this text is about salvation and not ‘almost salvation’, I’ll provide an analogy. One is invited as a guest to a 4 course meal, which had been painstakingly prepared, the likes of which s/he has never seen. The food smells delicious! Smelling the food (‘almost salvation’) is not the same as partaking of the food (salvation). Once the food has been partaken (thereby partaking of the Holy Spirit), it has also been tasted (tasting the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come). The individual, of their own free will, may continue to eat, with the blessing of the one who invited her/him; or, the individual may, of their own free will, walk away from the table, spitting out the food. If the latter case occurs, the one who invited the individual decides that he will not invite this individual back, for it is an extreme insult.
Once saved, always saved is true to a point. God will keep those with the tiniest amount of faith. But woe to him who willfully renounces the Gift they’d freely received, for it is impossible for him to be renewed again!
Craig, This is 11:41 AM.
Yes, You are understanding what I meant in my comment. And yes, I believe people can turn and walk away from God, much like the 10 spies (of the 12) with the fruit of the Promised Land in their very hands and decided not to take the Lord up on that offer because of unbelief. Some instances (as that one) are obvious, and some are not.
God knows which is which better than we can.
Susanna,
Jesus is very clear that some writings constitute "scripture" and some do not. Trouble is, he does not tell us which, book by book.
This essay, referenced at the Wikipedia page on the "Council of Jamnia",
http://www.ibri.org/RRs/RR013/13jamnia.html
takes us through all of the extant references to what happened there in the years between the founding of the Jamnia rabbinic school around the time of the first Jewish rebellion and its destruction at the second (ie, approximately AD70-135).
It seems that the scholars who take your line are the church liberals. That in itself does not mean they are wrong, but is a warning to proceed with care. Our aim as Christians must be to do our best to infer from the Jamnia material which books were regarded as canonical at the time Jesus spoke, a generation earlier.
At Jamnia, several books were considered by name and argued over. None of the 'Apocryphal' books got this treatment, ie none of them was debated out of the canon, as you imply. Instead, based on the number of books which the Jamnian rabbis state are canonical, we can infer that the 'Apocrypha' are not viewed as canonical. But there is no evidence for any change in their status in the eyes of Jews, emanating from Jamnia - a claim which is central to your position. Why then may we not infer that Jesus believed them non-canonical?
Grant
"Though I think I know what Dan Bryan meant (not in line with your accusations) in his reference to John 1, I’ll forgo any further discussion...allowing him to speak for himself on this issue if he so chooses."
he already spoke for himself. http://politicallyunclassifiable.blogspot.com/2016/02/dan-bryan-httpdbreflections.html
"...here is a man made mystery. Trinity... I do believe that the Word, was begotten, and therefore had a beginning. ... I do not deny the divinity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit, but here is what is interesting to me: I do not see the trinitarian view as a salvation-breaking belief, but that of a reflection of the pagan pantheons....a point in history past where I believe God was indeed Holy unto himself, ...It does not say that the Word preexisted the beginning! ...Beginning means a starting point. God preexisted everything that came from him..."
ACTUALLY SINCE THE WORD ALREADY EXISTED IN THE BEGINNING HE PREEXISTED THE BEGINNING!
"Dan BryanJanuary 20, 2016 at 8:24 PM ...
1- there was a point in eternity past where Father God was with in himself unique and Holy the One true Spirit God. At that point there was none other to even recognize this condition. ...There is no reference in the Word of the Holy Spirit being God. Jesus did not say he was God in the flesh, but he did say I and my father are one.... "
the remark etheric body not refuted by Scripture because Scripture doesn't say anything one way or another about it, was addressed to whoever WRONGLY said Scripture refuted it, limit to one post a week I have to trim and combine issues. ether is not new age if not viewed as divine. bilocation doesn't prove reincarnation only what the Bible says, there is something that can survive physical death. duh! ITS CALLED APOLOGETICS, people! (disciples thought Peter's doppelganger "angel" bilocation was knocking on the door when maid said he was there Acts 12:13-16)
"rebuke" Strong's Concordance http://biblehub.com/greek/1651.htm says rebuke, testify against, publicly condemn NO REFERENCE TO REBUKE BY EXAMPLE. (also transl. EXPOSE) it is corruption coverup EISEGESIS to read into that word any meaning than the obvious, public rebuke. Paul says "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them." Romans 16:17 to ALL regarding all not to a bishop regarding elders. Division per se is not bad if it preserves truth. JEsus said He came to send not peace but a sword and division.
don't quote scholars and exegetes I am not any more interested in your protestant magisterium than the RC magisterium, I chose EO because it matches the Bible best except for innovations no part of official doctrine despite what some say. peace at any price unconditional love heresy unconditional forgiveness heresy notions drive the bad exegesis your source give, or they wouldn't produce it. I go by word meaning and don't read wimpy nonsense into it like you (and some degenerate RC and EO) do.
"FYI Julia (Kim) Youn...is a fraud...excommunicated." I agree likely fraud for other reasons BUT THE CRITIQUE ITSELF DENIES RC APPROVED EUCHARISTIC MIRACLES pope's video is inexcusable and here's a display of confusion in the magisterium!
Christine,
Your christianity is an intellectual excersise which you wield like a weapon against other Christians, of all people, with your
condescending, bloated attitude of competitive one-upsmanship, DEVOID of compassion or grace.
You are a self-styled Intellectual who thinks she's got Christianity all figured out and somehow everyone else is in need of your very pompous corrections.
Buzz off.
Christine,
You prefaced your comment by addressing it to Grant, when the quote just below it was from me. You really need to be careful who attribute things to. I’m happy to take responsibility for my own words, thank you. And, I’d venture to say that Grant does not wish to get taken into the tangled web you spiderly weave.
Having cleared that up, IF, and that’s a humungous, ginormous IF, the quote attributed to Dan Bryan is 100% accurate, I’m concerned.
Your continuing comments regarding Eph 5:11 proves your fallacious reasoning in this instance and indicates you may well do same in others. In fact, right in the url you reference is proof that my position is the correct one rather than yours. See the very first definition (1, as opposed to 2) in Thayer, and this particular sub-definition (about 2/3rds down), which specifically references Eph. 5:11, 13:
contextually, by conviction to bring to light, to expose: τί, John 3:20, cf. 21; Ephesians 5:11, 13…
Notice how Thayer references John 3:20-21 here which is about ‘fear of being exposed by the light’ along with Eph 5:11, 13. Thayer is clearly speaking about a coming to conviction by the light (Eph 5:13 should be read with 5:11) not about verbally rebuking false teaching, though he does specifically mention the latter in his sub-definition regarding Titus 1:9, 13. Admittedly, Thayer is a bit difficult to follow, as he uses semicolons to separate both individual sub-definitions and scripture references within that sub-definition.
Though I don’t know who are addressing (I think, me), you wrote: don't quote scholars and exegetes I am not any more interested in your protestant magisterium than the RC magisterium, I chose EO because it matches the Bible best except for innovations no part of official doctrine despite what some say.
As evidenced by your plethora of comments on this blog, you adhere to your own brand of “solo” Scriptura.
Cont.
Cont.
Going back to your earlier claim of not taking the LORD’s name in vain (third commandment), the EO position is found here:
www.antiochian.org/ten-commandments
This commandment strikes at those who would not act with reverence and respect towards God’s holy name. We are forbidden to use God’s name vainly and to swear false oaths, You shall not swear by My name falsely, and so profane the name of your God (Lev. 19:12). As St. James tells us, My brethren, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or with any other oath, but let your yes be yes and your no be no, that you may not fall under condemnation (James 5:12); this reflects the words of the Lord Himself, Who said, Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from the Evil One (Matt. 5:37). Rather, the divine name is to be glorified, for, as the Psalmist says, O Lord, our Lord, how majestic is Thy name in all the earth! (Ps. 8:1). Praise, O servants of the Lord, praise the name of the Lord! (Ps. 113:1), for the Lord’s name is blessed from this time forth and for evermore! From the rising of the sun to its setting the name of the Lord is to be praised (Ps. 113:2–3).
How often in our ordinary conversations the name of God, of Jesus (Himself God), of His Mother and of the Saints are pronounced casually, unthinkingly or even for shock effect. We moderns have such disrespect for the Holy especially for the name of God and His Son when, as St. Paul tells us, God has…bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth (Phil. 2:9,10).
It may be helpful to directly quote John 3:20-21 for illustrative purposes, so that one could apply this, as Thayer did, to Ephesian 5:11-13:
20For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God. (KJV)
20For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. 21 But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God. (ESV)
The wicked do not wish to come to the Light, because their deeds/works would be exposed; however, those who do what is true are clearly shown to be in the Light. So, applying this same idea to Eph 5:11-13, it’s the Light of the “children of light” (though they were formerly in darkness as their unbelieving neighbors formerly witnessed) living as “children of light” (v. 8) that exposes (13-14) the “deeds/works of darkness”, since they are now to “have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness” (v. 11).
Anonymous
Re: At Jamnia, several books were considered by name and argued over.....
Jamnia represents an anti-Christian rabbinical school whose objections to the Septuagint had to do with its messianic allusions and to the fact that early
Christians were using it to convert other Jews to Christianity.
Irenaeus writes about this in his Adversus Haereses:
1. God, then, was made man, and the Lord did Himself save us, giving us the token of the Virgin. But not as some allege, among those now presuming to expound the Scripture, [thus:] “Behold, a young woman shall conceive, and bring forth a son,” Isaiah 7:14 as Theodotion the Ephesian has interpreted, and Aquila of Pontus, both Jewish proselytes. The Ebionites, following these, assert that He was begotten by Joseph; thus destroying, as far as in them lies, such a marvellous dispensation of God, and setting aside the testimony of the prophets which proceeded from God. For truly this prediction was uttered before the removal of the people to Babylon; that is, anterior to the supremacy acquired by the Medes and Persians. But it was interpreted into Greek by the Jews themselves, much before the period of our Lord's advent, that there might remain no suspicion that perchance the Jews, complying with our humour, did put this interpretation upon these words. They indeed, had they been cognizant of our future existence, and that we should use these proofs from the Scriptures, would themselves never have hesitated to burn their own Scriptures, which do declare that all other nations partake of [eternal] life, and show that they who boast themselves as being the house of Jacob and the people of Israel, are disinherited from the grace of God....
3. Since, therefore, the Scriptures have been interpreted with such fidelity, and by the grace of God, and since from these God has prepared and formed again our faith towards His Son, and has preserved to us the unadulterated Scriptures in Egypt, where the house of Jacob flourished, fleeing from the famine in Canaan; where also our Lord was preserved when He fled from the persecution set on foot by Herod; and [since] this interpretation of these Scriptures was made prior to our Lord's descent [to earth], and came into being before the Christians appeared — for our Lord was born about the forty-first year of the reign of Augustus; but Ptolemy was much earlier, under whom the Scriptures were interpreted—[since these things are so, I say,] truly these men are proved to be impudent and presumptuous, who would now show a desire to make different translations, when we refute them out of these Scriptures, and shut them up to a belief in the advent of the Son of God. But our faith is steadfast, unfeigned, and the only true one, having clear proof from these Scriptures, which were interpreted in the way I have related; and the preaching of the Church is without interpolation. For the apostles, since they are of more ancient date than all these [heretics], agree with this aforesaid translation; and the translation harmonizes with the tradition of the apostles. For Peter, and John, and Matthew, and Paul, and the rest successively, as well as their followers, did set forth all prophetical [announcements], just as the interpretation of the elders contains them.....
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103321.htm
___________________________________________________
Evidence that these Jamnian rabbis were anti-Christian is the curse ( anathema) they placed upon the "Nazareans." ( a.k.a. followers of Christ ).
It was called Birkat haMinim
Susanna and Anon 4:05AM,
Thus far, my view is a mediated one. On Iranaeus’ Adversus Haereses (Against Heresies), I’m not so sure this is in reference to Jamnia at all. Theodotion translated the Hebrew OT to Greek ca. 150AD, and the earliest known reference to the Ebionites is mid-2nd century. Jamnia was said to be late 1st century.
However, I looked up Birkat haMinim, here it is Birkat Ha-Minim, and this ‘curse’ may well have been part of the proceedings, though there is some doubt that there even was a Council of Jamnia (Javne, or Jabneh) (“TB” corresponds to Babylonian Talmud; “TJ” to Jerusalem Talmud):
“…The tradition of its secondary addition at Jabneh is shared by TJ (Ber. 4:3, 8a) and TB, which attributes its formulation to Samuel ha-Katan at the explicit request of the Nasi, Rabban Gamliel (Ber. 28b). Scholarly opinion is divided, however, with regard to the precise understanding of this process. One view holds that the tradition reflected by TB (ibid.) should be accepted literally; accordingly Birkat ha-Minim was formulated at Jabneh and added to the already existing eighteen benedictions (see Fleischer), upping the number to nineteen. Accepted in this nineteen-benediction form in the early Babylonian rite, it was subsequently transmitted from this rite to all prayer books up to the present. Others contend (see Heinemann) that Rabban Gamliel's request simply concerned the updating of an already existing benediction among the eighteen – whose content spoke out in general against separatists (see T. Ber. 3:25) – to incorporate explicit mention of the minim. This also explains why the versions of the Amidah in the Palestinian rite number only eighteen benedictions, inclusive of Birkat ha-Minim. The proponents of this view submit that the nineteen-benediction form of the Amidah in the Babylonian rite reflects a Babylonian custom of splitting the petition for the building of Jerusalem and for the coming of the Davidic messiah into two separate benedictions. In Palestine, both subjects were combined in a single benediction regarding Jerusalem” (bold added).
Sorry, I meant to add a hyperlink:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0003_0_02999.html
Susanna,
Every Jew who disagreed that Jesus was the Messiah after his crucifixion, and after the rocket-like takeoff of the church, was anti-Christian. That would certainly include the School of Jamnia. I don't see, though, how this fact, or Irenaeus' comments, impinges on my argument: that a canon was known to exist in Jesus' time so that the task is to infer it; and that the debates at Jamnia never mentioned any messianic passages in either the Hebrew or Greek writings of the Jews, and never even debated individually any books of the latter (ie, the 'Apocrypha'.) Inference from silence is unreliable, and if these books were indeed thrown out without any debate, why not Isaiah, whose messianic passages are easily the strongest in the OT?
I've looked at what was actually said at Jamnia based on the only extant reports, in that weblink I gave. Please would you engage with that material? I don't see how else to move this debate forward.
Anon@4.05am
Anon: 5:29 A.M.
As you requested, I am going to try to engage with the material in that weblink you gave. But the author comes across as implying that the decisions of the JEWISH Jamnian rabbis is somehow binding on Christians. Maybe it is binding on non-Catholic Christians, but it is not binding on Roman Catholics.
Regarding the term "Council of Jamnia," this "council" is often described as hypothetical and is probably best used as a kind of shorthand for the rabbinical school that had its origins there.
The article you linked us to reads:
After the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans (A.D. 70) Jamnia became the home of the Great Sanhedrin. A meeting of Rabbis held there c. A.D. 100 discussed and settled the final canon of the Old Testament.23
According to the writings of the Church Fathers, the Christians did not acknowledge the validity of the Rabbis' decisions concerning the "canon." Not all Jews did either, since the Jews of Ethiopia still use the Septuagint to this very day and it is identical to the Catholic Old Testament Canon. (Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 6, p. 1147).
A canon was known to exist in Jesus time and according to Catholic tradition, and according to the Church Fathers ( whose writings are themselves part of the historical record of Christianity ) that Canon was the Septuagint.
Whether or not the debates themselves at Jamnia specifically mentioned any messianic passages in either the Hebrew or Greek writings of the Jews, their new Hebrew translation certainly eliminated many of them according to the Church Fathers. It was this Hebrew translation that was translated into Greek by Aquilo and substituted for the Septuagint.
The debates at Jamnia, moreover, had no less to do with the messianic allusions in "apocrypha"per se than they did with the LANGUAGE in which the books of the Old testament were written. Of course, this "sacred language" issue seems to have been merely a pretext for the Rabbis to actively promote their anti-Christian agenda...especially since the Hebrew bible of the Jamnian Rabbis was so promptly translated into Greek by Aquilo and served up to Greek-speaking Jews in the synagogues in place of the Septuagint.
The Jewish Rabbinic "Council" of Jamnia (Yavneh on the Mediterranian coast of Israel) in A.D. 90, under the leadership of Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai, effectively excluded the Apocryphal books (along with the Septuaginta) from the Jewish Canon by requiring, for a book to be considered canonical, that it have been written in Hebrew (and Aramaic). This immediately excludes all of the Christian scriptures included in the entire New Testament, since they were written in Greek and in the 1st century. Actually, a number of the apocryphal books, or portions thereof, had been written originally in Hebrew, most notably, the Book of Ben Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) found in Hebrew at Qumran with the rest of the Dead Sea Scrolls, but this was unknown to Yohanan Ben Zakkai and the Council of Jamnia in the first century.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Bible
__________________________________________
cont.
cont.
As for Isaiah, by the Jamnian Rabbis' linguistic standard, they would have had to include the Book of Isaiah ( as much as they might have wanted not to ) which was written in Hebrew.....but NOT without weasel-wording the translation ( see Irenaeus ) so as to cast doubt on the belief that Christ was born of a virgin.
Now Irenaeus, being a disciple of Polycarp who in turn was a direct disciple of the Apostles (i.e. St.John the Evangelist) was only about one generation away from the Apostles, so he would have been in a good position to know what the original Book of Isaiah said.
This is why Irenaeus said:
They indeed, had they been cognizant of our future existence, and that we should use these proofs from the Scriptures, would themselves never have hesitated to burn their own Scriptures......
...and [since] this interpretation of these Scriptures was made prior to our Lord's descent [to earth], and came into being before the Christians appeared — for our Lord was born about the forty-first year of the reign of Augustus; but Ptolemy was much earlier, under whom the Scriptures were interpreted—[since these things are so, I say,] truly these men are proved to be impudent and presumptuous, who would now show a desire to make different translations, when we refute them out of these Scriptures, and shut them up to a belief in the advent of the Son of God.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103321.htm
____________________________________________________________
Irenaeus attacked the translations by Aquila and Theodotian in his work known as Adversus Haereses (Against Heresies). It needs to be appreciated that the view expressed by Irenaeus, that the word in Isaiah 7:14 (almah) should be translated virgin, prevailed for almost two millenniums and colored the outcome of all deliberations on the birth of Jesus.
P.S. Anonymous 5:29 AM
THE GREAT ISAIAH SCROLL
...The Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa) is one of the original seven Dead Sea Scrolls discovered in Qumran in 1947. It is the largest (734 cm) and best preserved of all the biblical scrolls, and the only one that is almost complete. The 54 columns contain all 66 chapters of the Hebrew version of the biblical Book of Isaiah. Dating from ca. 125 BCE, it is also one of the oldest of the Dead Sea Scrolls, some one thousand years older than the oldest manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible known to us before the scrolls' discovery.
The version of the text is generally in agreement with the Masoretic or traditional version codified in medieval codices, such as the Aleppo Codex, but it contains many variant readings, alternative spellings, scribal errors, and corrections. Unlike most of the biblical scrolls from Qumran, it exhibits a very full orthography (spelling), revealing how Hebrew was pronounced in the Second Temple Period. Around twenty additional copies of the Book of Isaiah were also found at Qumran (one more copy was discovered further south at Wadi Muraba'at), as well as six pesharim (commentaries) based on the book; Isaiah is also frequently quoted in other scrolls (a literary and religious phenomenon also present in New Testament writings). The authoritative and scriptural status of the Book of Isaiah is consistent with the messianic beliefs of the community living at Qumran, since Isaiah is known for his prophecies of judgment and consolation, and his visions of the End of Days and the coming of the Kingdom of God....read more...
http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/isaiah
______________________________________________________________
P.S. 5:29 AM
I posted this earlier, but it seems to have disappeared. I thought you might find it interesting.
THE GREAT ISAIAH SCROLL
The Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa) is one of the original seven Dead Sea Scrolls discovered in Qumran in 1947. It is the largest (734 cm) and best preserved of all the biblical scrolls, and the only one that is almost complete. The 54 columns contain all 66 chapters of the Hebrew version of the biblical Book of Isaiah. Dating from ca. 125 BCE, it is also one of the oldest of the Dead Sea Scrolls, some one thousand years older than the oldest manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible known to us before the scrolls' discovery.
The version of the text is generally in agreement with the Masoretic or traditional version codified in medieval codices, such as the Aleppo Codex, but it contains many variant readings, alternative spellings, scribal errors, and corrections. Unlike most of the biblical scrolls from Qumran, it exhibits a very full orthography (spelling), revealing how Hebrew was pronounced in the Second Temple Period. Around twenty additional copies of the Book of Isaiah were also found at Qumran (one more copy was discovered further south at Wadi Muraba'at), as well as six pesharim (commentaries) based on the book; Isaiah is also frequently quoted in other scrolls (a literary and religious phenomenon also present in New Testament writings). The authoritative and scriptural status of the Book of Isaiah is consistent with the messianic beliefs of the community living at Qumran, since Isaiah is known for his prophecies of judgment and consolation, and his visions of the End of Days and the coming of the Kingdom of God.....read more...
http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/isaiah
Anonymous 5:29 AM
THE GREAT ISAIAS SCROLL
http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/isaiah
Susanna,
I agree that Christians need not accept Jewish opinion (certainly Jewish opinion AD) as definitive on what writings constitute scripture. But the point is that Jesus spoke as if a canon was settled. The problem is ours, in not knowing what view he took of each of the books of his time. From the deliberations of Jamnia we may infer that the rabbis there were endorsing earlier views and usage, ie the views at Jesus' time. And they endorsed the scriptures that Jews today and protestants agree on. The anti-Christian views of those rabbis have no bearing on this reasoning.
Anonymous 6:36
From the deliberations of Jamnia we may infer that the rabbis there were endorsing earlier views and usage, ie the views at Jesus' time. And they endorsed the scriptures that Jews today and protestants agree on.
Catholics believe that Jesus left it to His Church ( Peter and the Apostles and their successors ), guided by the Holy Spirit, to preserve and hand on the canons of both the Old and the New Testaments.
But more to your specific point, the Qumran discoveries indicate that the situation may be otherwise in terms of the rabbis of Jamnia endorsing earlier views and usage.
The Superiority of the Septuagint: This is an important issue because the Septuagint (Greek Translation of the OT made sometime in 300's BC in Alexandria) differs on some points from the Hebrew text (the Masoretic Text or MT). The earliest copies we have of the MT only Date from about 900 or 1000 AD, but the LXX goes back much further. We have whole manuscripts from 3d and 4th centuries AD, and it is quoted in much earlier works. The main Jewish apologist argument against Messianic interpretation of Is. 53 is that all the references to the suffering servant, so they say, are in the plural, making him a symbol of Israel. But in the LXX they are singular. There are also other references in the Septuagint that support the Christian reading, on Is. 53 and Ps. 22 "hands and feet pierced" and other passages.For this reason the Jewish anti-missionaries claim that the LXX only existed in the first five books before the time of Christ and that Christians translated the rest, either late first century, or some go so far as to claim that Origen (4th century) made the translations of prophetic books. The only thing that supports this view is the fact that all the really good whole Ms. come from 3d and 4th centuuries AD. But there are other proofs of the LXX's veracity.
Institute for Biblcal and scientific studies
OT Dead Sea Scrolls.
Most Scholars saw the LXX as inferior to the Hebrew Bible called the Masoretic Text (MT). With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, this all changed. Ancient Hebrew scrolls were found that follow the LXX, not the Masoretic Text. The DSS showed that the LXX had an underlying Hebrew Text that was different from the MT.
Now Scholars think the LXX has important readings that are superior to the MT. The LXX is now very important in textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible. Let's look at some of the key differences between the LXX and the MT where the LXX seems to be superior.....read more....
http://www.bibleandscience.com/bible/sources/deadseascrolls.htm
_________________________________
http://www.doxa.ws/Messiah/Lxx_mt.html
The above site is a treasure trove of information regarding the comparison of the LXX with the Hebrew Bible - especially with regard to the discoveries at Qumran.
P.S. Anonymous 6:36
THE JEREMIAH DILEMMA
by Farrell Till
http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/4jerem90.html
______________________________
St. Justin Martyr testifies in his Dialogue with Trypho:
Chapter 72. Passages have been removed by the Jews from Esdras and Jeremiah
Justin: I shall do as you please. From the statements, then, which Esdras made in reference to the law of the passover, they have taken away the following:
‘And Esdras said to the people, This passover is our Saviour and our refuge. And if you have understood, and your heart has taken it in, that we shall humble Him on a standard, and thereafter hope in Him, then this place shall not be forsaken for ever, says the God of hosts. But if you will not believe Him, and will not listen to His declaration, you shall be a laughing-stock to the nations.’
And from the sayings of Jeremiah they have cut out the following:
‘I [was] like a lamb that is brought to the slaughter: they devised a device against me, saying, Come, let us lay on wood on His bread, and let us blot Him out from the land of the living; and His name shall no more be remembered.’ Jeremiah 11:19
And since this passage from the sayings of Jeremiah is still written in some copies [of the Scriptures] in the synagogues of the Jews (for it is only a short time since they were cut out), and since from these words it is demonstrated that the Jews deliberated about the Christ Himself, to crucify and put Him to death, He Himself is both declared to be led as a sheep to the slaughter, as was predicted by Isaiah, and is here represented as a harmless lamb; but being in a difficulty about them, they give themselves over to blasphemy. And again, from the sayings of the same Jeremiah these have been cut out: ‘The Lord God remembered His dead people of Israel who lay in the graves; and He descended to preach to them His own salvation.’
Anonymous 6:36 PM
I addressed your specific claim but it "disappeared."
RE:From the deliberations of Jamnia we may infer that the rabbis there were endorsing earlier views and usage, ie the views at Jesus' time. And they endorsed the scriptures that Jews today and protestants agree on. The anti-Christian views of those rabbis have no bearing on this reasoning.
Briefly, the Qumran scrolls indicate otherwise.
The Superiority of the Septuagint: This is an important issue because the Septuagin (Greek Translation of the OT made sometime in 300's BC in Alexandria) differs on some points form the Hebrew text (the Masoretic Text or MT). The earliest copies we have of the MT only Date from about 900 or 1000 AD, but the LXX goes back much further. We have whole manuscripts from 3d and 4th centuries AD, and it is quoted in much earlier works. The main Jewish apologist argument against Messianic interpretation of Is. 53 is that all the references to the suffering servant, so they say, are in the plural, making him a symbol of Israel. But in the LXX they are singular.
Most Scholars saw the LXX as inferior to the Hebrew Bible called the Masoretic Text (MT). With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, this all changed. Ancient Hebrew scrolls were found that follow the LXX, not the Masoretic Text. The DSS showed that the LXX had an underlying Hebrew Text that was different from the MT.
Now Scholars think the LXX has important readings that are superior to the MT. The LXX is now very important in textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible. Let's look at some of the key differences between the LXX and the MT where the LXX seems to be superior........(Click onto Institute for Biblical and Scientific Studies above the statement.)
http://www.doxa.ws/Messiah/Lxx_mt.html
I'd prefer the Septuagint over the Hebrew text for the messianic passages, Susanna, but where the Jews have no reason to doctor the texts the Hebrew must be taken as primary because there is no cause to suppose it has been changed and it is the original language. Translation is always approximation.
But I don't see that your response downs my argument proposed at 6.36pm. We know from Jesus' words that there was a canon in his time, even if he doesn't specify it. Jamnia says, a lifetime later, that the canonical books *remain* those understood as canonical for a long time, and by counting the number mentioned at Jamnia these are inferred to be today's Jewish-protestant OT. At what point in this specific argument do you think a deliberate lie is being introduced, please?
Has anyone ever noticed the times when Jesus spoke in the New Testament to emphasize a point He would say it with a preface, a repeated word, such as His verily verily's, doubled up to make sure we are hearing something? (John Chapter 3 for example)
The number of man in the Bible is the number 6. Look at what day God made man on this earth and it is another clue. He rested after all this. God is settled about what He has said and what He has done.
The Canon is the 66 Books known as the Holy Bible and it closed with that number.
His Message. Doubled emphasis even in that enumeration.
It is His Word for mankind, for us. He is making the point that God's Word is our bread, our food for our souls, and He told us that He, the Bread of Life Himself, is all we truly need...all else, the lesser, is only all else...........and way after that fact.
This is My beloved Son, hear ye Him the Father said in Matthew 17:5.
Mat 4:4 But He answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Matthew 4:4 (also Luke 4:4)
Really, the buck should stop there for all authority because the Bible is our.....B.asic...I.nstructions...B.efore...L.eaving...E.arth
Maybe some agree, and maybe some do not. But one day all will be settled, based on the very Word God spoke. He has magnified it, above His very name. Ps 138:2
...but where the Jews have no reason to doctor the texts the Hebrew must be taken as primary because there is no cause to suppose it has been changed and it is the original language.
But according to the writings of the Church Fathers, the Jews DID have a reason to doctor the texts - including the Book of Isaiah with the aforementioned "suffering servant" passage made to be plural instead of singular - because they felt they were being threatened by the Christians.
For me it is a matter of trustworthiness. I don't have a problem with the Hebrew language being the original language of the Sacred Scriptures, but I do have a problem with the idea that Hebrew is the "primary" language if by "primary" it is meant that the Scriptures must necessarily have always been written exclusively in Hebrew in order to be accepted as canonical......because by that standard, the whole New Testament would be null and void......except, perhaps, for Matthew..... and the only indication we have that Matthew's Gospel was written in Hebrew/Aramaic is the writings of the Church Fathers who lived closest to the time in which Matthew's Gospel was actually written.
Regarding your argument: " We know from Jesus' words that there was a canon in his time, even if he doesn't specify it." ....."At what point in this specific argument do you think a deliberate lie is being introduced, please?"
I don't know that Jesus was necessarily referring to a canon per se as much as He was referring to those books that specifically alluded to Him, to His redemptive mission and to His teachings.
The first deliberate lie from Jamnia was when the rabbis ditched the Greek Septuagint under the false pretext that the sacred Scriptures necessarily had to be written exclusively in Hebrew in order to be regarded as canonical and tinkered with the Hebrew translation of Isaiah which was already a part of their canon but did not quite measure up to their anti-Chriatian agenda in terms of the "virgin birth" and the "suffering servant" passages.
http://outreachjudaism.org/gods-suffering-servant-isaiah-53/
Rendering the "suffering servant" ( Isaiah 53 )in the plural as a symbol for Israel instead of the singular which was interpreted by Christians as a reference to Christ is redolent of the desire on the part of certain Jews for a "political messiah." This has had repercussions down through history.
By the way, the article for which I provided a link mentions Origen. Strictly speaking, Origen is not regarded by Catholics as a Church Father because he died excommunicated on account of his errors which are collectively referred to as "Origenism."
In Luke 24:45 we read "Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,"
This passage would seem to indicate that this "understanding" included knowledge of which books were to be included in the canon since Catholics believe that Christ delegated His authority to Peter and the Apostles to preserve and hand down the faith to their successors.
Understanding is the second of the Seven Gifts of the Holy Spirit enumerated in Isaiah 11:2-3, behind only wisdom. The fullness of this Gift of Understanding would have been conferred on Peter and the Apostles at Pentecost.
This is not to say that the Hebrew Bible has no validity. Jerome made use of the Hebrew Bible when doing the translation of the Bible which came to be known as the Vulgate.
I never said that Hebrew rather than Greek was a necessary criterion for scriptures written BC to be valid, Susanna. Just that where the original is known to be in Hebrew, it should be preferred for all but the messianic scriptures, at least, because translation is inevitably approximation and anti-Christian Jews have no motivation to lie over such scriptures.
RE:Just that where the original is known to be in Hebrew, it should be preferred for all but the messianic scriptures, at least, because translation is inevitably approximation and anti-Christian Jews have no motivation to lie over such scriptures.
As long as you are exempting messianic passages, I don't necessarily have a problem with this. Because it would have been PRECISELY the messianic passages in the Old Testament which would have given CORRUPT anti-Christian Jews a motivation to lie.
much I read scattered in western news incl. some I missed.
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/09/12/the-existential-madness-of-putin-bashing/
Craig and Grant, sorry for the confusion this can happen when forced to limit to one post a week re writing and
cut and paste as things go on. I did this once last year I think.
"...url you reference is proof that my position is the correct one rather than yours....first definition (1, as
opposed to 2) in Thayer, and this particular sub-definition (about 2/3rds down), which specifically references
Eph. 5:11, 13: contextually, by conviction to bring to light, to expose: t?, John 3:20, cf. 21; Ephesians 5:11,
13…"
that's what shows YOUR error! to expose is to tell on, rat off, make public what someone wanted kept secret,
whistleblowers expose and testimony in court convicts, making public causes public to convict, not personal
conscience. edifying behavior is not exposing "bring to light" is make visible what was hidden. coloquialism for
public display of what someone was doing.
http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/bring+to+light "blow the lid off" "BRING TO VIEW" "DISCLOSE" like leaking
emails.
20th c. idea of privacy no public rebuke is alien to the cultures and church discipline of the past. secret
confession developed centuries later.
"that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God" manifest to who? "may be clearly seen"
by who? God already sees and knows. the person might be forced to quit something by divinely enlightened
conscience, or might skulk off and hide, this phrasing can be public and/or internal. To the degree this is self
image its irrelevant to Ephes which is in context public. "convicting of sin" is not a private experience as treated
in evangelical lingo now, it is public accusation plus proof, John 8:46 only internal if the person exposed is
ashamed and repents or angry and violent. posting Dan's comments here is bringing them to light here making
visible exposing.
your subjectivist focus blinds you to the obvious meaning of Dan's words he posted here, you don't want to
believe your eyes so you don't. "...IF, and that’s a humungous, ginormous IF, the quote attributed to Dan Bryan
is 100% accurate, I’m concerned" go read that link. then go read the original location of his comments, where
his comments are gone but his name still attached and my comments show I am arguing with someone who is
semi arian.
Dan and RayB lied saying they saw an ad I never posted. and ability to see spirits and their ugly traces is not
"psychic advice" more like "discernment of spirits." as for not taking God's Name in vain, I didn't swear a false
oath (perjury) nor claim a divine revelation. describing someone/something as "goddam" doesn't show
disrespect for God but for who/what described.
Susanna, Origen didn't die excommunicate he was anathematized after his death. Still not a Church Father.
ET claim they generated us - being done now. argue our ancestors designed them breaks their argument
weakens non Christian public support of them prevents weakening of Christian faith. demons involved but
would have physical agents to be public. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEMUmpI-C7o snake etc. on Mars
post didn't show
much I read scattered in western news incl. some I missed.
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/09/12/the-existential-madness-of-putin-bashing/
Craig and Grant, sorry for the confusion this can happen when forced to limit to one post a week re writing and
cut and paste as things go on. I did this once last year I think.
"...url you reference is proof that my position is the correct one rather than yours....first definition (1, as
opposed to 2) in Thayer, and this particular sub-definition (about 2/3rds down), which specifically references
Eph. 5:11, 13: contextually, by conviction to bring to light, to expose: t?, John 3:20, cf. 21; Ephesians 5:11,
13…"
that's what shows YOUR error! to expose is to tell on, rat off, make public what someone wanted kept secret,
whistleblowers expose and testimony in court convicts, making public causes public to convict, not personal
conscience. edifying behavior is not exposing "bring to light" is make visible what was hidden. coloquialism for
public display of what someone was doing.
http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/bring+to+light "blow the lid off" "BRING TO VIEW" "DISCLOSE" like leaking
emails.
20th c. idea of privacy no public rebuke is alien to the cultures and church discipline of the past. secret
confession developed centuries later.
"that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God" manifest to who? "may be clearly seen"
by who? God already sees and knows. the person might be forced to quit something by divinely enlightened
conscience, or might skulk off and hide, this phrasing can be public and/or internal. To the degree this is self
image its irrelevant to Ephes which is in context public. "convicting of sin" is not a private experience as treated
in evangelical lingo now, it is public accusation plus proof, John 8:46 only internal if the person exposed is
ashamed and repents or angry and violent. posting Dan's comments here is bringing them to light here making
visible exposing.
your subjectivist focus blinds you to the obvious meaning of Dan's words he posted here, you don't want to
believe your eyes so you don't. "...IF, and that’s a humungous, ginormous IF, the quote attributed to Dan Bryan
is 100% accurate, I’m concerned" go read that link. then go read the original location of his comments, where
his comments are gone but his name still attached and my comments show I am arguing with someone who is
semi arian.
Dan and RayB lied saying they saw an ad I never posted. and ability to see spirits and their ugly traces is not
"psychic advice" more like "discernment of spirits." as for not taking God's Name in vain, I didn't swear a false
oath (perjury) nor claim a divine revelation. describing someone/something as "goddam" doesn't show
disrespect for God but for who/what described.
Susanna, Origen didn't die excommunicate he was anathematized after his death. Still not a Church Father.
ET claim they generated us - being done now. argue our ancestors designed them breaks their argument
weakens non Christian public support of them prevents weakening of Christian faith. demons involved but
would have physical agents to be public. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEMUmpI-C7o snake etc. on Mars
third effort, Constance this must be in your spam file
much I read scattered in western news incl. some I missed.
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/09/12/the-existential-madness-of-putin-bashing/
Craig and Grant, sorry for the confusion this can happen when forced to limit to one post a week re writing and
cut and paste as things go on. I did this once last year I think.
"...url you reference is proof that my position is the correct one rather than yours....first definition (1, as
opposed to 2) in Thayer, and this particular sub-definition (about 2/3rds down), which specifically references
Eph. 5:11, 13: contextually, by conviction to bring to light, to expose: t?, John 3:20, cf. 21; Ephesians 5:11,
13…"
that's what shows YOUR error! to expose is to tell on, rat off, make public what someone wanted kept secret,
whistleblowers expose and testimony in court convicts, making public causes public to convict, not personal
conscience. edifying behavior is not exposing "bring to light" is make visible what was hidden. coloquialism for
public display of what someone was doing.
http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/bring+to+light "blow the lid off" "BRING TO VIEW" "DISCLOSE" like leaking
emails.
20th c. idea of privacy no public rebuke is alien to the cultures and church discipline of the past. secret
confession developed centuries later.
"that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God" manifest to who? "may be clearly seen"
by who? God already sees and knows. the person might be forced to quit something by divinely enlightened
conscience, or might skulk off and hide, this phrasing can be public and/or internal. To the degree this is self
image its irrelevant to Ephes which is in context public. "convicting of sin" is not a private experience as treated
in evangelical lingo now, it is public accusation plus proof, John 8:46 only internal if the person exposed is
ashamed and repents or angry and violent. posting Dan's comments here is bringing them to light here making
visible exposing.
your subjectivist focus blinds you to the obvious meaning of Dan's words he posted here, you don't want to
believe your eyes so you don't. "...IF, and that’s a humungous, ginormous IF, the quote attributed to Dan Bryan
is 100% accurate, I’m concerned" go read that link. then go read the original location of his comments, where
his comments are gone but his name still attached and my comments show I am arguing with someone who is
semi arian.
Dan and RayB lied saying they saw an ad I never posted. and ability to see spirits and their ugly traces is not
"psychic advice" more like "discernment of spirits." as for not taking God's Name in vain, I didn't swear a false
oath (perjury) nor claim a divine revelation. describing someone/something as "goddam" doesn't show
disrespect for God but for who/what described.
Susanna, Origen didn't die excommunicate he was anathematized after his death. Still not a Church Father.
ET claim they generated us - being done now. argue our ancestors designed them breaks their argument
weakens non Christian public support of them prevents weakening of Christian faith. demons involved but
would have physical agents to be public. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEMUmpI-C7o snake etc. on Mars
"when forced to limit to one post a week "
You do realize that is your consequences because of your bad behavior here, don't you?
Don't complain. It is what Constance, the more than fair-minded host with you, has decided you must abide by.
Maybe you'll slowly learn better social skills because of it??
http://shoebat.com/2016/09/18/the-greatest-persecution-of-christians-is-about-to-happen-the-whole-world-is-being-plunged-into-darkness-the-spirit-of-antichrist-is-taking-over-be-prepared-for-major-persecution/
Shoebats are 4 islamic antichrist theory but otherwise great. http://shoebat.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/A33356-of-13-November-1978.pdf proof of Shoebat's background
"The naive judge based on a label. The wise judge based on essence. The fool says not to judge at all."
http://thestoryofmohammed.blogspot.com.au/
"unnatural growth of the mustard seed into a big tree" they grow 20 feet high and wide. not unnatural. Luke cite does NOT match your concern. http://www.gardenguides.com/124943-mustard-tree.html
""when forced to limit to one post a week "...consequences because of your bad behavior here,..."
my bad behavior? how about you all's vicious, dishonest, bad behavior. one RC well said you can say anything but rebuke or refutation of you is called "abuse." The Lord Jesus rebuke you. (and later grant you repentance and forgive you.)
the limit on me also limits your ability to ruin Constance's blog filling pages with abuse. read by maybe 50 non posters w/o time to check facts.
"Maybe you'll slowly learn better social skills..." I hope not. your social skills are corruption.
social skills = don't confront weasling, lying or talking beside the point. lie or go along with lies. don't destroy all your arguments w. Scripture or history its rude. don't be educative just blither vague stuff all can misunderstand the way they want so all think they are in agreement. post a link without explaining implications (one missed how a fact included ruined the article so did the author). don't correct prot Scriptural error but attack RCs though half complaints are wrong I showed from KJV months ago.
some here believe evolution, the core of new age social, spiritual and political theory. No one addresses this.
many's words show they are sold out to the world more than to Christ. Been there, done that, repented of it, know it when I see it.
one of you complained of multi long posts to take down Dahlheimer's propaganda. I left him without a leg to stand on maybe weaken some visitors na beliefs. But I who can take New Age key arguments and turn them against them am the target of your hatred.
you hate my guts because I tell you the truth and show you how to fight stuff that isn't even on your radar.
As for "of one blood" a hybrid IS of one blood with us since it has Adam's blood. if aliens don't exist DARPA's spawn WILL exist if it doesn't already. Same non human DNA modification of humans. PARAGRAPH 8 https://transgenicnews.com/2016/06/05/darpa-super-soldier most goals would need animal dna also.
(already been done in England I think, but embryos killed at 2 weeks. ethical issues human animal hybrid but forget ethics when the govt. is involved.)
I speak the language of occultists? Paul quoted pagan poets two or three times. If alien life originated on earth how does that conflict with the Bible? Rather this DEFENDS the Bible against deception by aliens and any human fake aliens.
RayB you and Dan Bryan have no church affiliation, do you think Father God was ALWAYS Father (because always had a Son) or BECAME Father (once He eventually had a Son) after first being alone?
https://www.google.com/search?q=mustard+plants+pictures&tbm=isch&imgil=v4m79QEvU95XjM%253A%253BuoPJDzqL8fS58M%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fsurvivalweekly.com%25252Fdownloadable-files%25252Fwild-mustard%25252F&source=iu&pf=m&fir=v4m79QEvU95XjM%253A%252CuoPJDzqL8fS58M%252C_&usg=__d_173uIs5aY4Qjl9Mv2e5Lq57-0%3D&biw=1304&bih=678&ved=0ahUKEwiow47v1avPAhUDKGMKHUaUDnYQyjcINw&ei=lF3oV6gpg9CMA8aourAH#imgrc=v4m79QEvU95XjM%3A
Plants. Not trees.
Per usual, the truth is lost on you. You pathetic, sour, bitter person.
"Per usual, the truth is lost on you. You pathetic, sour, bitter person."
The link stays because it is correct to the comment that was made.
The words above in "..." I should not have said and apologize for.
Please accept my apology.
"Only those that have been "born of the Spirit" know the real difference between the "Kingdom of God within" vs the false membership in the "kingdom" by merely being a member of a denomination"
MCE didn't get the point (again). And nobody hates her - others just know she is deeply wrong in these matters and need not apologize for saying so.
The comment above (from RayB on the next thread) is appropriate and explains the problem of not understanding the words of Jesus regarding the exaggerated growth of the mustard seed (and the widespread leaven that also expounds the point Jesus made) which speaks to the error found in the denominational circles today.
Only a remnant (born of the Spirit) is saved from within each of them. How terrible that most haven't a clue.
"...observations about the direction Russia is heading -- toward becoming the new "Christian Nation" ...or a nation descending into Barbarism: http://windowoneurasia2.blogspot.com/2016/09/neo-barbarianism-on-way-to-becoming.html ...Short answer: Barbarism."
may I remind you that the last time massive incursion of western ideas was allowed, they ended up having the bolshevik revolution?
link complains barbarian Wagner removed ortho fundies run schools theological course at a nuclear school. Christianity getting entrenched. Marko, you need to develop a biblical Christian world view. you dislike decandence? but someone DOES something about it and you complain. Freedom is a tool not an absolute. Don't pretend you have a Christian world view after that link comment proves you don't. Our Constitution was not divinely revealed Scripture, merely what worked but needs some adjusting to eliminate abuse of free speech and misapplying separation of church and state.
anon 10:55 on Monday Sept. 26 I accept your apology.
three plants can be used to make "mustard" a tree and two of different genera one grows 8 feet (wikipedia says 9 feet) https://carm.org/is-mustard-seed-smallest-of-all-seeds either way, tree or large herb.
"The mustard tree...Salvadora persica has extremely small seeds and grows into a small bush. [20 feet isn't small.] Brassica nigra ... grows to about 8 to 10 feet ... he was drawing attention to the comparison of the "smallest" to the "largest" and using it to illustrate how the Kingdom of heaven will expand in the world from a very small beginning to a huge presence."
the word is dendron (Strong's) birds in branches seems like tree. http://biblehub.com/parallel/luke/13-19.htm For all you people's supposed spiritual insight, you miss the PLAIN STATEMENT that THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN IS LIKE MUSTARD/LEAVEN "... not understanding the words of Jesus regarding the exaggerated growth of the mustard seed (and the widespread leaven that also expounds the point Jesus made) which speaks to the error found in the denominational circles today." ahem. THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN IS LIKE....the leaven small bit fills the bread THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN IS LIKE ....mustard seed, real small grows big. HOW IS ABNORMAL GROWTH OF ERROR THE SAME AS THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN? never trust a "witness in your spirit" that is YOUR spirit not The Holy Spirit. just the deceptive heart. you are wrenching the Scriptures, ignoring context and some words.
http://www.discernment-ministries.org./StrangeFire.pdf I think some complain of brain are infect w this.
"In Christ or Therapy by E.S Williams, unconditional love is described as luciferic since it is amoral in fact antimoral. unconditional forgiveness is denounced in the next chapter." http://fightthenewage.blogspot.com/2016/07/the-uncondtional-forgiveness-heresy.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placer_mining placer county name doesn't mean pleasure it is gold panning.
equating sex w/o marriage for money from man with not marrying so as to keep money one already has and that NOT from the man shows your mind is corrupt can't distinguish.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udU_3ularII The Family and C Street which Constance has discussed. less about morals than free markets and power HENCE THE BAD ALLIANCES NOW.
"you are wrenching the Scriptures, ignoring context and some words."
You missed Jesus' point entirely.
The Lord is going for quality, not quantity. Truth in the inward parts. Much of church growth is not what you think, at all, individual, as well as, corporate.
Quality in right relationship to Him by faith (qualifies itself in actual good works, not phoniness). Nations are a drop in the bucket to Him, but Jesus Christ died to save individual souls of men. Few will have Jesus on His terms. How do you keep missing this? I can tell it is going completely over your head, because you are listening to your head. No awesomeness from God in your thoughts.
Yours is a horizontal view, not seeing the big picture He is after. What is blinding your view is the question you should be asking yourself right about now.....
You figure it out in your prayer closet.
""Only those that have been "born of the Spirit" know the real difference between the "Kingdom of God within" vs the false membership in the "kingdom" by merely being a member of a denomination" "
not my issue. and being w/o denomination doesn't make you Christian.
"The comment above (from RayB on the next thread)...explains the problem of not understanding the words of Jesus regarding the exaggerated growth of the mustard seed (and the widespread leaven that also expounds the point Jesus made) which speaks to the error found in the denominational circles today."
So I am not born again because I see more of His words and context than your tunnel vision lets you.
"You missed Jesus' point entirely. The Lord is going for quality, not quantity....." no YOU missed His point. this IS in Scripture but not there. whoever loves spouse or kids or own life more than JEsus is not worthy of Jesus. judgement scenes when some believers are flogged, others cast out altogether. The sermon on the mount. warning to be more righteous than the scribes and pharisees. net drawing in fish later sorted and bad thrown out.
" Few will have Jesus on His terms. How do you keep missing this?" I don't. But this parable is EXPLICITLY about The KINGDOM OF HEAVEN not the kingdom of fleshlyness. you imply the kingdom of heaven is the same as church fake growth.
"... it is going completely over your head, because you are listening to your head. No awesomeness from God in your thoughts." LOL quite false. meanwhile your sense of awe blinds you to His words and has you applying them however you like the sense of awe A MOOD you treat as assuring you your ideas are right.
I repeat. HOW IS THE ABNORMAL GROWTH OF ERROR THE SAME AS THE KINGDOM OF GOD? by definition these are wolves in sheep's clothing, tares (though that is sown in the world not in the church if you define church as what God planted not what the flesh or the devil planted) little leaven leavens the whole, would apply that bad ideas and attitude can be infectious as Paul warns also of course same regarding the good leaven.
"You figure it out in your prayer closet." you gotta be kidding. you don't really pray in a closet do you? or wait to pray until there? that isn't "pray without ceasing" is it. That was a similitude referring to secrecy not self promotion in good deeds and prayer. "horizontal view" and not seeing big picture. on the contrary. its you that miss the big picture you don't even see Jesus words in the quote "the Kingdom of Heaven is like...."
"...The end goals of Globalism/Communism makes the NAM look like a children's picnic." both have similar pedigree and extermination agendas. "depopulaton" vs. "removal from physical manifestation."
http://www.theopedia.com/interpretation-of-the-bible
http://cnsnews.com/commentary/eric-metaxas/americans-evangelicals-misunderstand-basic-christian-doctrines-fail-theology
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12467083 Relationship of acupuncture points and meridians to connective tissue planes. (I DON'T start good and get weird I get hounded back to weird but this slap in your face I had to add.) http://facingislam.blogspot.com/2016/10/why-christians-and-muslims-worship.html
@ 3:34 AM
Still batting zero. See ya next week ;) LOL!
""Only those that have been "born of the Spirit" know the real difference between the "Kingdom of God within" vs the false membership in the "kingdom" by merely being a member of a denomination" "
RayB made the point exactly and because you can't make out the difference between a false kingdom of heaven running parallel to the real one, it went over your head.
"So I am not born again because.." Uh, by your own statements, and so many over time have added up, perhaps not.
And the prayer closet thing is not actual, but a spiritual picture. That went over your head also.
You need the Holy Spirit to teach you (John 14:26) since your own "reasonings", what you call calculating, has you calculating Jesus right out of the very words he speaks, and leading you away from the truth. In the legend of your own mind, you know better than God. But, whatever,...have it your way.
4:46 comment is right on.
To Susanna,
My concerns on Pope Francis are growing with the announcement of his newest appointments to Cardinal. One name includes Archbishop Tobin who supported the women nuns who supported Barbara Marx Hubbard.
Constance
Christina,
Don't push my one post per week limit -- I haven't read the latest yet, but it looks like 3 giant posts.
Constance
"Still batting zero...."
no, you are still batting zero. you read Scripture through a preset interpretation lens causing things go right over your head. you falsely say JEsus spoke about the false kingdom when He explicitly said THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN is like leaven and the mustard tree.
Jesus addresses the false kingdom when He speaks of tares, of a fishing net that drags in good and bad which are later sorted and the bad thrown away, and warned of wolves in sheep's clothing, false teachers and false prophets.
"calculating Jesus right out of the very words he speaks" LOL! it is you who have calculated Jesus right out of the words He speaks, you ignore His authority and say He said other than He did.
Jesus saves individuals but also made a community says nations will be judged as well as individuals. leaven grows and fills bread, good leaven for good or bad leaven for bad a model of the growth of God's fruits in the person, and effects through individuals in society. the mustard tree seems more of a social scene how it grows with branches and birds perch in the branches, people finding refuge from evils which in a Christian influenced society are reduced.
but you shun the big picture and insist on saying Jesus said what HE didn't say.
you have nothing to teach me and a lot to learn (and a lot to unlearn). you cripple your mind Jesus says you are to love God with so how can you love God with your mind? you lean on your deceptive heart. Any false religion believer can have a sense of awe, and a witness in your spirit is just subjective imagining.
"gird up the loins of your mind" 1 Peter 1:13
Love God "with all your....mind" Luke 10:27
"come let us reason together" Isa. 1:18 elsewhere appeals to reason is noting idols inferior to man who makes them.
"the mind darkened" results in UNRIGHTEOUSNESS Ephes. 4:18 (4:17 refers to gentiles walking in the futility of their minds, not by usng their minds but " Being darkened in their understanding" v. 18. Rom. 1:21
be sober, vigilant I Peter 5:8 also 1:13
God has given us a "sound mind" 2 tim. 1:7
corrupt mind I Tim 6:5
At one point Jesus complained they could calculate the weather for the day, but didn't recognize the signs of the times. They were rebuked not for thinking but for not thinking enough.
"because you can't make out the difference between a false kingdom of heaven running parallel to the real one, it went over your head." I know the difference and one of the features of the false one is arrogant rejection of any kind of authority or organization or structure on principle not per specifics.
""So I am not born again because..." Uh, by your own statements, ... perhaps not." I don't have space to argue, and I am more concerned with pleasing God than you. HOW DOES JESUS DEFINE BORN AGAIN? of The Holy Spirit and water of BAPTISM. The Holy Spirit comes with the baptism and more fully with the apostolic or their successor laying on of hands or anointing with oil and praying the Holy Spirit come to the person. no Scripture says second baptism of The Holy Spirit later just repentance and growth.
"And the prayer closet thing is not actual, but a spiritual picture. That went over your head also." no it didn't. I SAID IT IS A SIMILITUDE but your biblical inadequacy made me suspicious.
"You need the Holy Spirit to teach you (John 14:26)" gives discernment, wisdom and the Scriptures you twist.
I cant wait to check out some of these blogs! I’ve really wanted to start learning more about cars and auto repairs lately and I think this will help a lot. I think it can save my family some money if we knew how to do some repairs at home.! Thanks again for all the options.
bike spa services in mumbai
house cleaning services in mumbai
car wash services in mumbai
MCE, I saw the post on the other thread about no comment to your 3:00 AM post on this one, so thought I should oblige you with a great big YAWN.
If boring were a disease you'd be terminal.
Hello everyone, I'm here to let the whole world know of a man called Dr. Ekpen he is a spell caster and he is the man that helps me in my restore my marriage when my husband broke up with me, he use his power and gift to restore joy in my relationship. I want to also let the whole world know that he can still help if you are been blackmail by someone or you want to win a court case he can help. Contact him today via email: ekpentemple@gmail.com or you can whatsapp him on +2347050270218.
Mary Kaldor has worked with Solana for years to develop his cabinets and security studies. Here is a recent article by the two of them:
thanks for sharing...
www.golden-slot.com
gclub
longchamp
kd 12 shoes
off white hoodie
longchamp outlet
retro jordans
yeezy 350
yeezy boost 350 v2
chrome hearts outlet
supreme clothing
canada goose outlet
Post a Comment