Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

Mary · 10-29-2010, 05:38 AM

When I started researching the lost books of the bible, and realized that the early Christians read these books (until about A.D. 300), yet they aren't found in our bibles today because a group of men didn't canonize them. This sparked a curiosity in my mind as to who this council of men were, and why did they attempt to destroy these extra-biblical books. Why couldn't it be left to the individual believer to make an informed decision about what we choose to read? Did they themselves seek not to indoctrinate?

May I recommend to you a book by Dr Darrell Bock called the Missing Gospels. He gives a good exposition of these "missing" and supposedly "destroyed" books, and how they compare to the actual gospels.

I think the conspiracy was not to keep these books out of the Bible, but IS to make people feel they have been deceived and that there is esoteric knowledge "out there" and that once they get hold of it they will know the "real" truth. This is a common practice of false teachers and deceivers.

Proverbs 3 vs 5

sari83 · (This post was last modified: 10-29-2010 09:44 AM by sari83.)

The geneology of Joseph is listed in both Matthew and Luke. Some say the geneology in Luke is Mary's. By making this claim they themselves are also opening the scriptures up for interpretation and in essence "adding" to it.
For the lineage "bloodline" of the Hebrew Messiah to come through King David is of the utmost importance. That is why I was saying the lineage or kingship is not passed through an adoptive father.

(10-26-2010 04:56 PM)Rose of Shushan Wrote:
Quote:2. Why is the geneology of Joseph recorded in the book of Matthew? The bloodline cannot be passed to a son by an adoptive father. It's an impossibility.

What bloodline are you meaning? I don't understand what you mean.
The genealogy of Joseph is relevant to us since he became the legal,so to speak, father of Jesus.The Gospel writer Matthew is careful however not to call Joseph the father of Jesus but the husband of Mary.Jesus is always referred to as Mary's son and as we see in Mat1:25 it says her firstborn son not their.

Mat 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

Mat 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ happened this way: When his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit.
Mat 1:19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, decided to put her away privately.

Mat 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

There are many many interesting things about the lineage of Joseph.One of these is the occurrence of the four women Ruth,Rahab,Tamar and Bathsheba.

I guess I was willing to accept that the Mark 16:9-20 verses were added at a later time because they single handedly contain one of the most bizarre readings.

Mark 16:18
They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
(KJV)

From this verse alone we've had churches who handle snakes as part of their worship service, and deaths from others who have given poison to their members.

f

(10-28-2010 11:29 AM)sheep wrecked Wrote:
(10-27-2010 04:19 PM)sari83 Wrote: I believe the original texts of the NT are the inspired Word of God. Anything added later would not fall under this authority. For example, we know the book of Mark was added to. It did not originally contain verses 16:9-20. Therefore it's also possible that the birth of Jesus in the books of Matthew and Luke may have been modified.

As we do not have the "original" texts, then we must rely on the manuscripts available. This is now God preserved His Word.

The issue then becomes, which set of manuscripts are credible and which are not. On the one hand we have 5,000+ witnesses which are very compatible, and on the other hand we have 3 witnesses which are older that do not agree with each other. It is this second set which is labeled as "oldest and best" now that it has been more recently discovered.

Interestingly, the ones who support the second set have spurious backgrounds, as Vic referred to in her response to you. Yet you appear to trust that stream of bias over a set of manuscripts that have been available for almost 2000 years.

Getting back to the concept of preservation - either God did or did not preserve His Word. Which makes Him a liar if we do not have His pure Word in a form that He chose. Or, we have that pure Word preserved and another "force" has engineered a way to shift the focus from the truth to a lie.

It appears that you have chosen to put all of your proverbial eggs in the wrong basket, as Vic pointed out. But you have not received that information graciously.

My suggestion is that you do further research because you have been sold a bill of goods that is biased unbelief and error, which is the product of a corrupt and evil source: Westcott and Hort.

I have added bolding to the following article:

Quote:Irenaeus (c AD 140-202), Book 3, Chapter 10, Section 5:

<quote begins> Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: "So then, after the Lord had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God;" [Mark 16:19] confirming what had been spoken by the prophet: "The LORD said to my Lord, Sit Thou on My right hand, until I make Thy foes Thy footstool." [Psalm 110:1] Thus God and the Father are truly one and the same; He who was announced by the prophets, and handed down by the true Gospel; whom we Christians worship and love with the whole heart, as the Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things therein.(3:10:5) <quote ends>

If you pick up modern translations of the New Testament, including the New World Translation, you will find footnotes on Mark 16:9-20 which read something like this:

"Verses 9-20 are bracketed in NU [the UBS/Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament] as not in the original text. They are lacking in Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, although nearly all other manuscripts of Mark contain them." (footnote: NKJV)

It is universally agreed that Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, displaying the Alexandrian text, were written in the fourth century, and yet Irenaeus quotes from Mark 16:19 at the end of the second century.

In short, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, the "original" (?) text, are proven by Irenaeus to be deficient here.

Vindication of the Byzantine text, or what?

This testimony from Irenaeus (AD 140 – 202) should not be ignored. Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp who, in turn, was a disciple of the apostle John,

Irenaeus, who had moved out from Asia Minor to Lyons, France, by AD 177, was a bold defender of the Christian gospel as taught by the apostle John. He was also a bold defender of the Holy Scriptures.

Irenaeus records that a disputed reading of Revelation 13:18 had been settled by examining "all the most approved and ancient copies" and by consulting men who had personally spoken about the disputed reading with the apostle John in Ephesus.

Irenaeus, wrote: "Marcion and his followers have betaken themselves to mutilating the Scriptures, not acknowledging some books at all, and curtailing the gospel according to Luke and the Epistles of Paul, they assert that these alone are authentic which they themselves have shortened." (Ante-Nicene Fathers; Vol. I; pp 434-435)

Likewise Tertullian (about AD 208) is on record challenging Alexandrian Gnostic heretics to examine the original writings of the apostles and specifically states that they were still available for examination in such places as Corinth, Philippi, Thessalonica, and Ephesus, etc.

Greek scholar Wilbur N Pickering has researched the issue of the authentic Greek New Testament and reveals that: "Byzantine readings are recognised (most notably) by the Didache, Diognetus, and Justin Martyr in the first half of the second century [AD 100-150]; by the Gospel of Peter, Athenagorus, Hegesippus, and Irenaeus (heavily) in the second half [AD 150-199]; by Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Clementines, Hippolytus, and Origen (all heavily) in the first half of the third century [AD 200-250]; by Gregory of Thaumaturgus, Novatian, Cyprian (heavily), Dionysius of Alexandria, and Archelaus in the second half [AD 250-299]".("The Identity of the New Testament Text"; Wilbur N Pickering; Nelson; 1980; p 75)

More details here:
http://greeknewtestament.blogspot.com/

The book of Enoch contains many similar sayings that are found in Matthew. Also the book of Jude bears witness to Enoch's prophecies.

Jude 1:14-15
And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.
(KJV)

The Gospel of Thomas also contains many similar sayings to that of Matthew, and is referenced by Hippolytus of Rome (A.D. 222-235) and Origen of Alexandria (A.D. 233). In the 4th century, Cyril of Jerusalem mentioned a "Gospel of Thomas" twice in his Catechesis.

(10-29-2010 05:38 AM)Mary Wrote: When I started researching the lost books of the bible, and realized that the early Christians read these books (until about A.D. 300), yet they aren't found in our bibles today because a group of men didn't canonize them. This sparked a curiosity in my mind as to who this council of men were, and why did they attempt to destroy these extra-biblical books. Why couldn't it be left to the individual believer to make an informed decision about what we choose to read? Did they themselves seek not to indoctrinate?

May I recommend to you a book by Dr Darrell Bock called the Missing Gospels. He gives a good exposition of these "missing" and supposedly "destroyed" books, and how they compare to the actual gospels.

I think the conspiracy was not to keep these books out of the Bible, but IS to make people feel they have been deceived and that there is esoteric knowledge "out there" and that once they get hold of it they will know the "real" truth. This is a common practice of false teachers and deceivers.

Proverbs 3 vs 5

sheep wrecked · (This post was last modified: 10-29-2010 10:11 AM by sheep wrecked.)

(10-29-2010 08:44 AM)sari83 Wrote: The geneology of Joseph is listed in both Matthew and Luke. Some say the geneology in Luke is Mary's. By making this claim they themselves are also opening the scriptures up for interpretation and in essence "adding" to it.
For the lineage "bloodline" of the Hebrew Messiah to come through King David is of the utmost importance. That is why I was saying the lineage or kingship is not passed through an adoptive father.

Luke's genealogy shows that Jesus came through Nathan, David's son. Matthew's lineage shows that Jesus came through Solomon, David's son. God is showing that it came through both, a double witness, if you will. If God did not want the concept of Joseph as the lineage of Christ, it would not have been included in the NT.

The debate over the genealogies is long and arduous. A distraction. Either you believe that God preserved His Word as we have it or you don't. We all have to make the choice whether or not to believe God in faith that this is how He wanted His Word preserved.

The Counsel of Trent is not the "bad guy". They chose the cannon due to much study and research and comparisons of Scripture - because that what was already considered as Scripture. They did not add to the NT delete, or manufacture words and phrases to make it line up with anything. There were 5000 Greek NT manuscripts Th_ththink

As subsequent mss were found, they matched up. What we have today in the Byzantine family of mss compares quite nicely - it is how God preserved His Word 47b20s0

To think otherwise is to doubt God's ability to move man according to His will. He has been doing it since Genesis and will continue to do so until Jesus returns Biggrin

It's really interesting to me that the greatest attack is against the NT, not the OT. Now why do you suppose that is? Because that is the Gospel and the fulfillment of prophecy - which satan wants to destroy more than anything in the world. 2c2

Mat 1:6 And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias;
Mat 1:7 And Solomon begat Roboam; and Roboam begat Abia; and Abia begat Asa;

Luk 3:31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,
Luk 3:32 Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson,

Rose of Shushan · 10-29-2010, 10:45 AM

Quote:The geneology of Joseph is listed in both Matthew and Luke. Some say the geneology in Luke is Mary's. By making this claim they themselves are also opening the scriptures up for interpretation and in essence "adding" to it.
For the lineage "bloodline" of the Hebrew Messiah to come through King David is of the utmost importance. That is why I was saying the lineage or kingship is not passed through an adoptive father.

Both genealogies go back to David.

sari83 · (This post was last modified: 10-29-2010 11:26 AM by sari83.)

(10-29-2010 09:58 AM)sheep wrecked Wrote: The debate over the genealogies is long and arduous. A distraction. Either you believe that God preserved His Word as we have it or you don't. We all have to make the choice whether or not to believe God in faith that this is how He wanted His Word preserved.

Basically, the question is to whether a person believes the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. Which in my opinion is a man-made doctrine unsubstantiated by the bible. It is not fair to accuse a person of being unfaithful because I use reason and logic, which are God-given human characteristics.

[/quote]
The Counsel of Trent is not the "bad guy". They chose the cannon due to much study and research and comparisons of Scripture -
[/quote]

Consider what Jesus said to the religious authorities of His day. How they had put the people under their subjection. Do you think we are exempt from this occurrence in our day?

Luke 11:52
Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.
(KJV)

[/quote]
To think otherwise is to doubt God's ability to move man according to His will. He has been doing it since Genesis and will continue to do so until Jesus returns. [/quote]

I do believe that God will work all things for the good.
Rom 8:28
And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
(KJV)

[/quote]
It's really interesting to me that the greatest attack is against the NT, not the OT. Now why do you suppose that is? Because that is the Gospel and the fulfillment of prophecy - which satan wants to destroy more than anything in the world. [/quote]

The Old Testament actually witnesses against itself.

Jer 8:8
"How can you say, 'We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us'? Look, the false pen of the scribe certainly works falsehood.
(NKJ)

Jer 8:8
How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain.
(KJV)

Vain
8267 sheqer (sheh'-ker);

from 8266; an untruth; by implication, a sham (often adverbial):

KJV-- without a cause, deceit (-ful), false (-hood, -ly), feignedly, liar, + lie, lying, vain (thing), wrongfully.

(01-06-2009 07:25 PM)Vic Wrote: [color=#1E90FF]Within Hebrew Roots and with some Messianics, is the belief that Jesus was not born of the "Virgin" Mary,

I don't think this originated from the Hebrew Roots or Messianic movement. Thomas Jefferson, perhaps?

"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors." –Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

sheep wrecked · (This post was last modified: 10-29-2010 01:29 PM by sheep wrecked.)

(10-29-2010 08:44 AM)sari83 Wrote: I guess I was willing to accept that the Mark 16:9-20 verses were added at a later time because they single handedly contain one of the most bizarre readings.

Mark 16:18
They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
(KJV)

From this verse alone we've had churches who handle snakes as part of their worship service, and deaths from others who have given poison to their members.

What people do in response to reading the Bible does not make it truth.

We know that what Mark spoke of came to pass because a deadly viper crawled on Paul's hand and he was not harmed. Many people were healed at the hands of the apostles, so we know that came to pass. Many signs and wonders were done by the apostles, so we know that the "deadly drink" was probably fulfilled as well.

The signs and wonders of the apostles is long gone, but a rather large segment of Christianity is still trying to operate in them. All of the incidents of healings and signs have been done under the umbrella of false doctrines and heresy since the first century. The latest wave [Charismatic/Pentecostal] that was started in the 1800s is just another in a long line of men believing *they* have resurrected the sign gifts. Therefore; what people believe and do does not make it of God.

Quote:I believe the original texts of the NT are the inspired Word of God. Anything added later would not fall under this authority. For example, we know the book of Mark was added to. It did not originally contain verses 16:9-20. Therefore it's also possible that the birth of Jesus in the books of Matthew and Luke may have been modified.

That is the opinion of suprious "scholars" seeking to discredit the Word of God. We no longer have the "original" documents, so how can they base this concept on something that does not exist and cannot be proven? What we have are 5000 mss that match very well from all over the Greek world in the early centuries AD - and this is how we got the NT. It is was not a conspiracy to "modify" the text. If one looks at the quotes of the early church writers [100+AD] the entire NT can be put together. It is pure fallacy that the NT has been messed with and changed after 325AD [Counsel of Nicea].

What has been changed are the modern translations who have relied on the corrupt Alexandrian family of manuscripts of which there are only 3 pushed by Westcott and Hort who are proven occultists. One of the Alexandrian includes the last passage of Mark, btw. So that leaves only 2 that don't.

1 John 5:9-13 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son. 10. He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. 11. And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. 13. These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

Quote:The book of Enoch contains many similar sayings that are found in Matthew. Also the book of Jude bears witness to Enoch's prophecies.

Jude 1:14-15
And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.
(KJV)

The Book of Enoch was compiled about 300BC. It is not known who the author is. For sure it was not Enoch. The Dead Sea Scrolls have a few fragments of Enoch in Greek, none in Hebrew. and that is all we have of the "original".

Quote:Enoch, Book of Apocryphal Jewish book that has influenced the kabbalistic tradition and is considered part of the Merkabah mystical literature. There are three versions of The Book of Enoch. The Ethiopian version was first discovered by the Scottish explorer James Bruce in 1773 and is the text most commonly republished. The second version, titled The Book of the Secrets of Enoch, is a Slavonic text and was found in the Belgrade public library by Professor Sokolov in 1886; and English translation was issued in 1896. The Hebrew Enoch, identified as Enoch III, was translated by Hugo Odeberg in 1928. Some versions of Enoch III include lists of the magical names and magical formulae ascribed to the important archangel Metratron, who is regarded by contemporary occultists as the ruler of Kether, the first sephirah on the kabbalistic Tree of Life.

http://books.google.com/books?id=J3UJLig...g#PPA92,M1

The Book of Enoch was “smoothed” to reflect Jude, as no original translation exists and the translations of it have been dated back to the middles ages [long after the first century]. The Book of Enoch is associated with necromancy [contacting the dead, forbidden in both OT and NT] and angelic transmissions [automatic writing] in the 16th century. It has rather spurious connotations and is used primarily in the occultic and mystic venues due to the proliferation of angelic appearances, angel rankings and names, an angelic language said to spoken to Enoch, magic incantations, and mystical concepts within it. The Book of Enoch also contradicts the OT. The Book of Enoch [or Watchers] is based in myths and legends.

Enoch 1:9,10 And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of His holy ones to execute judgement upon all, And to destroy all the ungodly: And to convict all flesh of all the works of their ungodliness which they have ungodly committed, and of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.

Jude 1:14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his saints, to execute judgment on all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.

Please note these differences:

* Enoch – “He cometh” [The Holy Great One]; Jude – “The Lord cometh”.

* Enoch – “His holy ones” [referring to the angels – Enoch 14:23; 60:4]; Jude – “His saints” [referring to believers].

* Enoch – adds “and to destroy all the ungodly”. Enoch – “to convict all flesh”; Jude – “to convince all that are ungodly”.

I have a complete list of all the Enoch frags found at Qumran, the translations, and official listings from the Israel Antiquities Authority.

Quote:The Gospel of Thomas also contains many similar sayings to that of Matthew, and is referenced by Hippolytus of Rome (A.D. 222-235) and Origen of Alexandria (A.D. 233). In the 4th century, Cyril of Jerusalem mentioned a "Gospel of Thomas" twice in his Catechesis.

The gospel of Thomas is known as a gnostic gospel. There are about 80+ gnostic gospels having been so-called written by Jesus followers. They have all be proven to be false - written long after the first century.

Info on the gospel of Thomas:

Quote:In 1945, an archaeological excavation at Nag Hammadi in Central Egypt yielded a collection of 13 papyrus codices (books) totaling over 1,100 pages. One of these contained the “Gospel of Thomas” in the Coptic language. In this form it dates from about A.D. 350.

However, the original work apparently is older since three Greek papyri from the Oxyrhynchus collection (c. A.D. 150) contain fragments of the narrative. It is thus believed that the original “Gospel of Thomas” was compiled about A.D. 140, probably in Edessa, Syria. Some scholars push the date a little later (A.D. 150-200).

There is no evidence that this work existed in the first century, even though those associated with the bogus “Jesus Seminar” so allege.

“Thomas” consists of a collection of 114 “sayings of Jesus,” that are supposed to be a “secret” revelation the Lord gave to the apostle Thomas . . . Some of these sayings repeat the words of Christ from the canonical Gospel accounts. About 40 of them are entirely new. Most scholars believe that the “Gospel of Thomas” is significantly contaminated with the ancient heretical philosophy known as Gnosticism (Cameron, p. 539).

sample:

Simon Peter said to them: “Let Mary (Magdalene) go out from among us, because women are not worthy of the Life.”

Jesus said: “See I shall lead her, so that I will make her male, that she too may become a living spirit, resembling you males. For every woman who makes herself male will enter the Kingdom of Heaven.” (Saying 114, Funk, p. 532; see also Yamauchi, p. 186).

http://www.christiancourier.com/articles...-so-called

sheep wrecked · (This post was last modified: 10-29-2010 01:36 PM by sheep wrecked.)

(10-29-2010 11:18 AM)sari83 Wrote: [quote='sheep wrecked' pid='6501' dateline='1288360713']
The debate over the genealogies is long and arduous. A distraction. Either you believe that God preserved His Word as we have it or you don't. We all have to make the choice whether or not to believe God in faith that this is how He wanted His Word preserved.

Sari: Basically, the question is to whether a person believes the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. Which in my opinion is a man-made doctrine unsubstantiated by the bible. It is not fair to accuse a person of being unfaithful because I use reason and logic, which are God-given human characteristics.

I don't believe I said anything about "inerrancy". I am speaking of inspiration and preservation by God through His Holy Spirit. The NT clearly shows that it is the very Words of Christ. Reason and logic are how one can prove that God preserved His Word. He left a clear "trail" as it were. Some are distracted by the rabbit trails which lead to ship wrecked faith. What you are saying is that if we don't agree with you, we don't use reason and logic. Biggrin

Again quoting John:

1 John 5:9-13 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son. 10. He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. 11. And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. 13. These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

Quote:Consider what Jesus said to the religious authorities of His day. How they had put the people under their subjection. Do you think we are exempt from this occurrence in our day?

And those "religious authorities" were called out by Christ. Again, you are missing a piece of the puzzle. It was not that the counsel [religious authorities"] who cooked up a conspiratorial stew to present to the world. We still have some of the Byzantine mss. It is a fallacy that the "Catholics" changed the NT to fit their theology. The NT as we have it, proves Catholic theology wrong. Sign0007

Quote:The Old Testament actually witnesses against itself.

Jer 8:8
"How can you say, 'We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us'? Look, the false pen of the scribe certainly works falsehood.
(NKJ)

Jer 8:8
How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain.
(KJV)

Vain
8267 sheqer (sheh'-ker);

from 8266; an untruth; by implication, a sham (often adverbial):

KJV-- without a cause, deceit (-ful), false (-hood, -ly), feignedly, liar, + lie, lying, vain (thing), wrongfully.

God is speaking of Israel at that time, the false priests and scribes not against His own Word. Get a grip.

Jer 8:5 Why then is this people of Jerusalem slidden back by a perpetual backsliding? they hold fast deceit, they refuse to return.
Jer 8:6 I hearkened and heard, but they spake not aright: no man repented him of his wickedness, saying, What have I done? every one turned to his course, as the horse rusheth into the battle.
Jer 8:7 Yea, the stork in the heaven knoweth her appointed times; and the turtle and the crane and the swallow observe the time of their coming; but my people know not the judgment of the LORD.
Jer 8:8 How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain.
Jer 8:9 The wise men are ashamed, they are dismayed and taken: lo, they have rejected the word of the LORD; and what wisdom is in them?
Jer 8:10 Therefore will I give their wives unto others, and their fields to them that shall inherit them: for every one from the least even unto the greatest is given to covetousness, from the prophet even unto the priest every one dealeth falsely.

(01-06-2009 07:25 PM)Vic Wrote: Within Hebrew Roots and with some Messianics, is the belief that Jesus was not born of the "Virgin" Mary,

sari: I don't think this originated from the Hebrew Roots or Messianic movement. Thomas Jefferson, perhaps?

It's from the Rabbinic sages [Talmud] and other polemical writings in Judaism, to disprove the virgin birth of Jesus. It is a very old argument that messianics picked up on. Vic did not say that it originated with them, but they are promoting it which is overflowing into the Christian community. Thomas Jefferson was a Deist. I would not consider him a "Christian".

***Vic*** · (This post was last modified: 10-29-2010 01:38 PM by Vic.)

Quote:sari83--Basically, the question is to whether a person believes the doctrine of biblical inerrancy....

----No the question is, Do YOU believe the Bible is true and God's Word, Sarah? No need to even talk about man made doctrine or opinion. Do you believe the Bible is God's Word and true?

The OT witnesses against itself Sarah? That suggests that in your logic and reason you don't believe the OT to be true and you surely don't believe the NT to be true. So that pretty much--based on logic and reason--means you don't believe the Bible to be true. We actually do apply logic and reason now and again.

You obviously think you can take a verse out of context and make a doctrine and in this case a really bad comprehension of what the verse means in Jeremiah 8:8. Look at the whole chapter and see who Jeremiah was being told to rebuke. If someone writes a Scripture down---and they don't believe it, it's a sham and a lie and a falsehood because it means nothing to them even though they claim to have God on their side or belong to Christ--from a Christian perspective. In other words the Word of God is vanity and false to them and is merely used as a pretense of spirituality while being far from God. A lot of people were like that then and are like that today. Sign0171

You don't think the idea that the question about the virgin Mary was put forward before 1823? That Thomas Jefferson first mentioned it? You are kidding right? Slaphead

So then there would be NO historical reason for you to even question that issue from a Biblical perspective since the original manuscripts ie those used for the making of the Bible were from about 350 AD and predate 1823 by almost 1500 years. I think you might need to adjust your logic and reasoning. And whether some I have written about in HR/messianic do or don't believe the virgin issue, being a false prophet means they have prophesied falsely on something according to the Biblical definition of false prophet. You need to get your definitions and understandings a little clearer.

You said in another post

Quote: I affirm most of my posts by making good use of the scriptures.

Does that make the use of them accurate? You actually need to understand what they mean before using them. That understanding doesn't come just because you can paste a Scripture in. You need to actually believe them first before you can actually use them effectively--the Sword of the Spirit. 15249

You actually have to believe that it is God's Word and God doesn't lie.

1 Corinthians 2:1-8 And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God. 2. For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified. 3. And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling. 4. And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: 5. That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. 6. Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: 7. But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: 8. Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

1 Corinthians 2:9-16 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. 10. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. 11. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. 12. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. 13. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14. 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. 15. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. 16. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

James 1:3-8 Knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience. 4. But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing. 5. If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. 6. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. 7. For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord. 8. A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.

Mark 4:2-20 And he taught them many things by parables, and said unto them in his doctrine, 3. Hearken; Behold, there went out a sower to sow: 4. And it came to pass, as he sowed, some fell by the way side, and the fowls of the air came and devoured it up. 5. And some fell on stony ground, where it had not much earth; and immediately it sprang up, because it had no depth of earth: 6. But when the sun was up, it was scorched; and because it had no root, it withered away. 7. And some fell among thorns, and the thorns grew up, and choked it, and it yielded no fruit. 8. And other fell on good ground, and did yield fruit that sprang up and increased; and brought forth, some thirty, and some sixty, and some an hundred. 9. And he said unto them, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear. 10. And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable. 11. And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: 12. That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them. 13. And he said unto them, Know ye not this parable? and how then will ye know all parables? 14. The sower soweth the word. 15. And these are they by the way side, where the word is sown; but when they have heard, Satan cometh immediately, and taketh away the word that was sown in their hearts. 16. And these are they likewise which are sown on stony ground; who, when they have heard the word, immediately receive it with gladness; 17. And have no root in themselves, and so endure but for a time: afterward, when affliction or persecution ariseth for the word's sake, immediately they are offended. 18. And these are they which are sown among thorns; such as hear the word, 19. And the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the lusts of other things entering in, choke the word, and it becometh unfruitful. 20. And these are they which are sown on good ground; such as hear the word, and receive it, and bring forth fruit, some thirtyfold, some sixty, and some an hundred.

Hebrews 6:1-8 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, 2. Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. 3. And this will we do, if God permit. 4. For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, 5. And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, 6. If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame. 7. For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God: 8. But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned.

God protected HIs Word for the witness of His Grace and Mercy and for the witness of Jesus Christ.

2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Joh 21:24 This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.
Joh 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

Joh 20:30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
Joh 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

1 John 5:9-13 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son. 10. He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. 11. And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. 13. These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

John 19:35-37 And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe. 36. For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken. 37. And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.

sari83 · (This post was last modified: 10-30-2010 04:50 PM by sari83.)

(10-27-2010 05:27 PM)Rose of Shushan Wrote: [quote]I believe the original texts of the NT are the inspired Word of God. Anything added later would not fall under this authority. For example, we know the book of Mark was added to. It did not originally contain verses 16:9-20. Therefore it's also possible that the birth of Jesus in the books of Matthew and Luke may have been modified.

Biblegateway.com

Mark 16:9-20 (New International Version)

((The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.))

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...ersion=NIV

Quote Vic: You obviously think you can take a verse out of context and make a doctrine and in this case a really bad comprehension of what the verse means in Jeremiah 8:8. Look at the whole chapter and see who Jeremiah was being told to rebuke. If someone writes a Scripture down---and they don't believe it, it's a sham and a lie and a falsehood because it means nothing to them even though they claim to have God on their side or belong to Christ--from a Christian perspective. In other words the Word of God is vanity and false to them and is merely used as a pretense of spirituality while being far from God. A lot of people were like that then and are like that today. End quote

Adam Clarke commentary:

Jeremiah 8:8

Verse 8. The pen of the scribes is in vain.
The deceitful pen of the scribes. They have written falsely, though they had the truth before them. It is too bold an assertion to say that "the Jews have never falsified the sacred oracles;" they have done it again and again. They have written falsities when they knew they were such.

http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view.c...hapter=008

sheep wrecked · (This post was last modified: 10-30-2010 06:14 PM by sheep wrecked.)

(10-30-2010 04:46 PM)sari83 Wrote:
(10-27-2010 05:27 PM)Rose of Shushan Wrote:
Quote:I believe the original texts of the NT are the inspired Word of God. Anything added later would not fall under this authority. For example, we know the book of Mark was added to. It did not originally contain verses 16:9-20. Therefore it's also possible that the birth of Jesus in the books of Matthew and Luke may have been modified.

Biblegateway.com

Mark 16:9-20 (New International Version)

((The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.))

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...ersion=NIV

The NIV is based on the Alexandrian manuscripts were are corrupt. These mss were promoted by the occultists Wescott and Hort to discredit the Word of God.

And just who are these "other ancient witnesses"?

I already showed you that Irenaeus quoted from Mark 16:9-20 in the 2nd century!!!!

More credible evidence FOR Mark 9:16-20 in the following article:

http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/markend.html

Quote Vic: You obviously think you can take a verse out of context and make a doctrine and in this case a really bad comprehension of what the verse means in Jeremiah 8:8. Look at the whole chapter and see who Jeremiah was being told to rebuke. If someone writes a Scripture down---and they don't believe it, it's a sham and a lie and a falsehood because it means nothing to them even though they claim to have God on their side or belong to Christ--from a Christian perspective. In other words the Word of God is vanity and false to them and is merely used as a pretense of spirituality while being far from God. A lot of people were like that then and are like that today. End quote

Adam Clarke commentary:

Jeremiah 8:8

Verse 8. The pen of the scribes is in vain.
The deceitful pen of the scribes. They have written falsely, though they had the truth before them. It is too bold an assertion to say that "the Jews have never falsified the sacred oracles;" they have done it again and again. They have written falsities when they knew they were such.

http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view.c...hapter=008

Talk about anti-semitism ......... he just laid it out in spades. Where is his proof? Did you research that out and then search out the refutations or are you just promoting his error? Can you not just read the context for yourself? It's obvious what it says.

Act 7:38 This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:

Rom 3:1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
Rom 3:2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.