1robin
Christian/Baptist
It was your claim not mine that means you have the buren of proof not me.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
new to religion, which one is right & true
- Thread starter fresh believer
- Start date
It was your claim not mine that means you have the buren of proof not me.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
How do we know the Council itself wasn't aliens sent to confuse us. Just kidding, You could and people have examined the character of what they rejected or accepted and if there was merit in your assertion it would have been found long ago. Let me ask you something. I can't find what the reason was that you launched this line of discussion. If you can tell what the conclusion from your point of view is then maybe I can respond more effectivly and accurately.
Last edited:
None of them.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
I would love to hear how you know this. Since religion often frustrates philosophers for the reason that it cannot be falseified and therefore disproven. I have had the spiritual experince of what Jesus describes in John 3:1-21 which atleast to me verifies the core premise of Christianity. Unless you believe I am lying what would your counterpoint to this be?
1robin
Christian/Baptist
Good gracious, I will hand it to non-believers, they can convince themselves of anything no matter how rediculous to avoid God. They will swallow a camel and then choke on a gnat. This pseudopsychology takes more faith than Christianity does. Anyway even if ever believer in every faith is found to be mistaken that still doesn't dissprove that a God exists so your statement is still incorrect. Can you tell me how this God spot idea accounts for documented miracles, my salvation experience which completely removed my desire for sinful habits I had unsuccessfully fought for years, the willingness of the desciples who would have known Christianity was false to live a selfles life of servitude and die for this lie.? How does it produce hundreds of unambigous detailed prophesys that come true with 100% accuracy years later (unlike Nostradomas or any other prophet want to be).
Non-believers not only avoid God but also Allah or Brahman or any other god. Just like Christians have convinced themselves that no other god exists.
Actually the field is called neurotheology and has been around for decades. The research is coming along quite nicely.
What statement?
Because which god you attribute the "miracle" to just depends on where you live. "One of the underlying popular tenets of Hinduism is the acceptance of miracles. Most Hindus believe that direct appeal for aid from a Deity often results in divine intervention. The Gods and Goddesses are approachable and, when properly beseeched, will change the course of events. Prayers for intercession may be made to any Deity, the choice entirely dependent upon the beliefs and inclinations of the devotee." Hindu miracles
You don't think atheists or believers in other gods also have life-changing experiences? If you had been a Hindu you would just have attributed that change to whichever Hindu god you believed in.
Why are Muslim suicide bombers willing to die for their cause? Does that prove that the Quran is true or that Allah exists?
Prophecy
1robin
Christian/Baptist
But I don't have to resort to fringe psychology or incorrect papers on prophesy to make the case.
So miracles do exist it is just a question of the cause. Since a miracle posits a supernatural force then your position is ruled out but mine is still kicking.
There is no other religion that guarantees or requires a personal experience with God. This experience contains aspects that any natural cause or other religion could not reasonably account for. I am not refering to some epifany, in my case it was unlike by a wide margin anything else I have ever experienced, occured at the time I accepted Christ and conformed to the description contained in the bible which I was not familiar with at the time. Either I am lying or your explanations do not account for my experience but the bible does perfectly. Since I have already have covered this I will leave it here.
You are presupposeing they had an experience of the same nature as mine or any born again Christian.
It is not a rare thing to find people that are willing to die to kill or damage their enemy. It is extremely rare that Christians have willlingly laid down their life without attempting vengence on their opressor. Christianity has a long tradition of doing this In fact a roman governour was sent to kill any jew who would not sware allegence to the deity of the ceaser. He wrote back that if he wasn't given a different approach he would virtually wipe out the the Jewish nation because they would not submit nor were these people fighting back.
As far as your prohesy paper. The first one said that there is no prediction that Jesus would be dead three days and then rise: well - New Living Translation (©2007)
"But Jesus replied, "Only an evil, adulterous generation would demand a miraculous sign; but the only sign I will give them is the sign of the prophet Jonah." The sign of Jonah was that he spent three days in the whale and then was released on the third day. There are over three hundred concerning the details of jesus alone. If the first claim in that paper is wrong I will not bother with the rest.
I was stating it as opinion, And as for your claim of whether or not you;re lying, I don't necessarily think that to be the case, mistaken possibly, but lying, no. People are mistaken all of the time. Do you know how many people of other religions have had experiences that they tie to that religion, I would hope that you wouldn't think they're lying, but perhaps you thnk that they're mistaken. Unless you do actually think people of other religions are lying.
cablescavenger
Well-Known Member
Jedism is quite popular in the UK.
What could be cooler than being a Jedi Knight?
:sw:
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
Josephus lived before the Talmud was written. The talmud is a 2nd century work by Judah Ha-Nasi (135-219 C.E.) Josephus was a 1st century writer.
Why should the writing of Judah Ha-Nasi supersede the writing of Josephus? You dont think that its possible that by the time the Talmud was written, things may have changed?
The talmud was written after the temple and priesthood were destroyed...the Sanhedrin had been disbanded and there was no longer a high priest by the time the Talmud was written....actually the Talmud was probably written for that very reason. So the Talmud may be correct in what it says was accepted as scripture in the 2nd/3rd centuries, but if the priesthood still existed, would those same books have been accepted?? Perhaps not considering some of those books were likely in existence in Josephus day and yet they were not mentioned as part of the canon.
Josephus was a defender of Judaism among the Roman officials..his writings were written for that purpose and to defend false claims by some Roman officals. He would have been called to account if he gave wrong information about Jewish holy books or anything else to do with Judaism. There is no reason for him to lie about his culture or people to the Romans.
What he wrote would have been in harmony with what was current in the first century.
Perhaps the information in the Esdras you are referring to is contradictory to other bible writings...that is the norm with apochryphal books. The only Esdras i'm aware of is the 1 and 2 Esdras that correspond with Ezra and Nehemiah and are named as such in most bibles except the Catholic douay.
The Hebrew Scriptures were traditionally divided into three sections: the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings/Hagiographa.
When divided this way the canon contained 24 books.
But some chose to put Ruth with Judges, and Lamentations with Jeremiah, and for that reason some Jewish authorities counted 22 books which is the same as the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet so was likely done for memory purposes.
The talmud is no authority on what was happening prior to the 1st century. Josephus is the best one for that information.
anything written after the lifetime of the Apostles is not inspired scripture, its a plain and simple fact of logic. The 12 apostles chosen by Jesus to establish the faith were the one who were authorized to teach the christian doctrine. They set it all out before they died and the documents of the gospels, letters of Paul and the other apostles are the only authoritive christian writings that can be said to be inspired by God.
So for me its a no brainer. anything written after the first century should not be considered part of the canon. That was also the opinion of the bishops who confirmed the canon in the 3rd century. they were confirming what books came with the authority of the apostles. Anything written after the apostles time is not part of the canon. Even the writer of the Mauratorian fragment makes that point clear...certain books could not be viewed as inspired because the were written 'after the apostles time'
That was the pre-requisite plain and simple. If you just stick to that, then there is no confusion over what should or shouldn't be in the canon.
because the Gospel of Peter (Acts of Peter) lay heavy stress on complete abstinence from sexual relations and even depict the apostles as urging women to separate from their husbands. That is in contradiction to Paul’s counsel at 1 Corinthians 7 that a woman 'should not depart from her husband' It is also in contradiction to Jesus words about divorce and it is contradictory to the advice of Proverbs which says to "rejoice with the wife of your youth, 19 a lovable hind and a charming mountain goat. Let her own breasts intoxicate you at all times. With her love may you be in an ecstasy constantly." Proverbs 5:18-19
This is an extreme teaching that would actually break marriages up. It was likely written by some high minded priest who was trying to promote celibacy which is also contradictory to Gods purpose for mankind to 'fill the earth' with offspring.
If you also look at the letter of Paul to Timothy, he prophesied that some christians would promote wrong ideas such as at 1Timothy 4:1 However, the inspired utterance says definitely that in later periods of time some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to misleading inspired utterances and teachings of demons, 2 by the hypocrisy of men who speak lies, marked in their conscience as with a branding iron; 3 forbidding to marry,
And would Peter really write such a statement about marriage considering he himself was a married man? No. The statement itself shows that it would not have been written by Peter at all.
there were no later apostles... later christians made themselves apostles in order to take over the reigns and set themselves up as leaders over the flock of God...something Jesus commanded them NOT to do:
Matthew 20:25 But Jesus, calling them to him, said: “YOU know that the rulers of the nations lord it over them and the great men wield authority over them. 26 This is not the way among YOU; but whoever wants to become great among YOU must be YOUR minister, 27 and whoever wants to be first among YOU must be YOUR slave. 28 Just as the Son of man came, not to be ministered to, but to minister and to give his soul a ransom in exchange for many.
I think a new thread on the discrepancies between the apocrypha and the canon is a good way to go. Perhaps if you see the contradictions between the differences in teachings you'll realize that the apocrypha cannot be from God, but that it is written by those who diverted from the true doctrine handed down by the apostles.
Last edited:
mycorrhiza
Well-Known Member
Maybe one will find that the apocrypha is true and the regular Bible isn't. Using the same quote you gave, the Bible can be considered invalid, as it was put together by men of authority to establish further authority. There were lots of writings that didn't make it into the Bible when maybe they should have made it and some writings that probably shouldn't have made the Bible (like where Acts contradicts the words of Jesus about what kind of food is allowed).
Last edited:
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
the difference being that the apostles worked together as a united body where no one apostle was above another. they viewed the head of the church as Christ himself and they were simply ministers of Christ doing his work, not their own.
mycorrhiza
Well-Known Member
That wasn't really the situation when the Bible was put together. It was put together during a quite long time, and during most of this time it wasn't an equal Church at all.
How do we know if the words attributed to Jesus in the Bible are the actual words of Jesus and that all apostles knew of them? It's quite clear that some of the Apostles did not know nor follow all of Jesus' words.
Shermana
Heretic
Obviously. Therefore, my point stands that Josephus was going by what could be a different tradition, a Sadduccee-specific tradition. And he was far from the only writer of the Talmud.
Why should Josephus supercede Judah Ha-Nasi (and the rest of the many Talmudists)? He was of Davidic blood even.
It certainly debunks the idea that the Apocrypha was completely dismissed from canonicity from the "Council of Javneh" and shows that there may have been different traditions.
But they may have been canon to certain groups. There were dissensions about Ecclesiastes for example that I mentioned.
He was a defender of SADDUCEE Judaism. The Romans were likely aware that there were differing sects.
In harmony with the Sadducees.
Like what? It didn't phase Josephus apparently.
Then you need to reread the Apocrypha. 1 Esdras is a different version of Ezra which Josephus makes use of, and 2 Esdras is an entirely different book, one of my favorite books, confirms Reincarnation...somewhat vaguely.
Why wouldn't they be under "writings"? Where would Ecclesiastes be under?
When divided this way the canon contained 24 books.
We still have to establish which was the 4th book Josephus spoke of in the "Hymns and proverbs" category. .
An authority for a Sadducee view.
Please explain this simple fact of logic in greater detail. Was Acts and Luke written while Paul was alive? Was Luke an apostle? Why then include 2 Peter and the Pastorals? Where does Hebrews fit in?
There goes Luke then. And Hebrews.
Who are the "other apostles"? Why does Paul count as an apostle but not Clement? I don't think you answered my question of whether Paul's guards heard a voice but saw nothing or saw a light but heard nothing.
There goes the Pastorals.
.
They also thought Hebrews was by Paul. Iraneus and Clement apparently disagreed. On what grounds do you declare Iraneus and Clement to be wrong? Because later councils disagreed? You have yet to explain why other apostles couldn't have had prophetic ability.
And what authority did they have to confirm the authority?
Goodbye Pastorals. Goodbye 2 Peter. You have yet to explain why later apostles and prophets could not have added to the canon, except appealing to old Orthodox councils whom your own Theology disagrees with.
No, that's not what it confirms. It merely says that there are some who don't use it in Church readings.
One of my favorite reasons why I include Acts of Peter in my personal canon. Did not Paul recommend that Abstinence was best?
Well then you'll have to explain why Paul says its best to abstain from relations, not necessarily commanded, but best. Also, "with her love" doesn't necessarily mean "With your getting down and dirty". Unless you associate love with sex necessarily, but that's another story.
Then Paul shouldn't have said it was "best".
So again, why did Paul say it was "best" to avoid conjugal relations?
Timothy isn't written by Paul, there's plenty of reasons why that this is not the thread to necessarily get into, but it completely contradicts what Paul said earlier about it being "best" to not marry.
How do you know? How do you know Peter wouldn't have renounced conjugality?
Not at all. That's a presumption.
Says who?
So then what do you think the meaning of "Deacon" was?
That has nothing to do with establishing apostolic authority. Whatsoever.
That would be a good thread. Perhaps you'll see that even Jude refers to Enoch as "prophetic" and there are subtle references to events in writings like Testament of Solomon such as with Jesus referring to the casting out of demons.
idea
Question Everything
The Bible has some things that are missing...
(Bible Dictionary | L Lost Books:Entry)
Lost Books. The so-called lost books of the Bible are those documents that are mentioned in the Bible in such a way that it is evident they were considered authentic and valuable, but that are not found in the Bible today. Sometimes called missing scripture, they consist of at least the following:
book of the Wars of the Lord (Num. 21:14);
book of Jasher (Josh. 10:13; 2 Sam. 1:18);
book of the acts of Solomon (1 Kgs. 11:41);
book of Samuel the seer (1 Chr. 29:29);
book of Gad the seer (1 Chr. 29:29);
book of Nathan the prophet (1 Chr. 29:29; 2 Chr. 9:29);
prophecy of Ahijah (2 Chr. 9:29);
visions of Iddo the seer (2 Chr. 9:29; 12:15; 13:22);
book of Shemaiah (2 Chr. 12:15);
book of Jehu (2 Chr. 20:34);
sayings of the seers (2 Chr. 33:19);
an epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, earlier than our present 1 Corinthians (1 Cor. 5:9);
possibly an earlier epistle to the Ephesians (Eph. 3:3);
an epistle to the Church at Laodicea (Col. 4:16);
and some prophecies of Enoch, known to Jude (Jude 1:14).
To these rather clear references to inspired writings other than our current Bible may be added another list that has allusions to writings that may or may not be contained within our present text, but may perhaps be known by a different title; for example, the book of the covenant (Ex. 24:7), which may or may not be included in the current book of Exodus; the manner of the kingdom, written by Samuel (1 Sam. 10:25); the rest of the acts of Uzziah written by Isaiah (2 Chr. 26:22).
The foregoing items attest to the fact that our present Bible does not contain all of the word of the Lord that he gave to his people in former times, and remind us that the Bible, in its present form, is rather incomplete.
Luckily we now have the stick (scroll) of Joseph to clear up all the problems with the stick(scroll) of Judah
Truth shall spring out of the earth, Ps. 85:11 (Morm. 8:16; Moses 7:62).
The Lord will lift up an ensign to the nations and will hiss unto them, Isa. 5:26.
A voice shall speak out of the ground, Isa. 29:4 (2 Ne. 26:14–17).
The vision of all has become as the words of a book that is sealed, Isa. 29:11 (Isa. 29:9–18; 2 Ne. 27:6–26).
The sticks of Joseph and of Judah shall be one in the Lord's hand, Ezek. 37:15–20.
(Bible Dictionary | L Lost Books:Entry)
Lost Books. The so-called lost books of the Bible are those documents that are mentioned in the Bible in such a way that it is evident they were considered authentic and valuable, but that are not found in the Bible today. Sometimes called missing scripture, they consist of at least the following:
book of the Wars of the Lord (Num. 21:14);
book of Jasher (Josh. 10:13; 2 Sam. 1:18);
book of the acts of Solomon (1 Kgs. 11:41);
book of Samuel the seer (1 Chr. 29:29);
book of Gad the seer (1 Chr. 29:29);
book of Nathan the prophet (1 Chr. 29:29; 2 Chr. 9:29);
prophecy of Ahijah (2 Chr. 9:29);
visions of Iddo the seer (2 Chr. 9:29; 12:15; 13:22);
book of Shemaiah (2 Chr. 12:15);
book of Jehu (2 Chr. 20:34);
sayings of the seers (2 Chr. 33:19);
an epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, earlier than our present 1 Corinthians (1 Cor. 5:9);
possibly an earlier epistle to the Ephesians (Eph. 3:3);
an epistle to the Church at Laodicea (Col. 4:16);
and some prophecies of Enoch, known to Jude (Jude 1:14).
To these rather clear references to inspired writings other than our current Bible may be added another list that has allusions to writings that may or may not be contained within our present text, but may perhaps be known by a different title; for example, the book of the covenant (Ex. 24:7), which may or may not be included in the current book of Exodus; the manner of the kingdom, written by Samuel (1 Sam. 10:25); the rest of the acts of Uzziah written by Isaiah (2 Chr. 26:22).
The foregoing items attest to the fact that our present Bible does not contain all of the word of the Lord that he gave to his people in former times, and remind us that the Bible, in its present form, is rather incomplete.
Luckily we now have the stick (scroll) of Joseph to clear up all the problems with the stick(scroll) of Judah
Truth shall spring out of the earth, Ps. 85:11 (Morm. 8:16; Moses 7:62).
The Lord will lift up an ensign to the nations and will hiss unto them, Isa. 5:26.
A voice shall speak out of the ground, Isa. 29:4 (2 Ne. 26:14–17).
The vision of all has become as the words of a book that is sealed, Isa. 29:11 (Isa. 29:9–18; 2 Ne. 27:6–26).
The sticks of Joseph and of Judah shall be one in the Lord's hand, Ezek. 37:15–20.
Hevenly Heathen
Seeker
Question: What does much of this later fluff have to do with the OP?
idea
Question Everything
which religions is right and true? well... I suppose if you are going to use the scriptures to answer that question, then it's good to understand the strengths/weaknesses of the scriptures. The scriptures are a good place to start - but the ultimate answer comes through communion with God.
4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.
(Book of Mormon | Moroni 10:4 - 5)
not just poetic words - if you study it out sincerely, you can receive a answer - the Holy Ghost is real, you can gain knowledge straight from the source.
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
Of course, Josephus was writing about what books of the hebrew bible they viewed as sacred writings in the first century and prior when the priesthood existed. The talmud offers information about the situation from the 2nd century... a huge change had taken place and it was because there was no organized priesthood anymore. The priesthood ended in 70ce when the temple was destroyed.
so if you really want to know what the jews viewed as holy writings, you would need to ask the priests who managed them. The writers of the Talmud had no authority as priests, they were not commissioned by God in the way the priesthood had been so why would you take their word for what is inspired scripture over the Levitical priesthood?
there were a few different sects, but because of the priesthood, none of those sects could take over Judaism and change what the priesthood had protected for centuries. The priesthood protected the holy writings as i said and they also kept the sects in check so that the sects could not take over Judaism. Obviously after 70ce that situation changed and the sects had free reign to rule and teach as they pleased.
but Josephus writes from the perspective of the priesthood, not from any sect.
well, if it confirms reincarnation, then it is most certainly not a book inspired by God because nowhere in any writings of the prophets will you find the idea of reincarnation. This is what i mean when i say the teachings of the apocrypha contradict the inspired writings. If the shoe doesnt fit, leave it at the door.
The traditional canon is arranged in 3 parts begining with the Law.
1st section - Pentateuch
(1) Genesis,
(2) Exodus,
(3) Leviticus,
(4) Numbers,
(5) Deuteronomy.
2nd section is the Prophets
Early Prophets,
(6) Joshua,
(7) Judges,
(8) Samuel (First and Second together as one book),
(9) Kings (First and Second as one book), and the
Later Prophets, subdivided into major and minor
Major Prophets,
(10) Isaiah,
(11) Jeremiah
(12) Ezekiel, and
(13) Minor Prophets collected into one roll - Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi.
The third section was called the Holy Writings or Hagiographa, in two parts
(14) Psalms,
(15) Proverbs,
(16) Job;
2nd part Five Megilloth or five separate scrolls,
(17) The Song of Solomon,
(18) Ruth,
(19) Lamentations,
(20) Ecclesiastes,
(21) Esther,
(22) Daniel,
(23) Ezra-Nehemiah (combined),
(24) Chronicles (First and Second together as one book).
As the 'Writings' are divided into the two parts, it could very well be that josephus was pointing to the 2nd part of the 'holy writings' as the 4th section.
i'll respond to the NT questions in a new post, otherwise they start getting too long.
Shermana
Heretic
Did the Priesthood end when the First temple was destroyed? Who will make the Sacrifices in the coming age as described in Zechariah and Ezekiel?
Who is to say that the Essenes and Nazarene-Qumran groups didn't have Priests?
How do we know that the Priesthood was organized in a unity over which writings were sacred? As I mentioned, there was a debate over whether Ecclesiastes should have been in the Canon. The priesthood didn't do a very good job protecting the Temple from moneychangers, who is to say the non-Nazarene priests were protecting what should have been canon?
From a Sadducee member of the priesthood. You mistakenly think the priesthood was entirely unified in thought.
Why did the Disciples ask what sin the Blind man, who was blind from birth, had committed? How did G-d know Jeremiah from the Womb? Why did he think he was worthy to be a prophet?
Your interpretation of the Inspired writings?
Okay, thanks for listing the canon, but that doesn't answer the question. Which book would be like Psalms and Proverbs and Song of Solomon?
No problem. Take your time.