-
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!
the bible canon
- Thread starter jaybird
- Start date
jaybird
Member
your not getting it. why would Jesus use teachings that can only be found in books that are uninspired or or according to you false teachings?
why would the Jewish Septuagint writers include false books? why would Jesus, the Apostles and the early church Fathers all accept these books?
not one single warning from Jesus about these books which were more than 200 yrs old and well circulated at the time of His ministry.
also Jesus referred many times to the Hebrew bible without the words "as it is written" so its not the best argument.
Mark 10:6
But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
URAVIP2ME said : “The '66' are the accepted books of Bible canon in harmony with the ancient manuscripts - 2 Timothy 3:16-17” (post #100)
Hi URAVIP2ME : Using 2 Timothy 3:16-17 to support your theory that the “66 book” canon are in harmony with the ancient manuscripts doesn't make sense. I have used the same scripture to support the Early Christians in their use of the wider early Christian sacred library of texts as opposed to the later Roman (western) canon or the even later modern protestant canon.
Can you both tell us what you think the verse says and explain how and why you are trying to use 2 Timothy 3:16-17 to make your point?
Clear
ειακφυτωω
Hi URAVIP2ME : Using 2 Timothy 3:16-17 to support your theory that the “66 book” canon are in harmony with the ancient manuscripts doesn't make sense. I have used the same scripture to support the Early Christians in their use of the wider early Christian sacred library of texts as opposed to the later Roman (western) canon or the even later modern protestant canon.
Can you both tell us what you think the verse says and explain how and why you are trying to use 2 Timothy 3:16-17 to make your point?
Clear
ειακφυτωω
Last edited:
jaybird
Member
Acts 17:11
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
the canon of scripture in the days of Paul was the Septuagint, there was no other canon of scripture. the Apocrypha books would not be removed for another 50 - 150 years.
the bible calls them scripture yet people today know better than the bible and proclaim they are not.
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
the canon of scripture in the days of Paul was the Septuagint, there was no other canon of scripture. the Apocrypha books would not be removed for another 50 - 150 years.
the bible calls them scripture yet people today know better than the bible and proclaim they are not.
PeteC-UK
Active Member
Hi Folks..
URaVIP2Me;
Ah my friend - no He did not say it like that at all - go and read it properly - keep it in CONTEXT - see clearly He is ACTUALLY saying in our plain modern language - ."it USED to be this way - but now Iam REPLACING the old with this NEW teaching"....Here I will show you in Matthew just so we are clear...He IS RE INTERPRETING - not agreeing at all - telling them they were WRONG to think like that - and replacing the old with NEW...LOOK :
See now..?...OLD teaching said to the people long ago - now REPLACED with His NEW interpretation...
Same again look - REPLACING this "old teaching given long ago" - and giving yet again a NEW INTERPRETATION...
Same again - REPLACING the old with the new...He is ALWAYS doing it - NOT AGREEING - RE INTERPRETING - CHANGING - ALTERING - REPLACING !!! Whenever He says - "you have heard it said BEFORE" - that is obviously Him pointing out ERRORS and MISCONCEPTIONS - in THEIR lore and traditions...Then next He says - " BUT I TELL YOU NOW" - and clearly He is giving them a NEW TEACHING to replace the OLD ERRORS that He has just highlighted and pointed out...He is not agreeing with the old tradition at all - He is REPLACING It -telling them first, it is an ERROR then telling them the new truth ...as said He is ALWAYS doing this - undermining that religion and that god at every opportunity - they ARE ENEMIES !!!
lol - I notice there was no attempt to answer my questions..lol....didnt think there would be - the truth is plain and obvious and no amount of bible scripture can make Yeshia the Christ align to that Jewish god as He said clearly that god is NOT Our Father.......
The disciple named Luke - DID NOT WRITE EITHER ACTS here OR the gospel that bares that mans name !! The disciple Luke contributed NOTHING to the bible canon !! NONE of the disciples did - ALL the bible canon is SECONDHAND - there are NO DIRECT DISCIPLE TESTIMONY to be found in the new testamant - none whatsoever - it is ALL written by SCHOLARS who never even met,knew or spoke with either Christ or disciple directly !!!
the bible canon is little more then - than HEARSAY - and RUMOUR - written a long long LONG time after these events actually happened and not recorded there by ANY living witnesses at all..
Its realy really simple - put the bible down - read instead first - the ORIGINAL gospel of John - see there the ORIGIN of the one the bible calls "god" - see how that one is in fact CREATED and not a true god at all.....then realise of course - the bible is THAT ONES narrative and twisted truth - and realise also that Christ was speaking of an entirely different and yet UNKNOWN and LEGITIMATE SOURCE of Creation itself - and that is NOT the god of the bible at all - for THIS reason they MURDER HIM !!!
Again - any takers for my questions -they are rather crucial to understand - for they show you (all) clearly His true disposition toward that lesser god and its religion - they are indeed ENEMIES and that is pretty clear and undeniable....Perhaps that is why no answers here to my questions above - there is no alternative but to agree with the rather obvious facts - they ARE ENEMIES so they murder Him....Let it sink in deep - Our Father that Christ taught about is NOT that Jewish deity at all...
URaVIP2Me;
Ah my friend - no He did not say it like that at all - go and read it properly - keep it in CONTEXT - see clearly He is ACTUALLY saying in our plain modern language - ."it USED to be this way - but now Iam REPLACING the old with this NEW teaching"....Here I will show you in Matthew just so we are clear...He IS RE INTERPRETING - not agreeing at all - telling them they were WRONG to think like that - and replacing the old with NEW...LOOK :
See now..?...OLD teaching said to the people long ago - now REPLACED with His NEW interpretation...
Same again look - REPLACING this "old teaching given long ago" - and giving yet again a NEW INTERPRETATION...
Same again - REPLACING the old with the new...He is ALWAYS doing it - NOT AGREEING - RE INTERPRETING - CHANGING - ALTERING - REPLACING !!! Whenever He says - "you have heard it said BEFORE" - that is obviously Him pointing out ERRORS and MISCONCEPTIONS - in THEIR lore and traditions...Then next He says - " BUT I TELL YOU NOW" - and clearly He is giving them a NEW TEACHING to replace the OLD ERRORS that He has just highlighted and pointed out...He is not agreeing with the old tradition at all - He is REPLACING It -telling them first, it is an ERROR then telling them the new truth ...as said He is ALWAYS doing this - undermining that religion and that god at every opportunity - they ARE ENEMIES !!!
lol - I notice there was no attempt to answer my questions..lol....didnt think there would be - the truth is plain and obvious and no amount of bible scripture can make Yeshia the Christ align to that Jewish god as He said clearly that god is NOT Our Father.......
The disciple named Luke - DID NOT WRITE EITHER ACTS here OR the gospel that bares that mans name !! The disciple Luke contributed NOTHING to the bible canon !! NONE of the disciples did - ALL the bible canon is SECONDHAND - there are NO DIRECT DISCIPLE TESTIMONY to be found in the new testamant - none whatsoever - it is ALL written by SCHOLARS who never even met,knew or spoke with either Christ or disciple directly !!!
the bible canon is little more then - than HEARSAY - and RUMOUR - written a long long LONG time after these events actually happened and not recorded there by ANY living witnesses at all..
Its realy really simple - put the bible down - read instead first - the ORIGINAL gospel of John - see there the ORIGIN of the one the bible calls "god" - see how that one is in fact CREATED and not a true god at all.....then realise of course - the bible is THAT ONES narrative and twisted truth - and realise also that Christ was speaking of an entirely different and yet UNKNOWN and LEGITIMATE SOURCE of Creation itself - and that is NOT the god of the bible at all - for THIS reason they MURDER HIM !!!
Again - any takers for my questions -they are rather crucial to understand - for they show you (all) clearly His true disposition toward that lesser god and its religion - they are indeed ENEMIES and that is pretty clear and undeniable....Perhaps that is why no answers here to my questions above - there is no alternative but to agree with the rather obvious facts - they ARE ENEMIES so they murder Him....Let it sink in deep - Our Father that Christ taught about is NOT that Jewish deity at all...
.
Jesus did Not use the apocryphal books.
Doesn't Mark 10:6; Matthew 19:4 agree with the Bible book of Genesis 1:27; Genesis 5:2 ?________
So, just because each time Jesus did Not say ' it is written ' does Not mean Jesus was not referring to the old Hebrew Scriptures.
Genesis is part of the old Hebrew Scriptures which are in harmony with Jesus' teachings.
The ' 66' all have corresponding cross-reference verses and passages thus showing the internal harmony among the writers.
The apocryphal books exclude themselves being out of harmony with the '66' books of Bible canon.
Jaybird said in the opening post : “ where does the tradition come from that Christians attack any writing that is not of the "official" bible books? there are many books that were removed, if you quote from one they will immediately tell you its not real scripture or its heresy. when you ask why, because a council of men say it is. “
Hi Jaybird – I like the points you made.
1) The reflexive tendency to exclude what we do not know
I think that part of the tendency to reflexively exclude and/or ignorantly criticize the early Christian texts by modern Christians is due to discomfort of unfamiliarity. Dogs tend to bark at strangers.
All of us have a tendency to see our world through provincial worldviews and I do not think most non-historian Christians have the concept that other Christians in other parts of the world or Christians in different eras do not and did not use the same sacred canon as themselves. I believe it is a comforting belief to some individuals to imagine that nothing has changed over the centuries.
2) The tendency to create personal justifications for exclusion
For example Look at the non-historian URAVIP2MEs logic in post #107. His theory is that the 66 books of his personal canon have “cross-reference verses and passages thus showing internal harmony among the writers”.
First : Using modern “cross referencing” as a single justification for exclusion requires exclusion of the early old and New Testaments (which lacked verses or numbering or cross references) from a personal canon while there are entire BOOKS that cross reference and show internal harmony of early Judeo-Christian texts he is completely unaware of, but which become qualified for inclusion in a personal canon simply because someone "cross references" them to reveal their deep "internal AND external doctrinal harmonies". Do you see how arbitrary and silly and ignorant some rules can be which are created merely to exclude early Judeo-Christian religious witnesses?
Below is an example of an entire book (Delamarters index) that cross references Old and New Testament verses to Charlesworth's Old Testament Pseudographia. The left column are verses in New Testament Luke (in this example) and right column is either a prior source example or the text related to the verse in Luke. Remember, much of the Jewish Pseudoepigraphic materials PRE-DATE the New Testament and thus represent the doctrine that existed BEFORE it was expounded in the New Testament text. There are other books that apply just to certain genre's or certain eras or certain types of early Judeo-Christian literature and how they coordinated with Old or New Testament text.
Secondly : If cross referenced verses must demonstrate “harmony” then the use of 2 Tim 3:16-17" did not demonstrate "harmony" in URAVIP2MEs theory since it did not support his theory that "the ‘66’ are the accepted books of Bible canon in harmony with the ancient manuscripts”? The scripture reference was irrelevant. Does the misuse of a verse mean it must be excluded because of disharmony with the premise?
3) Exclusion of historical data decreases knowledge and understanding. - The effect of ignorance is not good
What advantage does a modern Christianity which is ignorant on certain subjects have when compared to an educated ancient Christianity on a specific subject?
For example, while modern Christianity has only a handful of scriptures which clearly describe the origin of evil inside the context of the fall of Lucifer from arch-angel to becoming an enemy of God, the ancient Jews, Judeo-Christians and Muslims could coordinate and show “internal harmony” in many, many textual references which are far, far, superior in information, context, and “internal harmony” of the modern Christian movements. The modern non-historian Christians are simply ignorant of early Christian texts and worldviews.
4) The claim to authorship….
It’s been long recognized that books included in the western “Catholic” canon were not chosen due to authorship since no one knows who wrote any book in the old or new testament (Obviously Moses didn’t write of his own death in Deuteronomy) but instead we attribute authorship by tradition. Early Judeo-Christians used multiple books in multiple genres as sources for doctrine and teaching and inspiration.
When 2 Timothy 3:16 says that “All inspired writing [is] useful for teaching for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness. I think the text meant to the early Christians just what it says. ALL inspired writings were seen as useful and were used for teaching. For example :
5) The writers of the New Testament were familiar with pre-A.D era Enochian literature and used it since they quote it so often in the New Testament. IF one simply needs to "cross reference" to "create harmony" then this can be easily done.
For examples :
When the writer of Jude quotes Ethiopian Enoch : “About these also Enoch, the seventh from Adam prophesied, saying "Behold, the Lord came with ten thousands of his holy ones…” in Jude 16-17 he IS quoting enochian literature : “Behold he comes with ten thousands of his saints,…” (1 Enoch 2)
When Jesus quotes the well-known New Testament verse regarding the meek "shall inherit the earth" he is simply referring to the same Enochian principle regarding the elect : “And they shall inherit the earth.” (1 Enoch 6:9)
When John 5:28-29 gives an example of Jesus, quoting the doctrine in 1 Enoch 2:3 “ Don’t marvel at this, for the hour comes, in which all that are in the Tombs will hear his voice, and will come out…” he is referring to the enochian doctrine that “the souls of the dead, will be collected; for them were they formed; and here will be collected all the souls of the sons of men…” speaking of the places " where the spirits, the souls of the dead, will be collected; for them were they formed; and here will be collected all the souls of the sons of men."
John in revelation 5:11 describing the vision of “… the living creatures, and the elders; and the number of them was ten thousands of ten thousands, and thousand of thousands… he is referring to the Enochian doctrine “…I beheld thousands of thousands, and myriads of myriads, and an infinite number of people, standing before the Lord of spirits. (1 En 40:1)
When Paul writes that “We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye at the last trump, for the trumpet shall sound and the dead shall be raised and we shall be changed. “ he is simply referring to the doctrine of Enoch “In those days the saints and the chosen shall undergo a change. The light of day shall rest upon them; and the splendor and glory of the saints shall be changed.”
The Judeo-Christian saints of the earliest time periods used and quoted from a variety of texts that the modern western Christians no longer use. Their personal canons were different than our modern personal canons. This reality need not make us uncomfortable and there is nothing to fear from trying to understand what the early Christians understood the gospel to be from studying their earliest Judeo-Christian textual witnesses.
Clear
εινετζφιω
τζφι προσ κατα υπαγο σιει
Hi Jaybird – I like the points you made.
1) The reflexive tendency to exclude what we do not know
I think that part of the tendency to reflexively exclude and/or ignorantly criticize the early Christian texts by modern Christians is due to discomfort of unfamiliarity. Dogs tend to bark at strangers.
All of us have a tendency to see our world through provincial worldviews and I do not think most non-historian Christians have the concept that other Christians in other parts of the world or Christians in different eras do not and did not use the same sacred canon as themselves. I believe it is a comforting belief to some individuals to imagine that nothing has changed over the centuries.
2) The tendency to create personal justifications for exclusion
For example Look at the non-historian URAVIP2MEs logic in post #107. His theory is that the 66 books of his personal canon have “cross-reference verses and passages thus showing internal harmony among the writers”.
First : Using modern “cross referencing” as a single justification for exclusion requires exclusion of the early old and New Testaments (which lacked verses or numbering or cross references) from a personal canon while there are entire BOOKS that cross reference and show internal harmony of early Judeo-Christian texts he is completely unaware of, but which become qualified for inclusion in a personal canon simply because someone "cross references" them to reveal their deep "internal AND external doctrinal harmonies". Do you see how arbitrary and silly and ignorant some rules can be which are created merely to exclude early Judeo-Christian religious witnesses?
Below is an example of an entire book (Delamarters index) that cross references Old and New Testament verses to Charlesworth's Old Testament Pseudographia. The left column are verses in New Testament Luke (in this example) and right column is either a prior source example or the text related to the verse in Luke. Remember, much of the Jewish Pseudoepigraphic materials PRE-DATE the New Testament and thus represent the doctrine that existed BEFORE it was expounded in the New Testament text. There are other books that apply just to certain genre's or certain eras or certain types of early Judeo-Christian literature and how they coordinated with Old or New Testament text.
Secondly : If cross referenced verses must demonstrate “harmony” then the use of 2 Tim 3:16-17" did not demonstrate "harmony" in URAVIP2MEs theory since it did not support his theory that "the ‘66’ are the accepted books of Bible canon in harmony with the ancient manuscripts”? The scripture reference was irrelevant. Does the misuse of a verse mean it must be excluded because of disharmony with the premise?
3) Exclusion of historical data decreases knowledge and understanding. - The effect of ignorance is not good
What advantage does a modern Christianity which is ignorant on certain subjects have when compared to an educated ancient Christianity on a specific subject?
For example, while modern Christianity has only a handful of scriptures which clearly describe the origin of evil inside the context of the fall of Lucifer from arch-angel to becoming an enemy of God, the ancient Jews, Judeo-Christians and Muslims could coordinate and show “internal harmony” in many, many textual references which are far, far, superior in information, context, and “internal harmony” of the modern Christian movements. The modern non-historian Christians are simply ignorant of early Christian texts and worldviews.
4) The claim to authorship….
It’s been long recognized that books included in the western “Catholic” canon were not chosen due to authorship since no one knows who wrote any book in the old or new testament (Obviously Moses didn’t write of his own death in Deuteronomy) but instead we attribute authorship by tradition. Early Judeo-Christians used multiple books in multiple genres as sources for doctrine and teaching and inspiration.
When 2 Timothy 3:16 says that “All inspired writing [is] useful for teaching for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness. I think the text meant to the early Christians just what it says. ALL inspired writings were seen as useful and were used for teaching. For example :
5) The writers of the New Testament were familiar with pre-A.D era Enochian literature and used it since they quote it so often in the New Testament. IF one simply needs to "cross reference" to "create harmony" then this can be easily done.
For examples :
When the writer of Jude quotes Ethiopian Enoch : “About these also Enoch, the seventh from Adam prophesied, saying "Behold, the Lord came with ten thousands of his holy ones…” in Jude 16-17 he IS quoting enochian literature : “Behold he comes with ten thousands of his saints,…” (1 Enoch 2)
When Jesus quotes the well-known New Testament verse regarding the meek "shall inherit the earth" he is simply referring to the same Enochian principle regarding the elect : “And they shall inherit the earth.” (1 Enoch 6:9)
When John 5:28-29 gives an example of Jesus, quoting the doctrine in 1 Enoch 2:3 “ Don’t marvel at this, for the hour comes, in which all that are in the Tombs will hear his voice, and will come out…” he is referring to the enochian doctrine that “the souls of the dead, will be collected; for them were they formed; and here will be collected all the souls of the sons of men…” speaking of the places " where the spirits, the souls of the dead, will be collected; for them were they formed; and here will be collected all the souls of the sons of men."
John in revelation 5:11 describing the vision of “… the living creatures, and the elders; and the number of them was ten thousands of ten thousands, and thousand of thousands… he is referring to the Enochian doctrine “…I beheld thousands of thousands, and myriads of myriads, and an infinite number of people, standing before the Lord of spirits. (1 En 40:1)
When Paul writes that “We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye at the last trump, for the trumpet shall sound and the dead shall be raised and we shall be changed. “ he is simply referring to the doctrine of Enoch “In those days the saints and the chosen shall undergo a change. The light of day shall rest upon them; and the splendor and glory of the saints shall be changed.”
The Judeo-Christian saints of the earliest time periods used and quoted from a variety of texts that the modern western Christians no longer use. Their personal canons were different than our modern personal canons. This reality need not make us uncomfortable and there is nothing to fear from trying to understand what the early Christians understood the gospel to be from studying their earliest Judeo-Christian textual witnesses.
Clear
εινετζφιω
τζφι προσ κατα υπαγο σιει
Last edited:
jaybird
Member
your ignoring the facts, i already gave you several teachings of Jesus that are only found in the apocryphal. just no way around that. book of acts calls them scripture as well.
sorry your argument just does not hold water
jaybird
Member
i was thinking of using the Enoch quotes from the NT but since Enoch wasnt part of the Septuagint apocryphal books i didnt want to go down that road just yet.
i agree that few today want truth, they only want to keep going through the motions of what they have been told.
jaybird
Member
would you consider these books false? can they be used for teaching?
What does 2 Timothy 3:16-17 says about being useful for teaching ?
The apocryphal books do Not have the parallel or corresponding cross-reference verses and passages as to the '66' Bible books have which are useful for teaching what the Bible really teaches.
So, even if the apocryphal have teachings in them, does Not mean they are in harmony with the '66' books of Bible canon.
jaybird
Member
so you believe teachings from these books are false teachings yes or no?
The apocryphal teachings ' which are out of harmony with the '66' Bible books ' are Not what the Bible really teaches.
That is why the apocryphal books exclude themselves from being part of Bible canon.
jaybird
Member
so when Jesus teaches on a tree and its fruit, according to your logic, its a false teaching being as it is a teaching from one of these books.
The '66' books of Bible canon are Not part of the additional apocryphal books.
Matthew 7:17-19 is from the gospel of Matthew which is part of the '66' Bible canon books covered by 2 Timothy 3:16-17.
jaybird
Member
your dodging . .
a tree and its fruit was covered in book of Sirach 200 years plus before Jesus did His ministry.
so either, according to what you said, the book is false and Jesus used false teachings
or the book is not false.
which one?
Do you agree that Romans 5:12 places the blame on the second eater of the forbidden fruit as being Adam ? _______
Doesn't the book of Sirach 25:23 place the blame on the first eater of the forbidden fruit as being Eve ? _______
1 Timothy 2:14; Romans 5:14; 1 Corinthians 15:22; 1 Corinthians 15:45 all agree it was Adam's fault.
jaybird
Member
i would be more than happy to address this, but first lets wrap up post 117. you still have not answered.
How can Sirach be a true Bible book when it is out of harmony with the ' 66' books of Bible canon - Sirach 25:23 ?