Moderators John317 Posted July 20, 2009 Moderators Posted July 20, 2009 Read the history. There were many "Christian" scriptures, among these were, Gnostic gospels, Messianic gospels, Coptic gospels, Acts of John, Acts of Paul, Acts of Peter, Acts of Pilate, Acts of Thecla, Acts of Thomas, 1 Clement, 2 Clement, 3 Corinthians, Correspondence of Paul and Seneca, The Didache, Epistle of Barnabas, Letter to the Laodiceans, Letter of Peter to James and its Reception, Letter of Ptolemy to Flora, The Preaching of Peter, Pseudo-Clementine Literature, Pseudo-Titus, Treatise on the Resurrection, Apocalypse of Paul, Apocalypse of Peter, Epistle of the Apostles, Gospel according to the Hebrews, Gospel of the Ebionites, to name a few! There was always a big difference between the authority of the books that made up the NT and the books you name above. Believers didn't accept the above books in the church as a whole, in the way the churches accepted the books of the NT. It didn't require a council to tell Christians what books were inspired and which were not inspired. As I said, the councils merely gave their approval to beliefs that the churches already had regarding the various books. See a comparison: http://www.ntcanon.org/table.shtml Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Robert Posted July 20, 2009 Posted July 20, 2009 Justification and salvation come to us by God's grace through faith in Christ's merits. Faith in Jesus makes the believer become "obedient to all the commandments of God." [EGW] No one can be reconciled to God and at the same time not be reconciled to God's holy law. Under the New Covenant, the Ten Commandments are ten promises [EGW]. Under the Old Covenant, they are viewed as ten fear-laden negative burdens. So EGW was selfless before she died? No! EGW died a sinner...not a practicing sinner, but nevertheless a sinner who fell short of God's agape love. What you are presenting is a subtle form of legalism.... Quote
wayfinder Posted July 20, 2009 Posted July 20, 2009 John: Maybe you missed it, but all those "scriptures" were Christian. This was the reason Constantine I convened the Nicaea council so he could control christianity through accepted doctrine as he determined it to be. Quote
Robert Posted July 20, 2009 Posted July 20, 2009 NO, I have not been set free from sin yet. Typical legalism....In some distant future you get righteous and then gain heaven through that righteous....Doctrine of devils....It denies the atonement and your position "in Christ".....IT is anti-gospel and therefore anti-christ Quote
Robert Posted July 20, 2009 Posted July 20, 2009 Originally Posted By: Robert That's just another way of saying agape will be seen in the life of the believer. That's why she said "less self-seeking", etc....All of us are falling short of God's agape love, yet in the life of the believer a change will be seen. This couldn't be possible under law. [/quote'] And how is this change manifested? How do we know there has been a change? Please don't tell me from looking to the law...because if you are honest the more you understand the law the less you look righteous....The greater your distance from God the greater your sense of your own righteousness..... -BC- GC11 -TI- The Great Controversy -CN- 27 -CT- Modern Revivals -PR- 02 -PG- 471 When Job heard the voice of the Lord out of the whirlwind, he exclaimed: “I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.” Job 42:6. It was when Isaiah saw the glory of the Lord, and heard the cherubim crying, “Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of hosts,” that he cried out, “Woe is me! for I am undone.” Isaiah 6:3, 5. Paul, after he was caught up into the third heaven and heard things which it was not possible for a man to utter, speaks of himself as “less than the least of all saints.” 2 Corinthians 12:2-4, margin; Ephesians 3:8. It was the beloved John, who leaned on Jesus’ breast and beheld His glory, that fell as one dead before the feet of the angel. Revelation 1:17. There can be no self-exaltation, no boastful claim to freedom from sin, on the part of those who walk in the shadow of Calvary’s cross. They feel that it was their sin which caused the agony that broke the heart of the Son of God, and this thought will lead them to self-abasement. Those who live nearest to Jesus discern most clearly the frailty and sinfulness of humanity, and their only hope is in the merit of a crucified and risen Saviour. Quote
Moderators John317 Posted July 20, 2009 Moderators Posted July 20, 2009 You have apparently accepted the Papal system's version of how we got our NT. We don't owe the Catholic Church and the councils a debt of gratitude for the NT books. The books in the NT were accepted by Christians before the time of Constantine. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Robert Posted July 20, 2009 Posted July 20, 2009 John, you are good, but you are way out of your league with this issue. Hmmm? Sounds kind of arrogant, Pope Rich.... Quote
Robert Posted July 20, 2009 Posted July 20, 2009 You have apparently accepted the Papal system's version of how we got our NT. We don't owe the Catholic Church and the councils a debt of gratitude for the NT books. The books in the NT were accepted by Christians before the time of Constantine. We agree.... Quote
Musicman1228 Posted July 20, 2009 Posted July 20, 2009 It's time to pause, take a deep breath, let it out slowly and assess what is happening here. One of the first things I notice is that all of us (me included) are taking this discussion WAY too personally. Remember, this isn't about us; it is, or should be, about Jesus Christ-who He is and what He did and what He taught. Most on this forum believe that the Bible is the wholly, inspired, inerrant Word of God that contain no errors, and that all the Bible writers were in fact called by God to be His servants. Most of you that believe this will NEVER no NEVER accept the others of us that don't hold to this view point. The few of us that don't hold to this view point believe that the Bible contains the Words of God in the O.T. and that some of the words in the N.T. are the words of God through Jesus Christ and some are not: The words that are not are held to be the Words of God are the Tares in amongst the Wheat, and we believe that Jesus was speaking prophecy when He gave this parable. Each side in this cannot fathom why the other side believes these things to be either true or false. This is the cause of the conflict and strife. Yet this plays right into the hands of the evil one, for no matter what your core belief system is it is not up to any of us to convince the other of what is true-that is the works of the Holy Spirit, and He/She is fully capable of 'getting through' to all of us with the truth AT THE PROPER TIME. And there is the key; the proper time. We must NEVER go ahead of God in ANYTHING, even teaching and learning the Truth. We are all on this forum because we love Jesus Christ, we wouldn't be taking the time to do this if we were not fully committed to the learning of the knowledge of the truth. And in that we unified, which is exactly where God wants us to be. Quote
Dr. Rich Posted July 20, 2009 Posted July 20, 2009 Again John, Glen Davis has some interesting research, but his research I find is focused upon what the early catholic church esposed. As you should have seen on the site you pointed out, there were many writers and each of them had their own agenda. All of this can and is very confusing and it shouldn't have been a surprise that the RCC wanted to take full control of what was being read and preached. But all of this verifies and validates the fact that Jesus knew seeds would be sowed by others other than His own disciples. Hence the weeds and wheat grew up without anyone knowing the difference--all of this time and still no one knows the difference except a few. Quote
Moderators John317 Posted July 20, 2009 Moderators Posted July 20, 2009 John: Maybe you missed it, but all those "scriptures" were Christian. I'm wondering if you looked at the link I offered. Those are not Scriptures. I am showing a comparison between the books that were accepted in the NT and those which weren't accepted. The comparison shows that the congregations generally accepted the NT books, whereas congregations generally did not accept the books you listed. God is leading a church, not a few individuals here and there. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Richard Holbrook Posted July 20, 2009 Posted July 20, 2009 God is leading a church, not a few individuals here and there. Amen!! Quote
Moderators John317 Posted July 20, 2009 Moderators Posted July 20, 2009 John: Read the history. There were many "Christian" scriptures, among these were, Gnostic gospels, Messianic gospels, Coptic gospels, Acts of John, Acts of Paul, Acts of Peter, Acts of Pilate, Acts of Thecla, Acts of Thomas, 1 Clement, 2 Clement, 3 Corinthians, Correspondence of Paul and Seneca, The Didache, Epistle of Barnabas, Letter to the Laodiceans, Letter of Peter to James and its Reception, Letter of Ptolemy to Flora, The Preaching of Peter, Pseudo-Clementine Literature, Pseudo-Titus, Treatise on the Resurrection, Apocalypse of Paul, Apocalypse of Peter, Epistle of the Apostles, Gospel according to the Hebrews, Gospel of the Ebionites, to name a few! Gospel of Thomas Gospel of Truth Gospel of the Twelve Gospel of Peter Gospel of Basilides Gospel of the Egyptians Gospel of the Hebrews Gospel of Matthias Traditions of Matthias Preaching of Peter Acts of Andrew Acts of Paul Acts of John Epistle to the Laodiceans I Clement Epistle of Barnabas Didache Shepherd of Hermas Apocalypse of Peter Which of the books that you listed above, and which of the ones I have listed, do you believe should have been part of our NT? Which do you believe God inspired? Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted July 20, 2009 Moderators Posted July 20, 2009 Wayfinder, Dr. Rich, and Musicman: When you study the writings of Paul, are you telling us that you do not hear the voice of God, by the Holy Spirit, convicting you and speaking to your minds and hearts? And if you don't hear God speaking to you in those books, who do you hear when you study the Epistles of Paul, Peter, the books of James, Hebrews, Acts, Luke? Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
wayfinder Posted July 20, 2009 Posted July 20, 2009 Matthew, Mark, John, 1-3 John, Revelation. Paul quoting Luke, it is very possible that the gospel of Luke was written either at the same time as 1 Timothy or some time after. Paul then would not be quoting from the gospel of Luke. Paul also uses "Apocryphal" literature, should that be authoritative also. 2Co 12:2 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago--whether in the body I do not know, or out of the body I do not know, God knows--such a man was caught up to the third heaven. Paul is using a place "third heaven" which appears in the apocryphal literature 2 Enoch, whose origins are unclear. Would that make 2 Enoch authoritative scripture. Quote
wayfinder Posted July 20, 2009 Posted July 20, 2009 John, my friend: Who do I hear, I tell you who I do not hear, I do not hear the testimony of the Son of God. Quote
Moderators John317 Posted July 20, 2009 Moderators Posted July 20, 2009 John, my friend: Who do I hear, I tell you who I do not hear, I do not hear the testimony of the Son of God. I, and all believers that I know of, hear the Holy Spirit speaking in the NT, including in the books of Paul. Who do you hear if not the Son of God, in such passages as 1 Cor. 6: 9-11, Romans 8, and Gal. 1? Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted July 20, 2009 Moderators Posted July 20, 2009 Matthew, Mark, John, 1-3 John, Revelation. Paul quoting Luke, it is very possible that the gospel of Luke was written either at the same time as 1 Timothy or some time after. Paul then would not be quoting from the gospel of Luke. Paul also uses "Apocryphal" literature, should that be authoritative also. 2Co 12:2 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago--whether in the body I do not know, or out of the body I do not know, God knows--such a man was caught up to the third heaven. Paul is using a place "third heaven" which appears in the apocryphal literature 2 Enoch, whose origins are unclear. Would that make 2 Enoch authoritative scripture. Just because a prophet quotes from a particular piece of writing does not mean the entire piece of writing is true or authoritative. The term and concept of "third heaven" appears in a lot more places than in 2 Enoch. It was a fairly common idea among the ancient Jews. The first heaven was the atmosphere around the earth; the second heaven is where the stars are; and the third heaven is God's abode. Wikipedia-- Quote: References to distinct concepts known as "Heaven" occur in the very earliest books of the Old Testament.The first use of the word heaven, in Genesis 1:9 and 20 refers to the atmosphere over the earth in which birds fly. The second, mentioned in Genesis 1:14, is the setting for the celestial lights, later identified (Genesis 1:16) as the sun, moon and stars. A third concept of Heaven, also called shamayi h'shamayim (the "Heaven of Heavens") is mentioned in such passages as Genesis 28:12, Deuteronomy 10:14 and 1 Kings 8:27 as a distinctly spiritual realm containing (or being traveled by) angels and God Himself. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
wayfinder Posted July 20, 2009 Posted July 20, 2009 John: There are many comforting and encouraging words in Pauline literature and a little truth, but there are far to many contradictions. 1 Corinthians 11:25 In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me." Mt 26:28 for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins. It is only one word "new", but it changes the whole meaning. This is only one example of many, how many would one need to make a judgment. Quote
wayfinder Posted July 20, 2009 Posted July 20, 2009 John: I was responding to your statement about Paul quoting from "NT" scripture in 1 Timothy. You said that it showed that "NT" literature was in use in Paul's time, or did I misunderstand. You are right about 2 Enoch, I was merely saying the Paul says he knew a man.... Quote
Moderators John317 Posted July 20, 2009 Moderators Posted July 20, 2009 Come on John, Paul was no Jesus even if he said that Jesus didn't suffer enough so that he had to finish the suffering in Colossians 1:24. What he wrote or said about him being an apostle is only his word against mine. I hear the word of God speaking to me in the Epistles of Paul as well as in 1 and 2 Peter, James, Hebrews, Luke, and Acts. Col. 1: 24 isn't saying what you claim it is. He's made it clear that Christ's sufferings are all sufficient. Study Romans 3: 21-26; 2 Cor. 5: 17-21. In Col. 1: 24, Paul is talking about the necessity of the church sharing in the suffering of Christ, not in order to contribute toward the atonement, but because God has ordained such suffering by the church, Christ's body. See Matt. 24: 21-22. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted July 20, 2009 Moderators Posted July 20, 2009 John: There are many comforting and encouraging words in Pauline literature and a little truth, but there are far to many contradictions. The problem is that because you perceive contradictions, you take it upon yourselves to try to persuade others in the church to reject the Apostle Paul. There are now some people who urge SDAs to reject the Old Testament because they claim that the God of the OT is not the same God that is in the NT. They also see contradictions! Many see contradictions in the books of Moses. Others see them in the Gospels, and still others see them in comparisons between the Old and the New Testaments. The next step will be to try persuade people to reject parts of the Gospels, or even the person of Jesus Christ. The same arguments used to reject Paul may be used to reject the Gospels of Matthew and John. For instance, you can't prove that John wrote the truth in John 1: 1-3 or in John 17. As a matter of fact, you can't really even prove that John wrote the Gospel of John. There are many scholars who don't believe it's a reliable gospel. This from the wikipedia-- Quote: Since "the higher criticism" of the 19th century, critical scholars have questioned the gospel of John as a reliable source of information about the historical Jesus. It comes down to each person hearing the voice of God speaking to him in those books. We put faith in the Scriptures. There are some objective truths in the Bible, yes, but when it's all said and done, we believe it because God speaks to our hearts and minds in those Scriptures. I hear the same voice speaking to me in the letters of Paul that I hear in the Gospels, in the book of Revelation, and in the Old Testament. The words of God are self-attesting. There is no higher appeal than the books themselves. The sheep hear the great Shepherd's voice in the Scriptures. Yet you say that you do not hear God speaking to you in the letters of the Apostle Paul. That is why I would like to know when you stopped hearing God's voice speaking to you in those books, if you ever did, and also why I want to know whose voice you hear as you read them today. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted July 20, 2009 Moderators Posted July 20, 2009 John: There are many comforting and encouraging words in Pauline literature and a little truth, but there are far to many contradictions. Who do you believe is the source of those comforting and encouraging words? Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted July 20, 2009 Moderators Posted July 20, 2009 1 Corinthians 11:25 In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me." Mt 26:28 for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins. It is only one word "new", but it changes the whole meaning. This is only one example of many, how many would one need to make a judgment. Please explain how you view the difference and tell why you object to 1 Cor. 11: 25. Do you make the same objection to Luke 22: 20; Hebrew 8: 8; and Jer. 31: 31? Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.