The Beast of Revelation 13

[Musicman1228]

Try 2Cor.11 where Paul speaks about super-apostles coming along and preaching a different gospel and another Jesus other than the one he preaches, and that his followers accept this readily enough. He then declares that that he is not inferior to these super-apostles and gives his reasons.

For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough. I consider that I am not in the least inferior to these super-apostles.  2Cor.11:4-5.

Paul states that these apostles are preaching a gospel different from his. This makes his gospel different from theirs. This is a direct acknowledgment that what they are preaching and what he is preaching are two different gospels.

Then Paul states that these super-apostles are working for Satan.

And what I do I will continue to do, in order to undermine the claim of those who would like to claim that in their boasted mission they work on the same terms as we do. For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds. 2Cor.11:12-15.

So who are these super-apostles that have Paul so worked up?

Look at Galatians 1 and 2. Here he mentions by name those apostles that are opposing him; Peter (Cephas), James and John.

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. Gal.1:6-9.

In this passage Paul says that anyone teaching a different gospel other than his should be cursed. And since it is Peter, James and John that are doing this Paul is saying that they should be accursed.

This makes total sense to me when you consider that Paul thought himself to be a Jew's Jew, making himself out to be a Pharisee. It is then no wonder that Paul needed to come up with a gospel different from that of Peter, James and John, for why would a Jew be interested in preaching the same gospel that Jesus Christ preached. The gospel of Jesus Christ as He taught His own disciples was the antithesis of anything that would be taught by a hard line Jew. It is that gospel that got Jesus into so much trouble with the Jews and caused them to want to crucify Him. A good Jew would not have been caught dead preaching any 'gospel' much less one that looked like the gospel of Jesus Christ.

[John317]

T

And what I do I will continue to do, in order to undermine the claim of those who would like to claim that in their boasted mission they work on the same terms as we do. For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds. 2Cor.11:12-15.

So who are these super-apostles that have Paul so worked up?

Look at Galatians 1 and 2. Here he mentions by name those apostles that are opposing him; Peter (Cephas), James and John.

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. Gal.1:6-9.

In this passage Paul says that anyone teaching a different gospel other than his should be cursed. And since it is Peter, James and John that are doing this Paul is saying that they should be accursed.

The problem here is that you've jumped to the unwarranted conclusion that 2 Cor. 11: 12-15 and Gal. 1 and 2 are referring to the same people.

Notice that Gal. 1 and 2 is not claiming that Peter is preaching a false gospel. Paul is saying that Peter's behavior is hypocritical, not that Peter is teaching falsehoods. Paul is showing that Peter's behavior is a denial of what God showed Peter in Acts 10 and 11.

Please give us your evidence that Peter, James and John were preaching a different gospel from that of Paul. In other words, show that 2 Cor. 11: 12-15 is referring to Peter, James, and John.

The false apostles are the "circumcision," who are described in Acts 15: 1-5.

[Guest]

And yes, Paul DID preach a different gospel, he said that himself.

MM you were asked to show where Paul said his gospel was different. You have failed to do so. All you showed was that Paul spoke out against preaching a different gospel.

Your statement is a falsehood.

[Musicman1228]

Time and time again I have shown you the differences in Paul's gospel and the gospel of Jesus Christ, but you do not see and you do not listen. I even wrote a book about it, which more than likely you have not read. I will be happy to show you the differences again, but what I think I will do this time is ask you to show me where Paul says the same thing that Jesus Christ said on a certain subject. Please show me where Paul says the same thing that Jesus teaches in John 3:3,5. and Matt. 24:14. I do not believe that this is possible, but I could be wrong.

Show me that my statement is a falsehood.

[wayfinder]

1 Corinthians 9:1-6 Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord? If to others I am not an apostle, at least I am to you; for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord. My defense to those who examine me is this: Do we not have a right to eat and drink? Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? Or do only Barnabas and I not have a right to refrain from working?

2 Corinthians 11:13-15 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness, whose end will be according to their deeds.

First of all, a practicing Jew would never be considered an apostle of Christ, they would not be interested in or concerned about an apostle of the one who claimed to be the Messiah (Christ). The Jews were all of the conviction that that imposter had been killed and buried and His disciples had faked a resurrection and this fact had been confirmed by their religious leaders. Paul makes clear that those who are opposing him are preaching a different gospel of Christ. In 1 Corinthians 9 he names names, rest of the apostles, the brothers of the Lord (James and Jude), and Cephas (Peter).

In 2 Corinthians 11 Paul accuses these false apostles of disguising themselves as apostles of Christ and as servants of righteousness.

I am not so naive as to presume that you would ever recognize any differences between any of the apostles of the first century, but I find it odd that the greatest bulk of the information, from this time period, comes from Paul and Luke. It would stand to reason that these two would be very careful not to portray themselves in such a way as to reveal any element of controversy.

1 John 2:18,19 Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us.

John says that antichrists have appeared and that these antichrists "went out from us", "they were not really of us", "if they had been of us they would have remained with us", "but they went out", "they all are not of us". Paul went out from the apostles, "they extended the right hand of fellowship", but he never worked with them, in fact, he would seem to distance himself from them. He never speaks of them in a complementary way, judging Cephas, saying he (Paul) is not inferior to any other apostle. What does an antichrist do, he looks like a lamb, but speaks like the dragon.

[Guest]

And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. 1Cr 1:16

For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. Gal 3:27

These are two texts that show Paul believed in baptism by water just like Jesus did. Although his main function was to preach, of course he believed in baptism.

For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. 1Cr 12:13

And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. Act 19:6

These texts show that he also believed in the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

[Lutz13]

Why is it in every single thread it eventually turns into "Paul was false". Do you guys enjoy hijacking threads?

[Musicman1228]

Last time: Jesus was talking about the Kingdom of Heaven and the fact that you must be born of the Spirit to enter it. Paul never talks about this.

That being said, I agree with Lutz13, lets get back to Rev.13.

[Guest]

Just because he may not have mentioned something does not indicate that he was preaching a different gospel.

You claimed That Paul said he was preaching a different gospel. If that were true you would have shown the text. Therefore it is a falsehood.

[John317]

Please show me where Paul says the same thing that Jesus teaches in John 3:3,5.

Paul says the same thing in 1 Cor. 6: 9-11; Romans 8: 1-23; Gal. 4: 6,7; 5: 16-25.

[Guest]

Thanks John317, you're right. Excellent texts.

[John317]

Here are some reasons for believing that Paul was a genuine apostle and that his letters were inspired from God--

1) The radical, dramatic change in Paul's life as a result of his experience on the road to Damascus. Acts 9: 20, 21, 26-30, etc.

2) The life of Paul after his conversion is not consistent with that of a liar and deceiver and false apostle. Paul suffered great persecution and finally death for his faith in Christ. See 2 Cor. 11: 22-33; Acts 16 to 21; 2 Cor. 4: 7-18.

3) The evidence that the Holy Spirit was at work in the life and ministry of Paul:

a) God protected Paul: Acts 9: 23-25; 16: 25-34.

The miracles: Acts 14: 8-10; 19: 12; 20: 7-12;

c) The growth of the church shows that God blessed his ministry. 14: 21ff

d) The changes in the lives of Paul's converts. Acts 13: 4-12, 42-52.

e) The Holy Spirit told the church to lay hands on Paul. Acts 13: 1-5

f) The Holy Spirit confirmed Paul's ministry: Acts 19: 4-7.

4) Paul's apostleship was recognized by Barnabas (Acts 11: 25-26); by Silas (Acts 15: 12; 15: 40 to 17: 14); also by Peter, James, and John, and by the church council in Acts 15.

5) Paul's writing of what the entire church recognizes as Scripture. See 2 Peter 3: 14-15. These letters are self-authenticating. I personally can testify to hearing God speak to me though Paul's writings. The affect they've had on my life prove to me that they are of God.

6) Paul's experience was verified by Ananias whom Jesus gave a vision regarding Paul. This is independent testimony to the truth of Paul's conversion and to the fact that Jesus Christ did indeed call Paul to service for Christ. See Acts 9: 10-17 and Acts 22: 12.

[Guest]

Excellent points, all. The opposition to Paul on this forum has caused me to dig deeper into the writings of Paul than ever before, and I must say I have been blessed because of it, Praise God!

Perhaps the opposers do serve a purpose after all. God can always use a person, no matter what side he is on.

[Twilight]

Here are some reasons for believing that Paul was a genuine apostle and that his letters were inspired from God--

1) The radical, dramatic change in Paul's life as a result of his experience on the road to Damascus. Acts 9: 20, 21, 26-30, etc.

2) The life of Paul after his conversion is not consistent with that of a liar and deceiver and false apostle. Paul suffered great persecution and finally death for his faith in Christ. See 2 Cor. 11: 22-33; Acts 16 to 21; 2 Cor. 4: 7-18.

3) The evidence that the Holy Spirit was at work in the life and ministry of Paul:

a) God protected Paul: Acts 9: 23-25; 16: 25-34.

The miracles: Acts 14: 8-10; 19: 12; 20: 7-12;

c) The growth of the church shows that God blessed his ministry. 14: 21ff

d) The changes in the lives of Paul's converts. Acts 13: 4-12, 42-52.

e) The Holy Spirit told the church to lay hands on Paul. Acts 13: 1-5

f) The Holy Spirit confirmed Paul's ministry: Acts 19: 4-7.

4) Paul's apostleship was recognized by Barnabas (Acts 11: 25-26); by Silas (Acts 15: 12; 15: 40 to 17: 14); also by Peter, James, and John, and by the church council in Acts 15.

5) Paul's writing of what the entire church recognizes as Scripture. See 2 Peter 3: 14-15. These letters are self-authenticating. I personally can testify to hearing God speak to me though Paul's writings. The affect they've had on my life prove to me that they are of God.

6) Paul's experience was verified by Ananias whom Jesus gave a vision regarding Paul. This is independent testimony to the truth of Paul's conversion and to the fact that Jesus Christ did indeed call Paul to service for Christ. See Acts 9: 10-17 and Acts 22: 12.

That should be enough for anyone who does not have a pre-conceived opinion to settle this matter for them.

Mar

[Musicman1228]

When I first started studying Paul after I came back into the SDA church after taking a 4 year 'sabbatical' I became one of Paul's greatest proponents. After I completed my initial study of Paul I then began a study on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, adjunct to a class that was offered by my church pastor at our church.

It was at that point that I began to see some 'minor' discrepancies between Jesus and Paul, but I didn't really think anything of it or go into the differences in any deep way. It just never entered my mind that Paul was anything other than who he, the church and EGW said he was.

At the time I was also heavily involved in a Wednesday night Bible study and for some reason we began to look at what Paul wrote and put it up against what Jesus said. It blew my mind. I could not believe that no one else had seen some of the obvious differences before me. During my research with my Bible study group I found that there was a whole culture in the Christian church that adamantly disagreed with Paul's views on lots of subjects, and all with Scriptural proofs from the words of Jesus and the Old Testament.

So here I am today an ardent follower of Jesus Christ and an equally ardent opponent of Paul. I began with no more pre-conceived ideas than have most of you right now. What I did bring with me was logic as applied to the words that both Paul and Jesus Christ said. What I found was that there is overwhelming evidence that Paul did not agree with Jesus Christ with respect to how salvation operates, as well as a host of other problems.

I recognize that most on this forum vehemently disagree with this stand, and that is fine with me. I also recognize that just because a majority of people believe a particular way does not make that way correct. Numbers are not an indicator of truth. I am sorry that this will tend to make you nervous, and discount my perspective on just about everything that is discussed on this forum. So be it. All I can do is speak truth as is given me by the Holy Spirit. Time will tell if the spirit that moved Paul was the same Spirit that came from Jesus Christ.

[Twilight]

When I first started studying Paul after I came back into the SDA church after taking a 4 year 'sabbatical' I became one of Paul's greatest proponents. After I completed my initial study of Paul I then began a study on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, adjunct to a class that was offered by my church pastor at our church.

It was at that point that I began to see some 'minor' discrepancies between Jesus and Paul, but I didn't really think anything of it or go into the differences in any deep way. It just never entered my mind that Paul was anything other than who he, the church and EGW said he was.

At the time I was also heavily involved in a Wednesday night Bible study and for some reason we began to look at what Paul wrote and put it up against what Jesus said. It blew my mind. I could not believe that no one else had seen some of the obvious differences before me. During my research with my Bible study group I found that there was a whole culture in the Christian church that adamantly disagreed with Paul's views on lots of subjects, and all with Scriptural proofs from the words of Jesus and the Old Testament.

So here I am today an ardent follower of Jesus Christ and an equally ardent opponent of Paul. I began with no more pre-conceived ideas than have most of you right now. What I did bring with me was logic as applied to the words that both Paul and Jesus Christ said. What I found was that there is overwhelming evidence that Paul did not agree with Jesus Christ with respect to how salvation operates, as well as a host of other problems.

I recognize that most on this forum vehemently disagree with this stand, and that is fine with me. I also recognize that just because a majority of people believe a particular way does not make that way correct. Numbers are not an indicator of truth. I am sorry that this will tend to make you nervous, and discount my perspective on just about everything that is discussed on this forum. So be it. All I can do is speak truth as is given me by the Holy Spirit. Time will tell if the spirit that moved Paul was the same Spirit that came from Jesus Christ.

All I can do is speak truth as is given me by the Holy Spirit. Time will tell if the spirit that moved Paul was the same Spirit that came from Jesus Christ.

MM, do you realise what you have done here?

You have claimed greater inspiration than Paul, you have questioned his inspiration, but presented yours as "the truth"...

My friend, what can we say to get through to you?

This message you have is not from God.

Mark

[Michaeneu]

When I first started studying Paul after I came back into the SDA church after taking a 4 year 'sabbatical' I became one of Paul's greatest proponents. After I completed my initial study of Paul I then began a study on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, adjunct to a class that was offered by my church pastor at our church.

It was at that point that I began to see some 'minor' discrepancies between Jesus and Paul, but I didn't really think anything of it or go into the differences in any deep way. It just never entered my mind that Paul was anything other than who he, the church and EGW said he was.

At the time I was also heavily involved in a Wednesday night Bible study and for some reason we began to look at what Paul wrote and put it up against what Jesus said. It blew my mind. I could not believe that no one else had seen some of the obvious differences before me. During my research with my Bible study group I found that there was a whole culture in the Christian church that adamantly disagreed with Paul's views on lots of subjects, and all with Scriptural proofs from the words of Jesus and the Old Testament.

So here I am today an ardent follower of Jesus Christ and an equally ardent opponent of Paul. I began with no more pre-conceived ideas than have most of you right now. What I did bring with me was logic as applied to the words that both Paul and Jesus Christ said. What I found was that there is overwhelming evidence that Paul did not agree with Jesus Christ with respect to how salvation operates, as well as a host of other problems.

I recognize that most on this forum vehemently disagree with this stand, and that is fine with me. I also recognize that just because a majority of people believe a particular way does not make that way correct. Numbers are not an indicator of truth. I am sorry that this will tend to make you nervous, and discount my perspective on just about everything that is discussed on this forum. So be it. All I can do is speak truth as is given me by the Holy Spirit. Time will tell if the spirit that moved Paul was the same Spirit that came from Jesus Christ.

Problem is Musicman that your rejection of Paul’s work doesn’t just end there but continues to eviscerate much of the rest of scripture that doesn’t suit your poor analyzation. Both the Old and New Testament become fair game to YOUR editing and that is what is unacceptable, at least to me. Excuse my description of your analyzation as poor, but that is exactly what you imply of the preponderance of those who DO accept Paul’s testimony and Luke’s and Peter’s and etc. and etc.

And true, it’s not a numbers game, but the truth comes down to whose position reconciles ALL of the scriptures so that there is harmony and not discord with Christ’s testimony and yours really skews off when Christ declared he had not come to DESTROY the prophets. You say your experience is genuine, well so is mine and I find that your rejection of Paul and the other authors do disservice to the OT prophets and Christ—numbers notwithstanding.

Michael

[Musicman1228]

You are not going to convince me of your position that Paul is of God and that I am 'eviscerating' Scripture because of that position than I am going to be able to convince you that your unfounded, unwavering support of Paul is misguided and dangerous. I only wrote what I wrote to give you my perspective not to change yours.

This all or nothing idea about the Bible is something that I quite frankly find amusing and intellectually vacuous, but then again I don't need to call a human produced document such as the New Testament an infallible source source of truth. I am not afraid to use the God given tools of logic and reason along with belief and trust in the words of God in the O.T. and Jesus Christ in the N.T. to decide for myself what is true and what is not.

One thing I know for sure, a logical, well thought out and sourced argument can never win out against a firmly established and intransigent 'defender of the faith', because faith needs no substance in order to be believed. ("Don't bother me with the facts, I have my faith".) Truth on the other hand needs a good deal of effort to be found, and it is often not found where a person first looks for it. Faith can be found anywhere and in just about anything (hence the vast number of denominations and religions in the world); Truth can only be found by looking beyond the obvious. Truth is especially difficult for people to find who believe that they already have the truth, who believe they have it already so why look further. Jesus was well aware of this problem:

Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many.For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few. Matt.7:13-14.

[wayfinder]

Michael and all who care to read:

I would dare say that what we, as Seventh-day Adventists or Christians, seek most is to learn the truth. When we begin our scholastic period it is to learn information that we can use in our productive life. The information comes from those who have learned from others who have learned from others. We expect that our teachers know the truth about what they are teaching. When we advance into the higher level of academics we are duty bound to do research it is here we find that there are many different understandings presented, the predominate reason for this is prejudice or preference. I have heard that evidence has been tampered with by some of a certain persuasion whose convictions or authority would be called into question or overturned if it were published. On the other hand some have tampered with the evidence to make it appear as if it would support their theory. The bottom line is this, if we really want to find the truth we must consider all the available evidence without bias or prejudice and come to a reasonable if not factual conclusion.

The Bible is our resource for the words of God. When the Son of God walked on this earth the only "Bible" was the Law and the Prophets and the Psalms. The Son of God never implied nor stated that this corpus of scripture was anything but authentic and it should be the final word in all matters regarding the Kingdom of God. The Mishnah was also available at the time, but it was a corpus of the collective interpretations of the Law and was never considered God's words.

The New Testament has no stamp of divine approval on it and yet most Christians would never question its authority because "it is in the Bible". They assume that God would never allow anything but truth to be included in His Holy Book, but this is a dangerous assumption. The group who gave us the New Testament part of the Bible is the same group who gave us the Universal Christian Church, better known as the Catholic Church. As Seventh-day Adventists, we have gone to great lengths to show that the RCC and it's daughters are Babylon and the image to the beast. How can we justify this when we use the same canon etc?

There is an extensive corpus of writings that were left out of the canon, but this does not mean that they are not, at least as reliable, as what made it into the canon. At the time of the first canonical council there were hundreds of documents claim divine, apostolic or scriptural authority, and we assume that the only true authoritative documents made it in, that is a dangerous assumption.

There were also individuals who would write in the name of someone else, someone with accepted divine authority, these are called pseudonymous. It is a well known and accepted fact, by the experts, that there were and are many documents which are purported to have been written by an apostle and clearly were not, one example of this is 2 Peter. I use the New American Standard study Bible primarily and this is what the editor says about 2 Peter. "Although the author claimed to be the Apostle Peter (2 Peter 1:10, no book of the New Testament had a more difficult time establishing its authenticity and place in the canon. This was due in part to the fact that it was not widely known very early, and so many people in the second and third centuries A.D. were writing under the name Peter'.

One of the collection of writings that did not make it into the canon of scripture is the Clementine literature.

This is a quote from the book "Peter, Paul and Mary Magdalene" by Bart D. Ehrman taken from the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies. The letter does not mention Paul by name. But it is not too difficult to see who the author's "enemy" is: it is someone who works among the Gentiles and teaches them that it is not necessary for them to keep the law.

Here is the quote from the Homilies. "For some from among the Gentiles have rejected my lawful preaching and have preferred a lawless and absurd doctrine of the man who is my enemy. And indeed some have attempted while I am still alive, to distort my word by interpretations of many sorts, as if I taught the dissolution of the law....But that may God forbid! For to do such a thing means to act contrary to the law of God which was made to Moses and was confirmed by our Lord in its everlasting continuance. For he said, "The heaven and the earth will pass away, but not one jot or one tittle shall pass away from the law." (Letter of Peter to James, 2.3-5)

It is very dangerous, if not lethal, to assume that something is a lie just because it is not in the Bible or that nothing is a lie because it is in the Bible.

[Twilight]

This all or nothing idea about the Bible is something that I quite frankly find amusing and intellectually vacuous,

I find it intellectually essential...

And not amusing in the least.

[Michaeneu]

You are not going to convince me of your position that Paul is of God and that I am 'eviscerating' Scripture because of that position than I am going to be able to convince you that your unfounded, unwavering support of Paul is misguided and dangerous. I only wrote what I wrote to give you my perspective not to change yours.

This all or nothing idea about the Bible is something that I quite frankly find amusing and intellectually vacuous, but then again I don't need to call a human produced document such as the New Testament an infallible source source of truth. I am not afraid to use the God given tools of logic and reason along with belief and trust in the words of God in the O.T. and Jesus Christ in the N.T. to decide for myself what is true and what is not.

One thing I know for sure, a logical, well thought out and sourced argument can never win out against a firmly established and intransigent 'defender of the faith', because faith needs no substance in order to be believed. ("Don't bother me with the facts, I have my faith".) Truth on the other hand needs a good deal of effort to be found, and it is often not found where a person first looks for it. Faith can be found anywhere and in just about anything (hence the vast number of denominations and religions in the world); Truth can only be found by looking beyond the obvious. Truth is especially difficult for people to find who believe that they already have the truth, who believe they have it already so why look further. Jesus was well aware of this problem:

Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many.For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few. Matt.7:13-14.

Problem is Musicman, is that you are only deluding yourself that, one, your arguments are “well thought out and sourced” and, two, that everyone else’s is based upon blind faith. Concerning me in particular, we’ve gone through this and to date your arguments have been woeful in defending Replacement theology with its assertions that the church replaced Israel and that the prophecies of the OT have never and never will be fulfilled. That is diametrically opposed to Christ’s very pronouncement that he HAD NOT COME to DESTROY the PROPHETS. Of course there are other principles in where I’ve done my homework against what you’ve entrenched yourself, but that is the initial issue and reason that to me your arguments are vacuous.

Michael

[Michaeneu]

Michael and all who care to read:

I would dare say that what we, as Seventh-day Adventists or Christians, seek most is to learn the truth. When we begin our scholastic period it is to learn information that we can use in our productive life. The information comes from those who have learned from others who have learned from others. We expect that our teachers know the truth about what they are teaching. When we advance into the higher level of academics we are duty bound to do research it is here we find that there are many different understandings presented, the predominate reason for this is prejudice or preference. I have heard that evidence has been tampered with by some of a certain persuasion whose convictions or authority would be called into question or overturned if it were published. On the other hand some have tampered with the evidence to make it appear as if it would support their theory. The bottom line is this, if we really want to find the truth we must consider all the available evidence without bias or prejudice and come to a reasonable if not factual conclusion.

The Bible is our resource for the words of God. When the Son of God walked on this earth the only "Bible" was the Law and the Prophets and the Psalms. The Son of God never implied nor stated that this corpus of scripture was anything but authentic and it should be the final word in all matters regarding the Kingdom of God. The Mishnah was also available at the time, but it was a corpus of the collective interpretations of the Law and was never considered God's words.

The New Testament has no stamp of divine approval on it and yet most Christians would never question its authority because "it is in the Bible". They assume that God would never allow anything but truth to be included in His Holy Book, but this is a dangerous assumption. The group who gave us the New Testament part of the Bible is the same group who gave us the Universal Christian Church, better known as the Catholic Church. As Seventh-day Adventists, we have gone to great lengths to show that the RCC and it's daughters are Babylon and the image to the beast. How can we justify this when we use the same canon etc?

There is an extensive corpus of writings that were left out of the canon, but this does not mean that they are not, at least as reliable, as what made it into the canon. At the time of the first canonical council there were hundreds of documents claim divine, apostolic or scriptural authority, and we assume that the only true authoritative documents made it in, that is a dangerous assumption.

There were also individuals who would write in the name of someone else, someone with accepted divine authority, these are called pseudonymous. It is a well known and accepted fact, by the experts, that there were and are many documents which are purported to have been written by an apostle and clearly were not, one example of this is 2 Peter. I use the New American Standard study Bible primarily and this is what the editor says about 2 Peter. "Although the author claimed to be the Apostle Peter (2 Peter 1:10, no book of the New Testament had a more difficult time establishing its authenticity and place in the canon. This was due in part to the fact that it was not widely known very early, and so many people in the second and third centuries A.D. were writing under the name Peter'.

One of the collection of writings that did not make it into the canon of scripture is the Clementine literature.

This is a quote from the book "Peter, Paul and Mary Magdalene" by Bart D. Ehrman taken from the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies. The letter does not mention Paul by name. But it is not too difficult to see who the author's "enemy" is: it is someone who works among the Gentiles and teaches them that it is not necessary for them to keep the law.

Here is the quote from the Homilies. "For some from among the Gentiles have rejected my lawful preaching and have preferred a lawless and absurd doctrine of the man who is my enemy. And indeed some have attempted while I am still alive, to distort my word by interpretations of many sorts, as if I taught the dissolution of the law....But that may God forbid! For to do such a thing means to act contrary to the law of God which was made to Moses and was confirmed by our Lord in its everlasting continuance. For he said, "The heaven and the earth will pass away, but not one jot or one tittle shall pass away from the law." (Letter of Peter to James, 2.3-5)

It is very dangerous, if not lethal, to assume that something is a lie just because it is not in the Bible or that nothing is a lie because it is in the Bible.

It may be that 2 Peter was authored later, although the evidence is arbitrary; nevertheless I accept it as canon precisely because it agrees with the OT and Christ’s proclamation that he HAD NOT COME to DESTROY the PROPHETS. Moreover, your recalcitrance over the imbibing of the doctrine of Replacement theology hardly makes you one to comment with any authority about the influence of the Catholic Church upon canon. It seems your still drinking at that fountain yourself.

Michael

[Twilight]

Michael and all who care to read:

I would dare say that what we, as Seventh-day Adventists or Christians, seek most is to learn the truth. When we begin our scholastic period it is to learn information that we can use in our productive life. The information comes from those who have learned from others who have learned from others. We expect that our teachers know the truth about what they are teaching. When we advance into the higher level of academics we are duty bound to do research it is here we find that there are many different understandings presented, the predominate reason for this is prejudice or preference. I have heard that evidence has been tampered with by some of a certain persuasion whose convictions or authority would be called into question or overturned if it were published. On the other hand some have tampered with the evidence to make it appear as if it would support their theory. The bottom line is this, if we really want to find the truth we must consider all the available evidence without bias or prejudice and come to a reasonable if not factual conclusion.

The Bible is our resource for the words of God. When the Son of God walked on this earth the only "Bible" was the Law and the Prophets and the Psalms. The Son of God never implied nor stated that this corpus of scripture was anything but authentic and it should be the final word in all matters regarding the Kingdom of God. The Mishnah was also available at the time, but it was a corpus of the collective interpretations of the Law and was never considered God's words.

The New Testament has no stamp of divine approval on it and yet most Christians would never question its authority because "it is in the Bible". They assume that God would never allow anything but truth to be included in His Holy Book, but this is a dangerous assumption. The group who gave us the New Testament part of the Bible is the same group who gave us the Universal Christian Church, better known as the Catholic Church. As Seventh-day Adventists, we have gone to great lengths to show that the RCC and it's daughters are Babylon and the image to the beast. How can we justify this when we use the same canon etc?

There is an extensive corpus of writings that were left out of the canon, but this does not mean that they are not, at least as reliable, as what made it into the canon. At the time of the first canonical council there were hundreds of documents claim divine, apostolic or scriptural authority, and we assume that the only true authoritative documents made it in, that is a dangerous assumption.

There were also individuals who would write in the name of someone else, someone with accepted divine authority, these are called pseudonymous. It is a well known and accepted fact, by the experts, that there were and are many documents which are purported to have been written by an apostle and clearly were not, one example of this is 2 Peter. I use the New American Standard study Bible primarily and this is what the editor says about 2 Peter. "Although the author claimed to be the Apostle Peter (2 Peter 1:10, no book of the New Testament had a more difficult time establishing its authenticity and place in the canon. This was due in part to the fact that it was not widely known very early, and so many people in the second and third centuries A.D. were writing under the name Peter'.

One of the collection of writings that did not make it into the canon of scripture is the Clementine literature.

This is a quote from the book "Peter, Paul and Mary Magdalene" by Bart D. Ehrman taken from the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies. The letter does not mention Paul by name. But it is not too difficult to see who the author's "enemy" is: it is someone who works among the Gentiles and teaches them that it is not necessary for them to keep the law.

Here is the quote from the Homilies. "For some from among the Gentiles have rejected my lawful preaching and have preferred a lawless and absurd doctrine of the man who is my enemy. And indeed some have attempted while I am still alive, to distort my word by interpretations of many sorts, as if I taught the dissolution of the law....But that may God forbid! For to do such a thing means to act contrary to the law of God which was made to Moses and was confirmed by our Lord in its everlasting continuance. For he said, "The heaven and the earth will pass away, but not one jot or one tittle shall pass away from the law." (Letter of Peter to James, 2.3-5)

It is very dangerous, if not lethal, to assume that something is a lie just because it is not in the Bible or that nothing is a lie because it is in the Bible.

Seventh Day Adventists accept the Canon as is.

Is that not one of our fundamental beliefs?

When you start to slice up the canon, can you really say you have the same beliefs as SDA's?

In love,

Mark

[Musicman1228]

You know, Mark, you are probably correct in your assessment that I don't hold to all of the beliefs of the SDA's. AS a matter of fact, I certainly don't hold to at least some of the traditions and beliefs of Christianity in general. Does this make me a heretic or hypocrite? In the view of some certainly. But could this also not have been said about Jesus when He was going up against the traditions and false doctrine of the religion of Israel, of which He was a part?

Why is decent considered to be immoral? I can think of many instances where decent is not just necessary but a moral imperative.

My understanding is very similar to Wayfinder as to where the writings of the New Testament come from, and for what reason they were included in the canon. Yet to state this publicly is almost like declaring yourself a pariah. Why should this be? Does not the quest for truth demand decent and opposing points of view in order to filter the information so that the wheat can be separated from the chaff?

[Twilight]

You know, Mark, you are probably correct in your assessment that I don't hold to all of the beliefs of the SDA's. AS a matter of fact, I certainly don't hold to at least some of the traditions and beliefs of Christianity in general. Does this make me a heretic or hypocrite? In the view of some certainly. But could this also not have been said about Jesus when He was going up against the traditions and false doctrine of the religion of Israel, of which He was a part?

Why is decent considered to be immoral? I can think of many instances where decent is not just necessary but a moral imperative.

My understanding is very similar to Wayfinder as to where the writings of the New Testament come from, and for what reason they were included in the canon. Yet to state this publicly is almost like declaring yourself a pariah. Why should this be? Does not the quest for truth demand decent and opposing points of view in order to filter the information so that the wheat can be separated from the chaff?

MM,

God did not put this great movement of the Advent people together so that your theology could pull it apart.

If your theology is correct then Adventism is a "false" religion.

Mark