Is this saying that we do not need teachers and preachers?
History of the canon of the Bible
- Thread starter Ginger
- Start date
godspeaker
Inactive
The canon of the Old Testament:
The Jews were the chosen keepers of the Old Testament. Therefore, they knew what was inspired and what was not. Some claim unispired books arfe part of thew Holy Scriptures because they were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, but there are definitely pseudo works as well as non-inspired secular works mixed in with these Dead Sea Scroll writings, so just being found within this library of writings is not an indecation of divine inspiration.
It can be compared to your church library. You have the inspired Bible in the church library, but you also have uninspired writings as well. The same is true of ancient collections of writings. Just because a book is found among inspired writings doesn't automatically mean it is inspired, too!!
Before I go on, I'll give someone else a chance to jump in.
God is the only one who can inspire the words before they are written or spoken. This means he's the only one who can interpret them, too. This requires using a sinless body to read the scriptures so he can interpret them. Only Jesus and the saints were used by God to interpret the prophecies that he had his sinful prophets write. God used Moses, Aaron and his two sons to protect the law and commandments from all the sinners but eventually, after the Jews had been captured by the Babylons and got the beast in their minds, the scriptures were changed. They began to translate them into other languages and dialects and adding their pagan ideas to them. They killed all the prophets after their captivity and became religious sinners who had no authority to use the words of God or change them.
By the time Jesus came to preach the gospel, the Jews had no idea what he was talking about. But Jesus heard and read the prophecies that God wanted him to read and hear so that God could reveal the knowledge of what's to take place in the future. This is how Jesus spoke these prophesies and warned the saints in 70 a.d. when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem. His prophecy to them was heard by a saint just in time to escape the destruction. So only God can interpret the prophecies and have them spoken by his saints.
All the saints were killed by the Roman government in the early fourth century. They killed thousands of them who preached the same gospel that Jesus preached, which is the voice of God. The Romans couldn't understand the truth in the gospel and the Jews convinced them they would take over their empire so the Romans made a law against the preaching of the gospel with a death penalty. They wanted it completely stopped and they accomplished their mission.
The saints wrote down inspired words by God to reveal his knowledge which is necessary for the next age. This is the only reason we have this age and it's the reason God had to corrupt the DNA of our bodies to keep everyone from knowing the truth. It also made it easier for him to get his saints and prophets obedient to him because sinners are liars. They can't speak the truth but his chosen ones can hear him. These writings of theirs were personal writings that no sinner could understand so there weren't written to add to the old testament prophecies.
The Romans confiscated their writings when they were arrested and then burned up most of them so the followers couldn't read them. After they killed all the saints, they started the Roman Catholic church and their leader, Constantine, was the one who had to figure out how to deceive these followers of the saints they killed. The biggest deception was the new testament they produced. They used some of the writings by the saints and deleted any evidence of the true gospel, which is the way God was using the saints to speak commands to make these followers confess and repent of their sins. Then he could change their DNA when he put them to the ground. Without this true gospel, no one can become a sinless saint and preach the gospel.
Then they added their pagan ideas to the new testament writings that guaranteed these followers would never become saints. The Romans weren't able to find all the writings of the saints so they lied to these followers and said they were evil gnostic writings written by false prophets. Most Catholics still believe they're evil gnostic writings and the ones they did find, the Romans changed them to hide any evidence of the gospel.
This is what happened but history is full of lies around this time because Rome didn't want anyone finding out the truth of what happened. It's very similar to the lies that the U.S. government gives to the citizens about the 9/11 attacks. The few people who know the truth will go to any length to keep it a secret.
Its saying I need not heap to myself teachers with iching ears.
I have the scriptures and I have the spirit of God.
What else do you think I would need to teach me?
Well, that's just fine and dandy, Shilo.
But qtld claims the same thing. If God is speaking to both of you, then you must both agree with everything exactly, correct? (Of course no one can figure out what the heck qtld is saying, so it's hard to know if you agree or not
)
So, may I ask, do you agree with everything qtld has said? Do you think there are people and pets on other planets in other universes? If so, what does that have to do with us?
FYI, I do depend on God for truth. I also, as a secondary and inferior source, listen to people who studied Hebrew and Greek and ancient cultures, etc., to find out what certain words and things mean. I do not take their word for it because many misinterpret Scriptures to make the verses say what they want them to say.
While one man says a word means this and another says the same word means that, I also look for the word in other passages and compare how the biblical authors used the word. In a few instances, I've looked at secular writings (where there was no agenda to misinterpret) to see how words were used.
What I'm saying is there is nothing wrong with listening to people who have studied certain aspects of the culture or language, as long as we remember they are people prone to error and if their assumptions contradict Scriptures, then they are wrong.
But qtld claims the same thing. If God is speaking to both of you, then you must both agree with everything exactly, correct? (Of course no one can figure out what the heck qtld is saying, so it's hard to know if you agree or not
)So, may I ask, do you agree with everything qtld has said? Do you think there are people and pets on other planets in other universes? If so, what does that have to do with us?
FYI, I do depend on God for truth. I also, as a secondary and inferior source, listen to people who studied Hebrew and Greek and ancient cultures, etc., to find out what certain words and things mean. I do not take their word for it because many misinterpret Scriptures to make the verses say what they want them to say.
While one man says a word means this and another says the same word means that, I also look for the word in other passages and compare how the biblical authors used the word. In a few instances, I've looked at secular writings (where there was no agenda to misinterpret) to see how words were used.
What I'm saying is there is nothing wrong with listening to people who have studied certain aspects of the culture or language, as long as we remember they are people prone to error and if their assumptions contradict Scriptures, then they are wrong.
Wait a minut.
You said the book of Enoch was dated after the book of Jude.
Who did the dating?
I understand the book of Enoch was part of the dead sea scrolls.
The manuscrips found in the dead sea scrolls date from 150 bc to 70 ad.
How can you know for a fact Jude didnt read the book of Enoch?
' a sinless body"? There is no such thing!
godspeaker
Inactive
These following scriptures are only meant for the chosen ones called saints. Jesus was the first man to have this knowledge in his heart, mind and soul and this is why he could speak for God.
Jeremiah 31
33: But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it upon their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
34: And no longer shall each man teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, `Know the LORD,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, says the LORD; for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."
1 Corinthians 2
10: God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God.
11: For what person knows a man's thoughts except the spirit of the man which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.
12: Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is from God, that we might understand the gifts bestowed on us by God.
13: And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who possess the Spirit.
14: The unspiritual man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.
15: The spiritual man judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one.
16: "For who has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ.
John 7
15: The Jews marveled at it, saying, "How is it that this man has learning, when he has never studied?"
16: So Jesus answered them, "My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me;
17: if any man's will is to do his will, he shall know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own authority.
John 14
12: "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I go to the Father.
1 John 5
9: If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater; for this is the testimony of God that he has borne witness to his Son.
2 Timothy 2
7: Think over what I say, for the Lord will grant you understanding in everything.
Psalm 32
8: I will instruct you and teach you the way you should go; I will counsel you with my eye upon you.
Exodus 4:
10: But Moses said to the LORD, "Oh, my Lord, I am not eloquent, either heretofore or since thou hast spoken to thy servant; but I am slow of speech and of tongue."
11: Then the LORD said to him, "Who has made man's mouth? Who makes him dumb, or deaf, or seeing, or blind? Is it not I, the LORD?
12: Now therefore go, and I will be with your mouth and teach you what you shall speak."
godspeaker
Inactive
Who says there's no sinless person? It doesn't say that anywhere in the Bible but there's plenty of verses to show that you have to be sinless to be born of God.
Born of God saints who can't sin anymore.
A saint is one who is made sinless and receives the knowledge of God to preach the gospel. Sinners can't be born of God unless they were chosen and made sinless by the works of confession, repentance and forgiveness by God.
1 John 1:
7: but if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.
8: If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
9: If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
10: If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
1 John 2:
3: And by this we may be sure that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
4: He who says "I know him" but disobeys his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him;
29: If you know that he is righteous, you may be sure that every one who does right is born of him.
1 John 3:
6: No one who abides in him sins; no one who sins has either seen him or known him.
9: No one born of God commits sin; for God's nature abides in him, and he cannot sin because he is born of God.
1 John 5:
2: By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey his commandments.
3: For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome.
18: We know that any one born of God does not sin, but He who was born of God keeps him, and the evil one does not touch him.
Galations 5:
24: And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.
Romans 6:
20: When you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness.
21: But then what return did you get from the things of which you are now ashamed? The end of those things is death.
22: But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the return you get is sanctification and its end, eternal life.
23: For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
John 8
31: Jesus then said to the Jews who had believed in him, "If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples,
32: and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free."
33: They answered him, "We are descendants of Abraham, and have never been in bondage to any one. How is it that you say, `You will be made free'?"
34: Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, every one who commits sin is a slave to sin.
35: The slave does not continue in the house for ever; the son continues for ever.
36: So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed.
So you are a believer in "Sinless Perfection? Well the Word tells us different, and not thru "cherry picking" to make scripture appear to say what it is not.
James writes, "For we all stumble in many things. If anyone does not stumble in word, he is a perfect man, able also to bridle the whole body" (James 3:2). So, is James not saying here that a man can indeed be perfect? No, because only a few verses later, he comments, "But no man can tame the tongue. It is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison" (James 3:8).
There are two things about sinless perfection to be drawn from James’ comments. First off, James is stating that no man can tame even the tongue to the point of perfection, let alone his whole body. Advocates of sinless perfection are calling James a liar and are calling the Scripture a lie in this instance.
The second thing to note is that James is using the example of a man being perfect as a ridiculous impossibility in his writing. He is stating that all men stumble in their words, and he says anyone who claims otherwise is claiming something as ridiculous as personal sinless perfection. Advocates of sinless perfection actually believe the very thing that James cites as a ridiculous, impossible example.
Certainly we should strive to tame the tongue. We should do the best we possibly can in all areas of life. But it is unrealistic to expect perfection when the Bible itself plainly says such perfection is impossible.
http://www.compassdistributors.ca/topics/sinless.htm
godspeaker
Inactive
Look above at all those scriptures I placed in my comment. There's your answer but you refuse to look at them. You need to defend your sinfulness so your eyes can't focus on the truth.
FYI, I read the scripture and can immediately tell that they have been hand picked "out of context" and have absolutely nothing to do with the subject. Anyone can make the bible say what they want it to say, and that is exactly what is happening here.
Sinfulness is not being defended! I sin everyday, as you do. And I ask God everyday to forgive my sin and guess what, He does!
You are very good at posting scripture and it is amazing how quickly it is done. Copy and paste, over and over and over, proves nothing.
I thought I said the Books of Enoch claim to be written by Enoch and that is impossible because Enoch was dead for what.....2000 years?
Jude and Enoch were written very close together, so it is unclear which was written first, however, Jude is said to have been about 60-66 A.D. and Enoch consists of several books - some whose chapters appear to have been written by several different people - at different times. The one in question, I believe is said to have been written before 70 A.D.
So, the dating makes it very likely Enoch's author was quoting Jude.
The difficulty in setting a specific date is, you need to know, not only which book you are dealing with, but also which chapter!
Here's the nail in the coffin:
A quote is repeating the words of someone else and giving the reference. Jude said he was quoting Enoch! The books of Enoch were not written by Enoch! Therefore, Jude was not quoting from the Book of Enoch.
When I say I am quoting a person, I quote the words of that person, I don't not quote from a book or movie that has info on that person as.
Jude and Enoch were written very close together, so it is unclear which was written first, however, Jude is said to have been about 60-66 A.D. and Enoch consists of several books - some whose chapters appear to have been written by several different people - at different times. The one in question, I believe is said to have been written before 70 A.D.
So, the dating makes it very likely Enoch's author was quoting Jude.
The difficulty in setting a specific date is, you need to know, not only which book you are dealing with, but also which chapter!
Here's the nail in the coffin:
A quote is repeating the words of someone else and giving the reference. Jude said he was quoting Enoch! The books of Enoch were not written by Enoch! Therefore, Jude was not quoting from the Book of Enoch.
When I say I am quoting a person, I quote the words of that person, I don't not quote from a book or movie that has info on that person as.
If I no longer respond to some of you, it's not an oversight on my part. It's deliberate!
That's the great thing about forums, I don't have to talk to everyone.
I was kind of enjoying this discussion and would like to start moving in that direction again.
Don't be offended, it's not you it's me.
That's the great thing about forums, I don't have to talk to everyone.
I was kind of enjoying this discussion and would like to start moving in that direction again.
Don't be offended, it's not you it's me.
This is a FRIENDLY Christian-only forum. We are not the place for rude accusations. If you cannot comply with our terms, then you are in violation of the site rules and our Statement of Faith. If your goal is to throw accusations, then please do so somewhere else. If you wish to continue in fellowship with us, the we will welcome your opinions.
Back on topic:
There are different canons for the Christian Bible. Quite some time ago I did a lot of research into it:
The oldest Old Testament canons of Scripture agree with Jewish and Protestant Bibles of today. Their is however, an appearance of a discrepancy in the number of books, due to the way the books were counted - but there is no real discrepancy, the oldest canons all agree, and it is the same canon we use today.
1. The oldest canon of the Jewish OT is 2 Esdras (Vg:4 Esdras): It claims 24 OT books (Vulgate & Peshitta).
Flavius Josephus: [37- 100 ] claims 22 books, but names only the categories: 5 Law, 13 History, 4 Hymns.
Melito of Sardis (d 170 ad) also claims 22 books.
2. The Catholic Encyclopedia says: " St. Jerome, speaking of the canon of Melito, quotes Tertullian's statement that he was esteemed a prophet by many of the faithful." and "St. Melito, Bishop of Sardis (c. 170), first drew up a list of the canonical books of the Old Testament ......." (a prophet should infallibly know which books are canon)
*It should be noted, the Catholic Bible has seven more books than Protestant Bibles. If anyone is interested:
3. The Catholic Encyclopedia says: The "Protocanonical (are) those sacred writings which have been always received by Christendom without dispute. The protocanonical books of the Old Testament correspond with those of the Bible of the Hebrews, and the Old Testament as received by Protestants."
AND
"[The deuterocanonical (deuteros, "second") are those whose Scriptural character was contested in some quarters,"
"These consist of seven books: Tobias, Judith, Baruch, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, First and Second Machabees; also certain additions to Esther and Daniel."
4. When Jerome added them, he placed them apart from inspired Scriptures stating those 7 books were not of inspired authority as were the rest.
There are different canons for the Christian Bible. Quite some time ago I did a lot of research into it:
The oldest Old Testament canons of Scripture agree with Jewish and Protestant Bibles of today. Their is however, an appearance of a discrepancy in the number of books, due to the way the books were counted - but there is no real discrepancy, the oldest canons all agree, and it is the same canon we use today.
1. The oldest canon of the Jewish OT is 2 Esdras (Vg:4 Esdras): It claims 24 OT books (Vulgate & Peshitta).
Flavius Josephus: [37- 100 ] claims 22 books, but names only the categories: 5 Law, 13 History, 4 Hymns.
Melito of Sardis (d 170 ad) also claims 22 books.
2. The Catholic Encyclopedia says: " St. Jerome, speaking of the canon of Melito, quotes Tertullian's statement that he was esteemed a prophet by many of the faithful." and "St. Melito, Bishop of Sardis (c. 170), first drew up a list of the canonical books of the Old Testament ......." (a prophet should infallibly know which books are canon)
*It should be noted, the Catholic Bible has seven more books than Protestant Bibles. If anyone is interested:
3. The Catholic Encyclopedia says: The "Protocanonical (are) those sacred writings which have been always received by Christendom without dispute. The protocanonical books of the Old Testament correspond with those of the Bible of the Hebrews, and the Old Testament as received by Protestants."
AND
"[The deuterocanonical (deuteros, "second") are those whose Scriptural character was contested in some quarters,"
"These consist of seven books: Tobias, Judith, Baruch, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, First and Second Machabees; also certain additions to Esther and Daniel."
4. When Jerome added them, he placed them apart from inspired Scriptures stating those 7 books were not of inspired authority as were the rest.
I LOVE I & II Machabees. I really, really, really do. There is so much important information in there, it makes me sad that we don't include them or study them enough. III & IV Machabees....well, I can mostly do without. I've read the rest of those, but didn't particularly find anything new or groundshaking, but I could have just missed it at the time. Perhaps it is time to go back through them again.
Both Jerome and Luther included these books in their Bible translations. Of course the books were appended separately from the inspired Books, and both men included commentary stating these books are not inspired and should not be used for determining doctrine, but can be edifying.
These seven extra books were eventually removed from Protestant Bibles due to high printing costs.
I have to agree that our bible today is totally the inspired Word of God. Are there certain bibles that go beyond? Absolutely!, but I honestly feel that God places in our heart the ability to discern what is inspired and what is not.
Too many times, some, are only seeking the 'feel good' and there is plenty of that out there. And there are those who insist on making God's Word say what benefits them, which we all know is against God. In reading, and more importantly studying God's Word our hearts must be open to God's guidance through the Holy Spirit. If we stagger down the wrong road, it is our fault, not God's.
Too many times, some, are only seeking the 'feel good' and there is plenty of that out there. And there are those who insist on making God's Word say what benefits them, which we all know is against God. In reading, and more importantly studying God's Word our hearts must be open to God's guidance through the Holy Spirit. If we stagger down the wrong road, it is our fault, not God's.
Is it felt that this is the only reason they were deleted?
Both Jerome and Luther included these books in their Bible translations. Of course the books were appended separately from the inspired Books, and both men included commentary stating these books are not inspired and should not be used for determining doctrine, but can be edifying.
These seven extra books were eventually removed from Protestant Bibles due to high printing costs.
They may or may not be inspired. In the case of the Machabees, they are quite well known to contain several exaggerations and embellishments, but the historic information really shows us so much about the culture leading up to the birth of Christ. How else could we possibly know why the Jews had such a unique independence within the Roman culture, or why the Pharisees had so much power? It fills in that gap wonderfully, and the Machabean wars should definitely be studied IMO.