Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 99

Thread: Concerned Follower Of Jesus!

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    583

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CRodgers View Post
    Paul did not teach Torah?

    First off, there was no New Testament bible back then. When they taught scripture to the new converts and brought them back to the synagogue, what do you think they taught them out of?
    Baloney. Paul and the other apostles taught from the OT to prove that Jesus was the promised Messiah.

    They did not bring new believers 'back to the synagogue' . . . they got kicked out of countless synagogues as well as the Temple for preaching Jesus Christ an Him crucified and risen!

    Seriously.

    As for there being no New Testament back then, the Apostles were writing it in the form of letters to the Body of Christ - assemblies of believers scattered about. Their letters were copied and passed around from assembly to assembly. Those letters are the same instructions to the Body of Christ that we have now!

    I know we have been brought up in a modern western mindset but please don't let that cloud our ability to see stuff like this.

    Paul when he was arrested because he was accused of corrupting the temple by bringing Greeks into it said the following.

    Act 22:3 I am verily a man, Jew, born in Tarsus, in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.

    Not only was Paul a Jew but he was a Pharisee.

    He said "I am a Jew" (Present Tense)

    Standing before the Sanhedrin, Paul identified himself as a Pharisee in the present tense (Acts 23:6) NOT as a "Christian" when he said "Brothers, I myself am a Pharisee and the son of a Pharisee!"

    Paul even said in Acts 24:14 "I continue to believe everything that accords with the Torah and everything written in the Prophets."

    In Acts 25:8 Paul said "I have committed no offense, not against the Torah to which the Jews hold, not against the Temple, not against the emperor." Although free from condemnation through the shed blood fo Yeshua, he walked in obedience to the Torah as a Jew.
    1 Corinthians 9:19-23
    19 For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; 20 and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; 21 to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; 22 to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. 23 Now this I do for the gospelís sake, that I may be partaker of it with you.
    Paul NEVER sought to put Gentiles under the Law. NEVER.


    When Paul finally gets to Rome, he "Called a meeting of the local Jewish leaders. When they had gathered, he said to them: "Brothers, although I have done nothing against either our people or the traditions of our fathers, I was made a prisoner..." (Acts 28:17)

    Paul not only walked and kept the law but taught it as well.

    Acts 25:8 While he answered for himself, Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Caesar, have I offended any thing at all
    Tell us, please, what did the Law keeping Jews do with Paul?

    -JGIG


    "If you've lost sight of the Cross in your journey, it's time to alter course."

    www.joyfullygrowingingrace.wordpress.com

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    593

    Default

    [QUOTE]
    Quote Originally Posted by Kathe View Post
    Don't you know???? Jesus and the disciples all walked around with the KJV under their arms. J/K of course.
    You probably think that Jesus and the Apostles walked around with mein kampf tucked under their arms
    Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD [are] pure words: [as] silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

    Psa 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

    Isa 66:2For all those [things] hath mine hand made, and all those [things] have been, saith the LORD: but to this [man] will I look, [even] to [him that is] poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    894

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BloodySwordIsa63 View Post
    It is not a question of 'if', they all differ.
    Let's clear up some misconceptions I see in your post.


    So, when one says 'THE Greek text says...in reality there is no such thing as'THE' Greek text. He might be saying it because 'every 'scholar' says it, or he might be lying, who knows?

    Now the question is ' how do I know if 'the bible' is the word of God'

    Answer:Based on manuscrpt evidence, I believe that the Textus Receptus, from which 'MAINLY' the AV1611 comes, is 'the Bible'
    Based on what?


    This of course throws out two manuscripts( and possibly three) that are used as a basis for the modern versions.

    Those two mss would be Siniaticus and Vaticanus. Both Egyptian , Alexandrian Roman Catholic texts that contain the Apocrypha as part of the inspired canon.
    And now we get to the meat of the misconceptions.


    The Roman Catholic council of trent, said that if one did not accept the apocrypha as part of the OT canon, they were 'anathma' ( which means about as much as a pile of feathers)
    This is not presented correctly.

    The council of Trent did not declare anything new, which is what is implied.

    The canon of scripture was decided long ago in the early centuries of the Church, affirmed by several councils. Included in those very early canons are what you refer to as the apocrypha.

    Those books were part of the sacred canon of scripture for all christians until the time of Luther.

    Luther was in a debate with Eck. Eck continued to argue from scripture for the doctrine of prayers for the dead, using Maccabbes. Luther, out of desperation, declared those books not to be scripture in order to try to rob Eck of his scriptural support.

    So, to justify his action, he turned to the Old Testament "canon" decided upon by a very anti christian council of rabis who escaped the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, who were appalled by the strong use christians made of their sacred texts in the Septuagint, which included these "apochryphal" books, and which the zealots bringing down the wrath of the Roman Empire upon the Jews also used for their scriptural support. These rabis needed to get rid of the Septuagint because of their perceived danger to the continuing existance of the Jewish people threatened by both Christianity conversion and the Roman Empire.

    So they CLOSED the canon of old testament scripture for the first time ever .. and that somehwere around 100AD - maybe later. .well after the establishment of the Church.

    They then created a new Greek translation to replace the Septuagint.

    So Luther turns to this anti-christian decision to limit the old testament scriptures to defend against the Christian use of these same books he wanted out of the bible, the christian use which had been going on for 1500 years. And no real valid reason to do so.

    He also removed James, Hebrews and Revelation. But he was strongly pressured to put them back as he had gone too far.

    The Council of Trent merely AFFIRMED what Christianity had always accepted and acknowledged as scripture against the attack on it by the Reformers, with Luther leading the way.

    And indeed today, the vast majority of Christianity still affirms and uses these same books as scripture still in keeping with Jesus, the Apostles and the early christains and their councils.

    Now, how do I know the KJV is the Bible?
    Easy.
    Your catholic forfathers killed people for posessing a copy of the Bible that preceded the KJV that used the same manuscripts to produce such Bibles.
    More misconceptions and misinformation.

    They dug up William Tyndale and burned his bones because he dared to produce a Bible in English.
    Again, false. There many translations of the scriptures in the english language precurors that predate Tyndale. The Catholic Church encouraged the translation of scriptures into the venacular as well as making them available to all to read.

    I shall not go on with the crimes done in the name of the Pope, lest I offend... but it is a fact that Hitler, and the rest of the high command of the SS were not fundamental baptists.
    I am sure they would simply be more of the same misconceptiosn and perpetuation of lies that have been around for hundreds of years ever since the reformation's war of words against the Catholic Church.

    I doubt you can show me anything I haven't seen before and researched to get to the bottom of it.

    And you try even to, not so subtely, introduce the myth of "Hitler's Pope"

    May I suggest you familiarize yourself with the reality rather than the mytn?

    For instance:

    The words of a prominent Nazi himself on the matter:
    An analysis of Pius's 1942 Christmas message by Reinhard Heydrich's Reich Central Security Office concluded:
    In a manner never known before, the Pope has repudiated the National Socialist New European Order. His radio allocution was a masterpiece of clerical falsification of the National Socialist Weltanschauung...the Pope does not refer to the National Socialists in Germany by name, but his speech is one long attack on everything we stand for...God, he says, regards all peoples and races as worthy of the same consideration. Here he is clearly speaking on behalf of the Jews...That this speech is directed exclusively against the New Order in Europe as seen in National Socialism is clear in the papal statement that mankind owes a debt to 'all who during the war have lost their Fatherland and who, although personally blameless have, simply on account of their nationality and origin, been killed or reduced to utter destitution.' Here he is virtually accusing the German people of injustice towards the Jews, and makes himself the mouthpiece of the Jewish war criminals.
    And from the Jewish Virtual Library:
    What is the case against Pius XII? In brief, that as head of one of the most powerful moral forces on earth he committed an unspeakable sin of omission by not issuing a formal statement condemning the Nazis' genocidal slaughter of the Jews, and that his silence was motivated by reasons considered in modern times as base: political exigency, economic interests, and personal ambition.


    What is the case for him? That in relation to the insane behavior of the Nazis, from overlords to self-styled cogs like Eichmann, he did everything humanly possible to save lives and alleviate suffering among the Jews; that a formal statement would have provoked the Nazis to brutal retaliation, and would substantially have thwarted further Catholic action on behalf of Jews. To the Sacred College of Cardinals Pius XII wrote on June 2, 1943: "Every word that We addressed to the responsible authorities and every one of Our public declarations had to be seriously weighed and considered in the interest of the persecuted themselves in order not to make their situation unwittingly even more difficult and unbearable."1 . . . .


    There is considerable documentation in support of Pope Pius' fear that a formal statement would worsen, not improve, conditions for the persecuted. Ernst von Weizsacker, the German ambassador to the Vatican during World War II, wrote in his memoirs:
    Not even institutions of worldwide importance, such as the International Red Cross or the Roman Catholic Church saw fit to appeal to Hitler in a general way on behalf of the Jews or to call openly on the sympathies of the world. It was precisely because they wanted to help the Jews that these organizations refrained from making any general and public appeals; for they were afraid that they would injure rather than help the Jews thereby.2
    The possibility of a public statement from the Vatican moved German Foreign Secretary Joachim von Ribbentrop to wire von Weizsacker on January 24, 1943:
    Should the Vatican either politically or propagandistically oppose Germany, it should be made unmistakably clear that worsening of relations between Germany and the Vatican would not at all have an adverse effect on Germany alone. On the contrary, the German government would have sufficient effective propaganda material as well as retaliatory measures at its disposal to counteract each attempted move by the Vatican.3 . . . .
    Pius learned precisely how firm this German threat was from the protest of the Dutch bishops against seizures of the Jews, for immediately following that protest and, as later confirmed by an SS officer, in direct answer to it, the Nazis stepped up their anti-Jewish activities in the Netherlands;
    Pius and his bishops and nuncios in Nazi-occupied or -dominated countries knew that, like a sane man faced with a gun-carrier threatening to shoot, Hitler and his cohorts could not be considered civilized human beings.


    The Pope's decision to refrain from a formal condemnation of the Nazi's treatment of Jews was approved by many Jews. One Berlin couple, Mr. and Mrs. Wolfsson, came to Rome after having been in prison and concentration camps. They took shelter in a convent of German nuns while Pius himself, whom they had seen during an audience, arranged for them to escape to Spain. Recalling those terrible days, the Wolfssons recently declared:
    None of us wanted the Pope to take an open stand. We were all fugitives, and fugitives do not wish to be pointed at. The Gestapo would have become more excited and would have intensified its inquisitions. If the Pope had protested, Rome would have become the center of attention. It was better that the Pope said nothing. We all shared this opinion at the time, and this is still our conviction today.6
    In a letter in the London Times of May 15, 1963, Sir Alec Randall, a former British representative at the Vatican, comments:
    Others besides Pius XII had to face a similar agonizing dilemma. The Polish cardinal, Prince Sapieha, begged Pius XII not to make public protests, as they only increased the persecution of his people. The International Red Cross refrained from protest because they feared that their work in German-controlled countries would be stopped. The British and American Governments were accused of callous indifference to the fate of the Jews because they failed to take them out of Nazi clutches before it was too late. To have done what was asked of them would have prolonged the war.
    This is jut a smattering of what is in the article at


    The Jewish Virtual Librry
    A Question of Judgment: Pius XII & the Jews



    By Dr. Joseph L. Lichten





    Additionally, the Jews call Pope Pius XII their best friend.

    This book is a clear look into this period of history, written by a RABBI!
    THE MYTH OF HITLER'S POPE:
    Rabbi David Dalin has given us a book that makes at least three important contributions. First, it provides information that refutes the popular notion of the past several years that Pope Pius XII was an anti-Semite and complicit with the Nazi Regime. He demonstrates it to be not only false, but a deliberate misrepresentation of the truth. A simple example is the famous photograph on the jacket of both the English and American editions of the Pope leaving what looks like a Nazi meeting. In fact, it was a diplomatic meeting with Hindenburg in 1927! Both before the Nazis were in power and before Pacelli had been elected Pope.

    This book provides evidence upon evidence of how Pope Pius XII walked a swaying tightrope to save thousands of Jews while avoiding provoking the Nazis into attacks upon Catholics. He wrote encyclicals, gave Jews asylum even to the point of decloistering a nunnery so it could shelter Jewish boys. The author also points out the use by these authors of bad translations of texts and then carefully trimming these to twist the meaning to their purposes. Rabbi Dalin also demonstrates the good relations that Pope Pius and the Church had with Jewish leaders and how those leaders even asked the Pope to not be more provocative in his public statements and actions.

    Second, the author demonstrates how these authors have as part of their agenda an attack on the Catholic Church and are using political means to try and foist their liberal agenda on the Church in all sorts of ways: changes in doctrine, changes in Church governance, changes in policy and all to the purpose of bending others to their views. We see their double standards in purporting anti-Semitism onto Pope Pius XII while ignoring the very real and very great anti-Semitism in the Muslim world from WWII to the present. Some of these authors have even supported the political motives of Yassir Arafat and denied his self-proclaimed anti-Semitism and acts of violence against Jews.

    The third benefit flows from the first two. We get a better sense of where some of the battle lines are drawn in our present culture wars, the tactics being used, and in the service of what strategy. It is fascinating to see the inversion of values in our modern culture where what was called good is now called false and deviant and what never was good or an ideal is now held up as a virtue worth fighting for. Rabbi Dalin does us all a service by telling the truth in this concise and informative book.


    The Myth of Hitler's Pope: How Pope Pius XII Rescued Jews from the Nazis

    http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...53665?v=glance
    Hatred for the Catholic Church is not a very sure foundation from which to argue.


    Peace

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    894

    Default

    [quote=BloodySwordIsa63;1493453]


    You probably think that Jesus and the Apostles walked around with mein kampf tucked under their arms
    Actually, they used the Greek Septuagint version of scriptures. :)

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    583

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CRodgers View Post
    You are right Melodious Musician.

    It was a part of Him.
    NO. Jesus Christ is not 'part' of God. He is God. "The Word was with God, and the Word WAS God."

    Another interesting tidbit of information I would like to share is when Yeshua said I am the Aleph and the Tov.

    If you look at the very beginning verse in Gen 1:1 you see the Aleph and Tov together. In Hebrew it's called Eth or a direct object pointer. Meaning this.

    In the beginning G-d created ->by Yeshua -> the Heaven's and the Earth.

    I believe John had this revelation and thus mentioned in verse 3.


    Jhn 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
    You are teaching a concept taught in Kabbalah; that the world was created by the power of the Hebrew alef-bet.

    It was not.

    When Jesus says He is the Alpha and Omega (just love how you rewrote that in the Hebrew, how very subtle), He is stating that He is the Beginning and the End . . . not that there is some mystical power in Hebrew letters!

    -JGIG


    "If you've lost sight of the Cross in your journey, it's time to alter course."

    www.joyfullygrowingingrace.wordpress.com

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    894

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JGIG View Post
    Baloney. Paul and the other apostles taught from the OT to prove that Jesus was the promised Messiah.
    They used the Greek Septuagint predominately. Additionally, they recognized the Christian writings to be scripture as well.

    Peter tells us Paul's letters, for example, were considered scripture:
    2 Peter 3:16
    He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
    A misconception that is very common is that the canon of scriptures was closed at the time of Christ and the apostles. That is an unfortunate misunderstanding of the facts. Scripture was never closed for the Jews until the supposed council of Jamnia around 100AD .. and then the Jews argued over that attempt for 500 years and the Ethiopian Jews never accepted it, and still use the Greek Septuagint.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    894

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kathe View Post
    If that was enough then why did God give us 66 books of instruction, teaching and prophecy?
    Did He give us ONLY 66 books?

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    239

    Default

    [quote=Theresej;1493455]
    Quote Originally Posted by BloodySwordIsa63 View Post

    Actually, they used the Greek Septuagint version of scriptures. :)
    It was a joke Theresej. I know what they used.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    894

    Default

    [quote=Kathe;1493467]
    Quote Originally Posted by Theresej View Post

    It was a joke Theresej. I know what they used.
    And I smiled :)

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    141

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JGIG View Post
    Yep.

    Paul only becomes 'hard to understand' when someone tells you, "Oh, he really didn't mean THAT . . . he really meant THIS . . . " Echos of the "Did God really say . . . ?" lie anyone?

    -JGIG
    As someone very familiar with many law-'keeping' sects, having been raised in one from toddlerhood and having struggled for decades with the outright carnage to the simple Gospel of Jesus Christ these self-professed law-'keepers' do, I can say with authority that that is IT in a nutshell. "Did God really say", indeed.
    "The most regular and bigoted adherence to the forms of religion furnishes no evidence in itself that there is any true piety at heart, or that true religion has any actual control over the soul. It is much easier for people to observe the forms of religion than it is to bring the heart under its controlling influence." - Albert Barnes on 2Timothy 3:5

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •