|
|
Post by lionofgod on Apr 20, 2021 0:01:42 GMT -6
Just thought I'd throw this out there for ya'll to consider.
"having" the "mark" of the "beast" on your "forehead" and your "right hand". Since most all prophesy is as figurative as it is literal.
A figurative "having" could easily be seen as a representation "choice to", indicating an act of free will.
"mark" is also used to indicate ownership or allegiance, "make your mark on life", "sign here with your mark" (pre-literacy) "the mark of a good soldier/teacher/follower/person is their honesty etc."
"beast" is also representative of sin, "beast of burden" etc.
"forehead" is a compound word, "fore" meaning before, and head which is the control center of the body, housing the mind, the place where our choices are decided, our "thoughts"
"right hand" is now and has always been the dominant hand of the population, therefore it it the hand used to do works. The hand is often used to indicate work. We eveen have some street sign wornings for workers with gloves and hats on them to signify work in progress.
So, applying basic reasoning, it would read, in intent, as "making a choice", "to represent sin", "in my thoughts" and "my works".
I'd say that sums it up rather well, and at the very least it is totally in keeping with the teachings of Jesus. Just an observation to consider when looking for this prophecy fulfillment.
|
|
|
|
Post by mike on Apr 20, 2021 7:32:01 GMT -6
lionofgod I think its both too. An act of the will and acting upon the will. Will it be an actual mark on the hand or head, maybe. But I do not doubt those who are willing will also be working diligently to promote self worship, man as savior rhetoric up until they continue to curse God for the plagues, right to the end...
|
|
|
|
Post by lionofgod on Apr 20, 2021 18:25:17 GMT -6
mike, After studying the actual religion and belief system that developed what we now call "Christianity", I am faced with evidence that the Hebrew religion, which is the "Old Testament", is a separate teaching than the one of Jesus. The few writings of Christ that were actually included into the "New Testament", are only the ones which lend credit to the pre-existing beliefs of the Hebrews/Jewish peoples. Ironically, the bible we now consider the absolute word, is only the absolute word of the Hebrew belief, not Jesus. Proof is in the writings of all the 12 apostles, as well as Jesus mother, Mary, and brothers. They all tell a story different than the Hebrew/Jewish one. Now id the bible we now use, is trustworthy as be believe, why are not all the apostles writings contained within? The bible itself says that only those twelve and family were present to witness and hear Jesus after resurrection. Why would those accounts be considered against the faith, if they are proven by the bible itself? Jesus gifted His Spirit to only those people, and they are the ones charged with spreading Jesus messages to the world. So, Jesus himself then, in the existing bible, instructs us to follow their teachings. But only Pauls, and select pieces of a couple others are included in the bible. A couple biblical facts 1. all apostles and Mary agree to the events that took place after Jesus resurrection. ALL 2. Those accounts all say that each was miraculously brought/transported to Jesus and Mary 3. All agree that Jesus taught them his message and had them write it down 4. All agree that at some point, James and Peter were addressed separate from the rest 5. All agree that Jesus took John aside and after returning, told them all John had been given the knowledge of Jesus words. 6. All asked John for his "secret" 7. John's accounting of Jesus message is different than the rest except for Peter and James and Mary 8. Mary confirms John's accounting. James and Peter do as well (to a point) Even Pauls accounting, that was not included with his other writings, backs this up. So, from all this biblical and scriptural evidence, we can definitively say that Jesus felt, as he said many times in the bible, that even the apostles, whom he chose, didn't fully understand his message. None but John the apostle/evangelist. Now if despite Jesus own words, you/we think we know Jesus better than the only one He chose to shed His Truth, then we are right where we should be. If however, you concede that the only possible people that are true and trustworthy of carrying His message, is the one He chose, I'd suggest you do as I am and begin learning ALL the teachings of Jesus, not just the ones the Hebrew priests and scribes (Pharisees and Saducees) have chosen for you. My soul is my personal responsibility, not those that came before or after me. God didn't grant me His wisdom, so that I could rely on someone else's interpretation of Him is. He tells us himself, if you will only read and believe. I stop here, for any deeper and will will be faced with choosing doctrine or spirituality, Jesus teaches spirituality.
|
|
|
|
Post by mike on Apr 21, 2021 6:16:11 GMT -6
lionofgod you have me at a loss here as Im not certain I follow you. The Hebrew religion of Jesus day was not biblical Judaism (or as others call it Torah). It was oral tradition plus Talmudic Judaism, which is markedly different than what Moses instructed. Jesus tells the Pharisees theyd believe Him if they believed Moses (John 5:45-46) but they didnt believe the Torah, they followed the Talmud/oral torah. Perhaps consider this vantage point in your studies.
|
|
|
|
Post by stormyknight on Apr 21, 2021 9:52:15 GMT -6
mike , After studying the actual religion and belief system that developed what we now call "Christianity", I am faced with evidence that the Hebrew religion, which is the "Old Testament", is a separate teaching than the one of Jesus. The few writings of Christ that were actually included into the "New Testament", are only the ones which lend credit to the pre-existing beliefs of the Hebrews/Jewish peoples. Ironically, the bible we now consider the absolute word, is only the absolute word of the Hebrew belief, not Jesus. Proof is in the writings of all the 12 apostles, as well as Jesus mother, Mary, and brothers. They all tell a story different than the Hebrew/Jewish one. Now id the bible we now use, is trustworthy as be believe, why are not all the apostles writings contained within? The bible itself says that only those twelve and family were present to witness and hear Jesus after resurrection. Why would those accounts be considered against the faith, if they are proven by the bible itself? Jesus gifted His Spirit to only those people, and they are the ones charged with spreading Jesus messages to the world. So, Jesus himself then, in the existing bible, instructs us to follow their teachings. But only Pauls, and select pieces of a couple others are included in the bible. A couple biblical facts 1. all apostles and Mary agree to the events that took place after Jesus resurrection. ALL 2. Those accounts all say that each was miraculously brought/transported to Jesus and Mary 3. All agree that Jesus taught them his message and had them write it down 4. All agree that at some point, James and Peter were addressed separate from the rest 5. All agree that Jesus took John aside and after returning, told them all John had been given the knowledge of Jesus words. 6. All asked John for his "secret" 7. John's accounting of Jesus message is different than the rest except for Peter and James and Mary 8. Mary confirms John's accounting. James and Peter do as well (to a point) Even Pauls accounting, that was not included with his other writings, backs this up. So, from all this biblical and scriptural evidence, we can definitively say that Jesus felt, as he said many times in the bible, that even the apostles, whom he chose, didn't fully understand his message. None but John the apostle/evangelist. Now if despite Jesus own words, you/we think we know Jesus better than the only one He chose to shed His Truth, then we are right where we should be. If however, you concede that the only possible people that are true and trustworthy of carrying His message, is the one He chose, I'd suggest you do as I am and begin learning ALL the teachings of Jesus, not just the ones the Hebrew priests and scribes (Pharisees and Saducees) have chosen for you. My soul is my personal responsibility, not those that came before or after me. God didn't grant me His wisdom, so that I could rely on someone else's interpretation of Him is. He tells us himself, if you will only read and believe. I stop here, for any deeper and will will be faced with choosing doctrine or spirituality, Jesus teaches spirituality. Are you referring to the Torah? The Law and the Prophets? If so, then like mike , said, the Pharisee's followed the 'do as I say' philosophy. From what I grew up in, the Catholic church does pretty much the same, not teaching the scriptures per say, but teaching their interpretation. But, the bible that we read today, whether it be the KJV, the NKJV, the New American, the Ryrie, what ever, those books of the New Testament, were discussed and fought over which ones would be included by all the bishops and holy men of the day at the Council of Nicea, in A.D.(or C.E.) 325 presided over by Emperor Constantine. I would be weak in my faith if I did not believe that God, Jesus Himself, did not watch over and influence the decisions made at that council. After all, His Word is what was at stake there. God had to make sure that "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work." 2 Tim. 3:16-17 I firmly believe, for the purpose of teaching, reproof, correction and training, all the books included in the Christian bible are exactly what God wants to be there. All the other 'gospels' and writings are not because they are not necessary to have a full understanding of His Word. That doesn't mean they aren't good for research and study, though, but it must be remembered that they are not included for a reason. What is the reason? That's a question for Jesus. |
|
|
|
Post by lionofgod on Apr 21, 2021 13:18:47 GMT -6
Are you referring to the Torah? The Law and the Prophets? If so, then like mike , said, the Pharisee's followed the 'do as I say' philosophy. From what I grew up in, the Catholic church does pretty much the same, not teaching the scriptures per say, but teaching their interpretation. AgreedBut, the bible that we read today, whether it be the KJV, the NKJV, the New American, the Ryrie, what ever, those books of the New Testament, were discussed and fought over which ones would be included by all the bishops and holy men of the day at the Council of Nicea, in A.D.(or C.E.) 325 presided over by Emperor Constantine. Also agreed, but it should be pointed out that those same elders and Catholics that we disagree with, are the same that compiled the book.
I would be weak in my faith if I did not believe that God, Jesus Himself, did not watch over and influence the decisions made at that council. After all, His Word is what was at stake there. God had to make sure that "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work." 2 Tim. 3:16-17 SCRIP'TURE, noun [Latin scriptura, from scribo, to write.]
1. In its primary sense, a writing; any thing written.2. Appropriately, and by way of distinction, the books of the Old and New Testament; the Bible. The word is used either in the singular or plural number, to denote the sacred writings or divine oracles, called sacred or holy, as proceeding from God and containing sacred doctrines and precepts.I firmly believe, for the purpose of teaching, reproof, correction and training, all the books included in the Christian bible are exactly what God wants to be there. All the other 'gospels' and writings are not because they are not necessary to have a full understanding of His Word. The bible was yet to be compiled when 2 Timothy was written, so the "regular" use is applicable. That means any documented teachings and writings of both ANY of the apostles, or Jesus himself or His virgin mother, are to be considered scripture by the Christian Church. According to our own scriptures. However the opposite thing is being stated, as if it were factual, simply because that's the commonly help belief. The bible was not existant in Jesus time, so scripture never mention it at all. They used texts that were sent to the individual churches, copied and sent on to further churches. no churches before the collected texts of the bible, refused to teach the texts from the apostles because they weren't personally present at writing. They took them as gospel, because they knew the person giving it was trustworthy and reliable. Since ALL apostles were dead before this collection was put together, No books are eactually completely proven as the authors were all passed on. However, the texts in question were circulated not only to a church, but mant, and also were taught in the early church of Christians. Historical references abound for this from many Ancient Christian authors, even those that had a personal relationship with the apostle. How mucg greater verification can you expect. The book of Mathew is in the bible, even though it's author is long known to be of more than one person and generally thought to be an edited copy of a copy. This is good enough for faith, but a freind of an apostle references an actual writing by that apostle and that gets ignored as non essential? Is there some unwritten rule that states that we are not supposed to seek out Jesus word and teachings? Is there a scale that lets me know what words He spoke, that can be considered truthful and which are lies? I'm acting on the given that any and all words of Jesus are immensely valuable on all levels, regardless of any previous religious bias. Which apparently by the sound of it, all seem to believe that the Pharisees and Saducees and Catholics had no possible motive not to be truthful and ignored any existing beliefs that they already had.That doesn't mean they aren't good for research and study, though, but it must be remembered that they are not included for a reason. What is the reason? That's a question for Jesus. I suppose that is the point brother, Jesus already answered me in the actual teachings that he did leave. I'm ok with being alone in utilizing them. Ironically His other writings cover this issue as well. LOL I'm not converting people here, just hoping some see the sense in actually reading and comparing/contrasting all Jesus words. Not blindly following decisions made by people that even changed there own minds on what books went into their previous bible, as well as this one. Figured that would in any reasonable situation, be common sense. |
|
|
|
Post by stormyknight on Apr 21, 2021 14:45:02 GMT -6
lionofgod, "just hoping some see the sense in actually reading and comparing/contrasting all Jesus words." For what it's worth, I have a copy of "The lost books of the bible", which contains the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Mary Magdelene, and all three books of Enoch as well as digital versions of the Book of Jasher and Jubilees. The book about the lost books is interesting, but I don't give it a whole lot of credence. They are all good for reference. I'm wondering about something, though. You keep referring to Jesus' writings? I'm not aware of any actual 'pen to paper' writing that Jesus did other than the whole Word of God. Also, Jesus' virgin mother? You do know Jesus had brothers, right? James, Joseph, Simon and Judas were known scripturally, but he possibly had sisters too. Mary was only a virgin when Jesus was conceived and eventually born. After that she was a mom like all other moms of the world. She is not the 'queen of heaven' that the Catholic church would have you believe.
|
|
|
|
Post by Natalie on Apr 21, 2021 16:02:34 GMT -6
Since Timothy would be read by many for years after it was written, couldn't God have included that part so it was relevant after the bible was compiled?
I would like to know where you get this: "The book of Mathew is in the bible, even though it's author is long known to be of more than one person and generally thought to be an edited copy of a copy."
|
|
|
|
Post by lionofgod on Apr 21, 2021 19:04:06 GMT -6
Since Timothy would be read by many for years after it was written, couldn't God have included that part so it was relevant after the bible was compiled?
I would like to know where you get this: "The book of Mathew is in the bible, even though it's author is long known to be of more than one person and generally thought to be an edited copy of a copy."
I hope this is acceptable to you. I just grabbed the first half dozen I saw. There are lots more, it's as easy as using search bar.  Mathews authorship, as well as all the others in the bible were written after the death of the individuals for the most part. so hard for dead to write. There are however books that the same people that authenticated the gospels, authenticated those too, but they are not canon, so they are apparently not useful as the words of inspired text, even if they do contain words of Jesus. Paul, for example, James, John, Andrew, Peter, Joseph, Thaddeus, Thomas, Mary, Philip and Simon. All repeat the same accountings, and all deemed not inspired in spite of being apostles and first hand witnesses to Jesus. Feel free to let me know how all the apostles have no knowledge our beneficial input to Jesus teachings, because they did not get included in the compiled text. Makes me wonder why god would teach 12 if only 1/3 of them had inspired writings, also, since they were all the only messengers and the first to receive the Holy ghost from Jesus, doesn't that automatically qualify you as an authority on the subject? They were welcomed and there words were all considered to be gospel by the churches and by Jesus. But I'm sure the compilers knew this as well, yet left them all out. They are not repetitive or teachings already in the bible either, so one is to assume, that not all Christs teachings are canon. Which seems ludicrous on it's face, but true all the same. Another funny thing, the scriptural texts that couldn't at the time be dated, are easily carbon dated now. Also, Origen, Clement, Luther, Polycarp and many founding Christian fathers quoted from the books that tare not in the bible, and they were taught in the churches as well, so it appears doctrine can be changed when it is beneficial to the churches involved. Look inside your bibles, how many revisions have there been? The dictionary, the school books, the college texts, the business contracts, all items in our life get periodically updated with the most current evidence and proof available as we go. But not in this case. I believe there has been no person or group since the canon was formed, that has even gone back to the original books and tested or even verified any of them. Now I can't prove who wrote Mathew, it may well have been him. The point is, if authorship is the question, then the books within are no better than the books without, since both have reliable sourcing and witnesses. So, it comes down to do Jesus words and teachings matter or can you just select what ever writings of Him that fit your beliefs? You fall squarely in the latter camp. I give equal weight to Jesus words in ANY book. Provided there is corroboration. Which there is by all apostles and Mary. So if all the apostles agree and Mary agrees to, and the only people that do not, are the compilers, how do rationalize and justify ignoring them and even dismissing them? Isn't the agreed upon words of all 12 apostles and their accounts of Jesus enough proof? The only better proof is for Jesus himself to come down and sign you a copy to keep. But if hr did, would you believe it was really him, without the Elders to ok the transaction? I'm noy purposely being contrary. I'm just seeking an answer that has intelligence. Not a "He says so and he is the expert, because obviously the only experts in this are the apostles that you won't even read. Then there is the letters to Corinth that paul wrote and all were verified as all Pauls writing were. But, they held out one letter. Using 12 of 13 letters. After reading it, it plainly states that you CAN not sin. It also encourages works. It doesn't take a rabbi to see the only reason it was dropped, since it was part of the original texts, was dur to not conforming with the accepted canon. So I ask sincerely, is truth ot doctrine more important to Jesus? Let me make one last point: Our goal is to say (and defend) what the Bible says—no more and no less. In the case of Paul writing a letter that bears his name, we are compelled to defend his authorship as a matter of biblical integrity. However, when it comes to the four Gospels, there is no one specifically to defend (i.e., because it is technically anonymous). -Jonathan Morrow, author and scholar None of the gospels came with an “about the author” section. The closest we get to a claim of authorship is at the very end of the Book of John, where the author implies that the book was written by “the disciple whom Jesus loved” (John 21:24 NIV) - Zondervan academy for biblical studies We simply do not know. The gospels were written anonymously and remained so until later in the second century when the Church Fathers decided to attribute the gospels to men who, in their view, were most likely the authors—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. As the early Church Fathers all read the gospels in Greek, they knew there was a literary dependency among three of the gospels, now known as the synoptic gospels, so it made sense that one of the three was written by an eyewitness to the mission of Jesus and that the others were based on this original. What is now known as Matthew’s Gospel seemed to be closest to Jewish thought, so it was attributed to a disciple, with Matthew chosen because of the focus in this gospel on the disciple Matthew.The pseudepigraphical First Epistle of Peter has Peter refer to Mark as “my son”, so it was presumed that Mark learnt much of the gospel from Peter, as well as from Paul, who mentions him, and apparently from Matthew’s Gospel. Mark was chosen as the presumed author of the second gospel. Paul mentions Luke, and the Deutero-Pauline Epistle to the Colossians says that Luke was a gentile. As the third gospel is clearly from a gentile, Luke was found to be the best candidate for its author. This leaves John’s Gospel. The Church Fathers could see no literary link to the synoptic gospels, so they believed the author had to be a disciple. They noticed that John, an important disciple in the synoptic gospels, was not mentioned even once in this gospel and decided that this was evidence of authorial modesty. Hence the author had to be John. They were the second-century attributions but, based on what we now know, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John could not have been the real authors. After all, the author of Matthew had to rely on Mark’s Gospel for most of his narrative about the mission of Jesus, which you would hardly expect to be the case if he had been present as an eyewitness to the mission of Jesus; likewise John, which is loosely based on Luke’s Gospel. This brings us back full circle to what we do know: the gospels were written by anonymous people whom we can never really identify.-Quora Although the first Gospel is anonymous, the early church fathers were unanimous in holding that Matthew, one of the 12 apostles, was its author. However, the results of modern critical studies -- in particular those that stress Matthew's alleged dependence on Mark for a substantial part of his Gospel -- have caused some Biblical scholars to abandon Matthean authorship. Why, they ask, would Matthew, an eyewitness to the events of our Lord's life, depend so heavily on Mark's account? The best answer seems to be that he agreed with it and wanted to show that the apostolic testimony to Christ was not divided. -NIV bible While Matthew did not sign his own name to “his” gospel, the early church uniformly attested to the apostle’s authorship of the book. As early as AD 140, a Christian named Papias wrote that Matthew had compiled the sayings of the Lord in Hebrew (presumably before Matthew translated them into Greek for a larger audience). -Pastor Chuck Swindoll While it is a wonderful thing and very thankful that we have the Book of Matthew in our Bible, its authorship has been question since its inception. Nowhere in the whole text of the Book
of Matthew that the author stated directly his name. Since then, a lot of speculations surround not
only the Christian community but also antagonist-Professor Mitch King-Doctorate Degree Program - Doctor of Biblical Studies |
|
|
|
Post by Natalie on Apr 21, 2021 19:26:51 GMT -6
Are you saying that all the gospels were written after who they were named for were dead? I didn't really understand you on that.
None of those sources you quoted supports your position that it's many authors and a copy of a copy. They just show that people have questioned who the author was.
And not sure I'd put Quora as a good source.
|
|
|
|
Post by lionofgod on Apr 21, 2021 19:33:11 GMT -6
lionofgod , "just hoping some see the sense in actually reading and comparing/contrasting all Jesus words." For what it's worth, I have a copy of "The lost books of the bible", which contains the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Mary Magdelene, and all three books of Enoch as well as digital versions of the Book of Jasher and Jubilees. The book about the lost books is interesting, but I don't give it a whole lot of credence. I too have them and the books of Enoch predate the Old testament. They are all good for reference. I'm wondering about something, though. You keep referring to Jesus' writings? I'm not aware of any actual 'pen to paper' writing that Jesus did other than the whole Word of God. Also, Jesus' virgin mother? You do know Jesus had brothers, right? James, Joseph, Simon and Judas were known scripturally, but he possibly had sisters too. Mary was only a virgin when Jesus was conceived and eventually born. After that she was a mom like all other moms of the world. She is not the 'queen of heaven' that the Catholic church would have you believe. I agree with you. James wrote a gospel, as did all the apostles. Jesus instructed them to do so, it's confirmed by all 12. Thats why I'm wondering why everyone refuses to bother reading or giving credence to the words that didn't get included. It's not like I'm talking about some strange unknown people that have no credit and never knew Jesus. These are the very people that the bible says were the only credible people, yet it's implied that since the compilers didn't see fit to break with orthodoxy, we should just ignore the fact that there is more gospels not in the bible than there are gospels in the bible. Guess I'm just weird that way, I won't put my life, or my eternal soul into the hands of people I've never met, that had their own prior beliefs, which Jesus rebuked. And since both the entities involved neither agree with each other or there own people, how do you place all your trust in that sort of situation, without bothering to do your own homework and reading and comparison. Jesus taught to thousands, according to the bible. But according to the establishment, we need not worry about errors, mistakes, or writings not already provided by the church. And since all the books in question all have the same accounting of the events, there is no concern with authenticity. Well, unless you think there was a global conspiracy to forge all the same documents, by different people, with different languages and different localities, which somehow all give the same statements in 12 different accountings or more. Since those teachings are not in the bible, they have to be excluded for a reason. Can you tell me why? Or is it your held opinion as well, that truth and Jesus take a second seat to keeping the status quo? |
|
|
|
Post by lionofgod on Apr 21, 2021 19:49:03 GMT -6
Are you saying that all the gospels were written after who they were named for were dead? I didn't really understand you on that. None of those sources you quoted supports your position that it's many authors and a copy of a copy. They just show that people have questioned who the author was. And not sure I'd put Quora as a good source. I did a simple search and found what I put up there and yes there. I'm not in the habit of documenting proof as I read in order to use it at a later date if needed. My search bar is no better than anyone else. I have logged probably 250 to 300 hrs in research and reading and cross checking. Because I need to know than any source, no matter how credited, is the truth. To assume people would have no reason to lie or mislead, is being naive in the extreme. Even Jesus had an agenda, He was just up front with it. As am I. I'm not talking about hypotheticals. I actually hunted down and read all these books. My reading skills are good. I'm intelligent enough to know if I investigate 12 people, and they all say the same thing. That has weight and corroboration. That is how any normal investigation is done. All I'm hearing is that questioning is bad! Evidence and truth are not the important things. Jesus encouraged questioning, he even spoke almost totally in parable to force people to think and question. Now if the only real bone you can pick id whether I can go back and provide a name for you to disprove, I'd say your going about this with the wrong intentions. Jesus makes many parables about the blind. and stated in no uncertain terms that none but John understood, which is backed by the accounts of all 12 apostles, well except Thaddeus who was dead, but the accounting says Jesus raised him for this meeting. Another miracle not recorded. Also Jesus says himself that he didn't reveal all. That the helper would, but those accounts of that meeting are not included in the bible either. |
|
|
|
Post by Natalie on Apr 21, 2021 20:38:14 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by lionofgod on Apr 21, 2021 21:23:59 GMT -6
I left that intro in on purpose as it would be dishonest not to. I also said that I read the accounting of the apostles present at said meeting of apostles, and that all the other 12 or 13 gospels they wrote all confirm the contents. But that isn't worth consideration as I see. I'll be happy to just shut up, and let the experts do all the educating, they are never wrong like me. I'm a humble human and servant of Jesus, no alphabet soup after my name and no fancy titles or anything. If this were a court of law, having 12 independent sources all confirm the same story, who also were present, would be more than enough to put away anyone for life. It exceeds the burden of proof. But it doesn't seem like proof or evidence or apostles or Churches or ancient Christians or all the above together, is enough to warrant giving something credit. I will belabor it no more. I offer actual documents in actual museums. libraries and churches that all seem in agreement. You offer that the initial council that compiled the text was 100 percent incorruptible and without biases. As proof you provide here-say and 1500 yr old opinion, which has been accepted so it must be true and all those councilors were also apparently divinely inspired above and beyond the apostles they compiled. Sounds like the corona virus. It's scientifically peer tested and proven to be over 95% survivable, yet the media and government say you have to be tested and vaccinated. And here we are, people dying from the vaccine and from the "deadly" disease. Despite the fact that the science has changed it's mind on I can't keep track of how many times. And the fact that the government and big business had a patent, which I looked up, there are actually 2, one in US and one inEU. Or that the virus passport was created and started distribution before a vaccine was ever invented, or the fact that the actual chemicals within are not released, and that the few people that have run out the door with the shot or the test, having had them tested showed it contains all kinds of terrible things. Best we simply trust the experts, they are always smarter than we are, and they look out for us before any personal agendas. Now if you really stand fast to your convictions, and you really don't care that Jesus taught a lot more than you know, I'm good with that. I'm past making aware. Have a great night! God Bless! |
|
|
|
Post by boraddict on Apr 22, 2021 3:11:13 GMT -6
I have never read the entire Bible because there are several parts that simply do not interest me. Like the Book of Numbers; do I really care about the number of people in Israel when Moses took them to the promised land? Also, Proverbs; I am not into poetry. Psalms is okay to a degree. Actually, Psalms is brilliant but I can only take so much. But the workhorse like Kings and Jerimiah are really the place to go; but I never do. Oh, sometimes in passing. But the four gospels; wow, that is the place to be. Not only are they exciting, but alive with brilliant vibrations of love and care. So I do browse those pages quite regularly. Never spending much time in any one place but to test a theory or two. One thing that I would like to point out about the four gospels is that there are four of them. That magical number four that is a testament in it's own right. And then there is The Book of Revelation. Who can not love the wonder within it's pages, and that is where we all are drawn. Although, many may say that they stay away from this book, but they always wonder about it's prose. Like a moth to a flame they are wise to stay away. But the flame is so intriguing that anyone searching will be burned. To them I say stay away from that book and live to wonder another day; go to Kings, and Jerimiah the great workhorses of scripture. Isaiah, the name alone commands respect. Not only this book but his contemporary minor prophets like Hosea and Amos for example. To endeavor in those pages is a lifetime of work. To them I say stay away from these books because if you don't you will be working a new job of 40 hours per week. And Ezekiel, the great masterpiece of non-conforming metaphors. Not to mention Daniel that almost did not make the cut. Lastly I would like to mention the letters in the NT that I never read that is a must to many. Although Paul is the true giant that can not be denied; he is my personal hero. Back to the gospels, three of which state the same story, and the fourth that is not synoptic but a book of prophecy. Because, John states in Rev. 10:11 that he is to "prophesy again"; meaning, that he has prophesied before. Then at Rev. 1:2 we see his reference to this first prophetic book wherein he states that he bare record of the word of God and this is John 1. Secondly, he tells us that the bare record of the testimony of Jesus and this is found in John 21. Lastly he tells us that he bare record of all things that he saw and this is between John 1 and John 21. So what would you say is the prophecy in The Gospel According to John but the testimony of Jesus which tells us that John will live till Jesus comes. From which I might add is the same prophecy in the BofR that we will live till Jesus comes; the testimony of Jesus. Again, that promise comes to us from Rev. 2-3 and by deduction those chapters are the testimony of Jesus. Just a thought. In conclusion the above is in response to lionofgod wherein he states in reference to other writings "James wrote a gospel, as did all the apostles. Since those teachings are not in the bible, they have to be excluded for a reason. Can you tell me why?." It seems that you work on a broad spectrum whereas I focus on the minute details. For example, I have spent days on end on a single verse breaking apart the structure etc. It is all fascinating and rewarding but the larger macro study that you do requires an enormous ability and effort to sift out the lies and I do not spend my time on that but work on time tested gospel truth. Although my analysis may often times be in question but the scripture that I work from is not. Keep up the good work. Also I would like to point out that I have (above) destroyed the following argument that you have posted: "They were the second-century attributions but, based on what we now know, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John could not have been the real authors. After all, the author of Matthew had to rely on Mark’s Gospel for most of his narrative about the mission of Jesus, which you would hardly expect to be the case if he had been present as an eyewitness to the mission of Jesus; likewise John, which is loosely based on Luke’s Gospel. This brings us back full circle to what we do know: the gospels were written by anonymous people whom we can never really identify. -Quora" Not so; because of Rev. 1:2 as I have stated above; I have proved that John wrote The Gospel According to John. |
|
Mathews authorship, as well as all the others in the bible were written after the death of the individuals for the most part. so hard for dead to write. There are however books that the same people that authenticated the gospels, authenticated those too, but they are not canon, so they are apparently not useful as the words of inspired text, even if they do contain words of Jesus. Paul, for example, James, John, Andrew, Peter, Joseph, Thaddeus, Thomas, Mary, Philip and Simon. All repeat the same accountings, and all deemed not inspired in spite of being apostles and first hand witnesses to Jesus. Feel free to let me know how all the apostles have no knowledge our beneficial input to Jesus teachings, because they did not get included in the compiled text. Makes me wonder why god would teach 12 if only 1/3 of them had inspired writings, also, since they were all the only messengers and the first to receive the Holy ghost from Jesus, doesn't that automatically qualify you as an authority on the subject? They were welcomed and there words were all considered to be gospel by the churches and by Jesus. But I'm sure the compilers knew this as well, yet left them all out. They are not repetitive or teachings already in the bible either, so one is to assume, that not all Christs teachings are canon. Which seems ludicrous on it's face, but true all the same. Another funny thing, the scriptural texts that couldn't at the time be dated, are easily carbon dated now. Also, Origen, Clement, Luther, Polycarp and many founding Christian fathers quoted from the books that tare not in the bible, and they were taught in the churches as well, so it appears doctrine can be changed when it is beneficial to the churches involved. Look inside your bibles, how many revisions have there been? The dictionary, the school books, the college texts, the business contracts, all items in our life get periodically updated with the most current evidence and proof available as we go. But not in this case. I believe there has been no person or group since the canon was formed, that has even gone back to the original books and tested or even verified any of them. Now I can't prove who wrote Mathew, it may well have been him. The point is, if authorship is the question, then the books within are no better than the books without, since both have reliable sourcing and witnesses. So, it comes down to do Jesus words and teachings matter or can you just select what ever writings of Him that fit your beliefs? You fall squarely in the latter camp. I give equal weight to Jesus words in ANY book. Provided there is corroboration. Which there is by all apostles and Mary. So if all the apostles agree and Mary agrees to, and the only people that do not, are the compilers, how do rationalize and justify ignoring them and even dismissing them? Isn't the agreed upon words of all 12 apostles and their accounts of Jesus enough proof? The only better proof is for Jesus himself to come down and sign you a copy to keep. But if hr did, would you believe it was really him, without the Elders to ok the transaction? I'm noy purposely being contrary. I'm just seeking an answer that has intelligence. Not a "He says so and he is the expert, because obviously the only experts in this are the apostles that you won't even read. Then there is the letters to Corinth that paul wrote and all were verified as all Pauls writing were. But, they held out one letter. Using 12 of 13 letters. After reading it, it plainly states that you CAN not sin. It also encourages works. It doesn't take a rabbi to see the only reason it was dropped, since it was part of the original texts, was dur to not conforming with the accepted canon. So I ask sincerely, is truth ot doctrine more important to Jesus? 