|
|
Post by mike on Jul 19, 2021 12:42:50 GMT -6
Ok, I'm in the middle of a comprehensive study of Revelations. Since the rapture is obviously linked, I'm also studying this. I'm looking for any verses that either directly describe or insinuate this. After searching several bible sites, these are the ones I've come up with. If you have any that are not listed, please share the book and verse numbers. Thanks. I'm not debating which are good or not, just collecting any pertinent verses to look at. I understand you began this thread as quoted above. While I think adding extra biblical text can help us better understand historical events, the mindset of ancient writers and styling of their writings BUT considering them as scripture or "carrying the same weight" as scripture is not something I agree with, nor do we on this site. Using them as proof texts in the study you asked for input on the rapture, I do not agree. Extra biblical texts, even when sounding biblical, should not be inserted into the doctrine of the resurrection. 66 books and thats it brother. Otherwise where do we draw the line? Enoch I, but not II, Jasher, Jubilees...Can we include Dantes inferno too? I thought we were not going down this road anymore? EDIT - Thread is titled "Scriptural verses about the rapture" |
|
servantofthelord
Truth Seeker
Come, Lord Jesus. The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all. Amen.
Posts: 164
Favorite Verse: Anything from John
Favorite Song: Feelin Good!- Nina Simone
Favorite Animal: Blue, my mini schnauzer
Favorite Food: potatoes
Dream Vacation: To actually go on one, never been
Profession: Artist/Poet/Carpenter/Servant
Denomination: Servant of all
I'm From: All over
|
Post by servantofthelord on Jul 19, 2021 13:12:58 GMT -6
Ok, I'm in the middle of a comprehensive study of Revelations. Since the rapture is obviously linked, I'm also studying this. I'm looking for any verses that either directly describe or insinuate this. After searching several bible sites, these are the ones I've come up with. If you have any that are not listed, please share the book and verse numbers. Thanks. I'm not debating which are good or not, just collecting any pertinent verses to look at. I understand you began this thread as quoted above. While I think adding extra biblical text can help us better understand historical events, the mindset of ancient writers and styling of their writings BUT considering them as scripture or "carrying the same weight" as scripture is not something I agree with, nor do we on this site. Using them as proof texts in the study you asked for input on the rapture, I do not agree. Extra biblical texts, even when sounding biblical, should not be inserted into the doctrine of the resurrection. 66 books and thats it brother. Otherwise where do we draw the line? Enoch I, but not II, Jasher, Jubilees...Can we include Dantes inferno too? I thought we were not going down this road anymore? Perhaps you missed the posting which I stated the purpose and use of such books, as well as limitations of them. I'll cut and paste below. I do agree with this for the most part. However, the "cannon" has never actually been closed. Depending on what bible you read, there are some with more books than others. Even the early christians quote from books not in our "cannon". Our cannon even references books that are not in at at least twice, Jasher and Enoch. I do however put the premium on the cannon books. I also limit what apocryphal writings I give "scriptural" value to. I'm not interested in the fringe Jewish books like the more "druidic" type stuff. I do see historical and background type value at the least, in the "accepted apocryphal books, like what was in the Septuagint and the 1611 KJV. They were kept along with the cannon, even though they were not "part of" it. So, even the early Christians and messianic Jews used them. I don't use them as a "primary" source, but they can help flesh out phraseology and common terminology and the like.What I described here sounds to me like the same thing you call "proof" texts. I use them to help confirm scriptures and to help in some cases with understanding wording that was used from the time period. If you were studying writings from man in a certain an era of history, would you not look at other writers from the time to help you to understand hid use of idioms and other language peculiarities unique to the period? So, if I'm getting your inference here, which seems clear by your final statement, If I use the complete Septuagint, which was what the apostles used, I'm back to heresy and I'm risking my privileges? Or if I use my 1611 KJV? Perhaps it would be more clear if you just listed which bibles and versions were allowed to be studied, since I own over 20 and they don't all contain the exact same books. I personally tend to use the Septuagint for my old testament study, since it is the only version that matches all the quotes from the new testament best, and was the only one in greek to be used at the time of the apostles. It was the first "bible" by a millennium or so. Also was written by jews who spoke both Hebrew and greek, so no issue with translation. Am I missing something here? Since the previous issue was gnostic in nature, what part of the bibles I named is the gnostic part?
God bless |
|
|
|
Post by yardstick on Jul 19, 2021 19:06:23 GMT -6
servantofthelord, Perhaps the litmus test here is to investigate why these 'extra-canon' books were not included in canon? What was the rationale behind the fathers of the 1st-3rd century church for excluding them? I suspect that if any part of any 'extra-canon scripture' did not agree with what is established in the '66 books' (including if it cannot be corroborated in the 66 books), the fathers of the 1st century-3rd century church threw the entire 'extra-canon book' out, rather than have even a little corruption enter canon. I suspect that the majority (if not all) of the 'extra-canon' books were known to support, or be used by such groups as the gnostics to justify their beliefs. If this is in fact the case, you do yourself no favors by using such texts as the baseline for any positions you might take, or to 'confirm scriptures', or the like.
|
|
servantofthelord
Truth Seeker
Come, Lord Jesus. The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all. Amen.
Posts: 164
Favorite Verse: Anything from John
Favorite Song: Feelin Good!- Nina Simone
Favorite Animal: Blue, my mini schnauzer
Favorite Food: potatoes
Dream Vacation: To actually go on one, never been
Profession: Artist/Poet/Carpenter/Servant
Denomination: Servant of all
I'm From: All over
|
Post by servantofthelord on Jul 19, 2021 23:26:17 GMT -6
servantofthelord , Perhaps the litmus test here is to investigate why these 'extra-canon' books were not included in canon? What was the rationale behind the fathers of the 1st-3rd century church for excluding them? Well, that assumes that they were in fact excluded. Since the bible was yet to be written for about a thousand years, it would be hard for them to BE excluded. In point of fact, at the time you are mentioning, there was only one known “book” of scriptures. It is the Septuagint, which was widely used and is accepted by the vast majority of scholars as being what the apostles who taught the gentiles quoted from, and most likely Jesus himself. If you compare the Septuagint to the greek texts of the New Testament, you'll find that the quotes match wording best to it. There was thought to be a couple which didn't, causing quite a controversy for years. But someone finally compared the copy the Vatican has against the one in Alexandria, where it was written and found the discrepancies were not in the Alexandrian one. Since the Septuagint was written by Jewish scribes and accepted by Jewish priests and the Jewish believers of Alexandria at that time as accurate. Also we have both Christian and secular scholars to confirm this, it's provenance is not only good, but it's use is well known before Christ. I will add that it predates the earliest “bible printing be at least 1.000 years. Some of those books you refer to are also included in this book, given by the Jews.Who also kept said books/scriptures along with their canon, even though they were not called canonical books.
I suspect that if any part of any 'extra-canon scripture' did not agree with what is established in the '66 books' (including if it cannot be corroborated in the 66 books), the fathers of the 1st century-3rd century church threw the entire 'extra-canon book' out, rather than have even a little corruption enter canon. First, the bible was not written by the early church, they still used scrolls and papyrus. It was not until around the 1200's that an actual printed “bible” was available to cull. Even the Latin Vulgate was not completed in the time you are discussing.Christians had no established canon then, or now. The canon has never been officially closed. This is why there are different “books” in different bibles. The 1611 King James Bible, which the modern bibles relied on most, actually DID contain the apocryphal books in it. Later versions dropped it. But the fathers you speak of had been dead for over a thousand years by then. As to your assumption, it is also incorrect. The apocryphal books do not contradict the “canon” as you call it.They were used as additional scriptures, just not deemed AS important as the canonical books.I suspect that the majority (if not all) of the 'extra-canon' books were known to support, or be used by such groups as the gnostics to justify their beliefs. If this is in fact the case, you do yourself no favors by using such texts as the baseline for any positions you might take, or to 'confirm scriptures', or the like. You would suspect wrongly friend. The gnostics have a entire set of scriptures all to themselves, which I'll not get into here. But suffice it to say that the books in question actually predate the gnostics, so it would be hard for a group that didn't yet exist to use or write them.I'll leave further comments on the gnostics alone, but you obviously are unfamiliar with just what constitutes a gnostic belief. What I can and will do, is provide you with actual history and documentation about the thing you refer to as canon. Since I'm going to have to dig out my books, to be sure I give accurate references, I may as well address some other misconceptions and improperly used words that people throw around nowadays as if they are actually facts. Scripture, is not the same or even synonymous with “bible”. Scripture as it was originally used and should still be, simply means divinely inspired writing. How to decide what is divinely inspired is still debated to this day, so i'll not bother to go there as there is no universally accepted principle, to which all hold to. As to the “66 books” you state are THE canon. Well, I covered the fact that the canon has never been closed, so you, by definition can't truly accurately claim ANY specific number of books that ALONE make up the canon.This fallacy has been spread for a long time by people who never bothered to do the fact checking and just accepted what they were told as absolute fact. The canon you refer to is just what has been accepted over the years by modern christian tradition. Like Easter and a few other things.but those are not pertinent here) The following is a listing of books that were accepted and when, with dates and names and references. You will see that history proves that there were and are differing accepted books, at different time periods. I will leave out the 1611 King James Bible and the Septuagint, since those have been covered already and simply provide the established historical evidence from the early Christians. I'll not go through the entire history, but enough to prove the point. I'll site the actual places you can find them as well, so you may educate yourself about the facts if you are so inclined. Melito of Sardis, circa 170 AD Old Testament only. Found in Eusebius “Ecclesiastical History” IV:26 of Moses, five books: Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy Jesus Nave (ie. Joshua of Nunn) Judges Ruth of Kings, four books: 1 & 2 Samuel/ 1 & 2 Kings of Chronicles, two the Psalms of David the Proverbs of Solomon Wisdom (it is unknown if this refers to the Wisdom of Sirach also known as Ecclesiasticas or the Wisdom of Solomon: both are considered apocryphal by the Protestant church) Ecclesiastes Song of Songs Job of Prophets: Isaiah, Jeremiah of the twelve Prophets, one book Danial Ezekiel Esdras Origen, circa 240 AD from “Commentary on Psalms”, also cited in Eusebius' “Ecclesiastical History” VI:25:1-2 Genesis Exodus Leviticus Numbers Dueteronomy Joshua Judges and Ruth in one book 1 & 2 Kings in one book 1 & 2 Samuel in one book 1 & 2 Chronicles in one book Ezra and Nehemiah in one book Psalms Proverbs Ecclesiastes Song of Songs Isaiah Jeremiah and Lamentations in one book Daniel Ezekiel Job Esther Maccabees Eusebius circa 323 AD from “Ecclesiastical History” III:25:1-4 Accepted writings four gospels Acts Letters of Paul 1 John 1 Peter Revelation of John (He states here, after the accepted writings is to be placed the Apocalypse of John, if it be proper. He also adds some reject it and some accept it.) Disputed writings James Jude 2 Peter 2 John 3 John Rejected writings Acts of Paul Shepherd of Hermas Apocalypse of Peter Letter of Barnabas Didache Augustine circa 397 AD from “On christian doctrine” Genesis Exodus Leviticus Numbers Deuteronomy Joshua Judges Ruth four books of Kings (includes 1 & 2 Samuel) two books of Chronicles Job Tobiah Esther Judith 1 & 2 Maccabees Ezra and Nehemiah Psalms Proverbs Sons of songs Ecclesiastes Wisdom (of Solomon) Ecclesiasticus ( Sirach) 12 minor Prophets Isaiah Jeremiah Daniel Ezekiel Mathew Mark Luke John Romans 1 & 2 Corinthians Galatians Ephesus Philippians 1 & 2 Thessalonians Collossians 1 & 2 Timothy Titus Philemon Hebrews 1 & 2 Peter 1,2 & 3 John Jude James Acts Revelation of John Augustine further writes “For two books, one called Wisdom and one called Ecclesiasticus, are ascribed to Solomon for a certain resemblance of style, but the most likely opinion is they were written by Jesus, son of Sirach. Still, they are to be reckoned among the prophetical books, since they have obtained recognition as being authoritative.” That I believe is more than enough to prove my point historically by fact, not personal assumption. I hope you will reconsider “teaching” others the version of history you put in this commentary. Be blessed! |
|
servantofthelord
Truth Seeker
Come, Lord Jesus. The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all. Amen.
Posts: 164
Favorite Verse: Anything from John
Favorite Song: Feelin Good!- Nina Simone
Favorite Animal: Blue, my mini schnauzer
Favorite Food: potatoes
Dream Vacation: To actually go on one, never been
Profession: Artist/Poet/Carpenter/Servant
Denomination: Servant of all
I'm From: All over
|
Post by servantofthelord on Jul 20, 2021 13:02:22 GMT -6
Perhaps some of you more learned folks can help me out here. I cannot seem to find any early christians that actually refer to or elaborate on what the modern church considers the "rapture" to be. It is one of the only topics that don't seem to be found in their voluminous works. Well, at least none that are pre-Platonism and the like. Don't misunderstand, I'm not making a statement on or claim about the rapture. I'm just assuming that since this eschatology is deeply held as truth, that there will be references to it from the early apostolic churches, since they pretty well cover almost everything else. I can find references to the second coming, to resurrection of the dead etc., but no specific writings that indicate a separate event. It doesn't reason that they would ignore a foundational issue, if it was important to them, right? But since I'm just one guy and can only read so much, I'll appeal to the masses for a better reference.
Thanks, and God Bless
|
|
|
|
Post by venge on Jul 20, 2021 16:52:18 GMT -6
I don’t have time atm to post what I know, but I’ll leave this bread crumb
Tertullian
Now the privilege of this favour awaits those who shall at the coming of the Lord be found in the flesh, and who shall, owing to the oppressions of the time of Antichrist, deserve by an instantaneous death [i.e., raptured/translation], which is accomplished by a sudden change, to become qualified to join the rising saints; as he writes to the Thessalonians [1 Thess 4:15–17]. (On the Resurrection of the Flesh, 41)
-Those found alive in the flesh will have a sudden change ie. corruption putting on incorruption (rapture)
|
|
servantofthelord
Truth Seeker
Come, Lord Jesus. The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all. Amen.
Posts: 164
Favorite Verse: Anything from John
Favorite Song: Feelin Good!- Nina Simone
Favorite Animal: Blue, my mini schnauzer
Favorite Food: potatoes
Dream Vacation: To actually go on one, never been
Profession: Artist/Poet/Carpenter/Servant
Denomination: Servant of all
I'm From: All over
|
Post by servantofthelord on Jul 20, 2021 18:36:45 GMT -6
I don’t have time atm to post what I know, but I’ll leave this bread crumb Tertullian Now the privilege of this favour awaits those who shall at the coming of the Lord be found in the flesh, and who shall, owing to the oppressions of the time of Antichrist, deserve by an instantaneous death [i.e., raptured/translation], which is accomplished by a sudden change, to become qualified to join the rising saints; as he writes to the Thessalonians [1 Thess 4:15–17]. (On the Resurrection of the Flesh, 41) -Those found alive in the flesh will have a sudden change ie. corruption putting on incorruption (rapture) Since the first time I read that quote, I like Tertullian, I also thought he was referring to Revelation 14:13 And I heard a voice from heaven, saying, " Write, 'Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on!' " "Yes," says the Spirit, "so that they may rest from their labors, for their deeds follow with them." It just seemed to fit considering the verse before is Here is the perseverance of the saints who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus. |
|
|
|
Post by yardstick on Jul 20, 2021 22:46:33 GMT -6
servantofthelord , Perhaps the litmus test here is to investigate why these 'extra-canon' books were not included in canon? What was the rationale behind the fathers of the 1st-3rd century church for excluding them? Well, that assumes that they were in fact excluded. Since the bible was yet to be written for about a thousand years, it would be hard for them to BE excluded. In point of fact, at the time you are mentioning, there was only one known “book” of scriptures. It is the Septuagint, which was widely used and is accepted by the vast majority of scholars as being what the apostles who taught the gentiles quoted from, and most likely Jesus himself. If you compare the Septuagint to the greek texts of the New Testament, you'll find that the quotes match wording best to it. There was thought to be a couple which didn't, causing quite a controversy for years. But someone finally compared the copy the Vatican has against the one in Alexandria, where it was written and found the discrepancies were not in the Alexandrian one. Since the Septuagint was written by Jewish scribes and accepted by Jewish priests and the Jewish believers of Alexandria at that time as accurate. Also we have both Christian and secular scholars to confirm this, it's provenance is not only good, but it's use is well known before Christ. I will add that it predates the earliest “bible printing be at least 1.000 years. Some of those books you refer to are also included in this book, given by the Jews.Who also kept said books/scriptures along with their canon, even though they were not called canonical books.I suspect that if any part of any 'extra-canon scripture' did not agree with what is established in the '66 books' (including if it cannot be corroborated in the 66 books), the fathers of the 1st century-3rd century church threw the entire 'extra-canon book' out, rather than have even a little corruption enter canon. First, the bible was not written by the early church, they still used scrolls and papyrus. It was not until around the 1200's that an actual printed “bible” was available to cull. Even the Latin Vulgate was not completed in the time you are discussing.Christians had no established canon then, or now. The canon has never been officially closed. This is why there are different “books” in different bibles. The 1611 King James Bible, which the modern bibles relied on most, actually DID contain the apocryphal books in it. Later versions dropped it. But the fathers you speak of had been dead for over a thousand years by then. As to your assumption, it is also incorrect. The apocryphal books do not contradict the “canon” as you call it.They were used as additional scriptures, just not deemed AS important as the canonical books.I suspect that the majority (if not all) of the 'extra-canon' books were known to support, or be used by such groups as the gnostics to justify their beliefs. If this is in fact the case, you do yourself no favors by using such texts as the baseline for any positions you might take, or to 'confirm scriptures', or the like. You would suspect wrongly friend. The gnostics have a entire set of scriptures all to themselves, which I'll not get into here. But suffice it to say that the books in question actually predate the gnostics, so it would be hard for a group that didn't yet exist to use or write them.I'll leave further comments on the gnostics alone, but you obviously are unfamiliar with just what constitutes a gnostic belief. What I can and will do, is provide you with actual history and documentation about the thing you refer to as canon. Since I'm going to have to dig out my books, to be sure I give accurate references, I may as well address some other misconceptions and improperly used words that people throw around nowadays as if they are actually facts. Scripture, is not the same or even synonymous with “bible”. Scripture as it was originally used and should still be, simply means divinely inspired writing. How to decide what is divinely inspired is still debated to this day, so i'll not bother to go there as there is no universally accepted principle, to which all hold to.As to the “66 books” you state are THE canon. Well, I covered the fact that the canon has never been closed, so you, by definition can't truly accurately claim ANY specific number of books that ALONE make up the canon.This fallacy has been spread for a long time by people who never bothered to do the fact checking and just accepted what they were told as absolute fact. The canon you refer to is just what has been accepted over the years by modern christian tradition. Like Easter and a few other things.but those are not pertinent here) The following is a listing of books that were accepted and when, with dates and names and references. You will see that history proves that there were and are differing accepted books, at different time periods. I will leave out the 1611 King James Bible and the Septuagint, since those have been covered already and simply provide the established historical evidence from the early Christians. I'll not go through the entire history, but enough to prove the point. I'll site the actual places you can find them as well, so you may educate yourself about the facts if you are so inclined. Melito of Sardis, circa 170 AD Old Testament only. Found in Eusebius “Ecclesiastical History” IV:26 of Moses, five books: Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy Jesus Nave (ie. Joshua of Nunn) Judges Ruth of Kings, four books: 1 & 2 Samuel/ 1 & 2 Kings of Chronicles, two the Psalms of David the Proverbs of Solomon Wisdom (it is unknown if this refers to the Wisdom of Sirach also known as Ecclesiasticas or the Wisdom of Solomon: both are considered apocryphal by the Protestant church) Ecclesiastes Song of Songs Job of Prophets: Isaiah, Jeremiah of the twelve Prophets, one book Danial Ezekiel Esdras Origen, circa 240 AD from “Commentary on Psalms”, also cited in Eusebius' “Ecclesiastical History” VI:25:1-2 Genesis Exodus Leviticus Numbers Dueteronomy Joshua Judges and Ruth in one book 1 & 2 Kings in one book 1 & 2 Samuel in one book 1 & 2 Chronicles in one book Ezra and Nehemiah in one book Psalms Proverbs Ecclesiastes Song of Songs Isaiah Jeremiah and Lamentations in one book Daniel Ezekiel Job Esther Maccabees Eusebius circa 323 AD from “Ecclesiastical History” III:25:1-4 Accepted writings four gospels Acts Letters of Paul 1 John 1 Peter Revelation of John (He states here, after the accepted writings is to be placed the Apocalypse of John, if it be proper. He also adds some reject it and some accept it.) Disputed writings James Jude 2 Peter 2 John 3 John Rejected writings Acts of Paul Shepherd of Hermas Apocalypse of Peter Letter of Barnabas Didache Augustine circa 397 AD from “On christian doctrine” Genesis Exodus Leviticus Numbers Deuteronomy Joshua Judges Ruth four books of Kings (includes 1 & 2 Samuel) two books of Chronicles Job Tobiah Esther Judith 1 & 2 Maccabees Ezra and Nehemiah Psalms Proverbs Sons of songs Ecclesiastes Wisdom (of Solomon) Ecclesiasticus ( Sirach) 12 minor Prophets Isaiah Jeremiah Daniel Ezekiel Mathew Mark Luke John Romans 1 & 2 Corinthians Galatians Ephesus Philippians 1 & 2 Thessalonians Collossians 1 & 2 Timothy Titus Philemon Hebrews 1 & 2 Peter 1,2 & 3 John Jude James Acts Revelation of John Augustine further writes “For two books, one called Wisdom and one called Ecclesiasticus, are ascribed to Solomon for a certain resemblance of style, but the most likely opinion is they were written by Jesus, son of Sirach. Still, they are to be reckoned among the prophetical books, since they have obtained recognition as being authoritative.” That I believe is more than enough to prove my point historically by fact, not personal assumption. I hope you will reconsider “teaching” others the version of history you put in this commentary. Be blessed!
Well, no. Unless you can show me where say, the Book of Jasher is part of the Septuagint (in any of the four versions)?
Also, I am a little puzzled by this clause, since this part appears contradictory to your prior argument. "Along side" is not "part of" as in "incorporated in", wouldn't you agree? I mean, sure i can see how some of these scholars kept a copy around to reference (and I am willing to bet that there is a historical record to their reasons), but core doctrine? No. Not buying it.
No, technically it was compiled.
I believe this is something of a red herring, as the typical statement you will find in support of the 66 books is not that canon was closed, but that all other records/documents et al must be compared, in light of what is already established by these books. This by inference; however, clearly indicates there is no new message to be found elsewhere; and any such message asserted by anyone or anything which contradicts the established 66 book message, is not new canon, but is false teaching.
Not sure what assumption you are referring to. Maybe you could clarify. That said, the assertion that follows your statement contradicts the reason for why such books would not have been included in canon - they were either unverifiable, fraudulent or contradictory (to self or to the 66 book canon). This is well-established by more learned persons than I.Thus, the gnostics (provided as an example) would have used the non-canon documents to justify their heretical beliefs. Another reason for why they would not have been included in canon. Note: I never said they wrote them; and if the non-canon books pre-dated the gnostics, then they most certainly would have had access to them.This was addressed before: that the universally accepted principle was to compare in light of established canonical scriptures. Namely the 66 books we currently use (I am setting aside the slight variation in the Catholic Bible for simplicity). Those groups who refused to do so were considered heretics. Established would mean agreed upon.
This makes your argument not with us, with those men who determined what would be canon and what would not be canon. Have you read their writings? This is the point we are trying to make with you. The above said, you will be hard-pressed to use any non-canon scripture here as a baseline for any debate with any kind of success; since I am certain the majority (if not all) users of this forum will prefer to go with those learned men who spent much time, prayer, debate and such, choosing what books/writings best described the doctrines which would eventually be cemented in the Christian faith. I should clarify that I am not opposed the historical benefit of the non-canon books. Only their use as doctrine. I think others here will agree. |
|
servantofthelord
Truth Seeker
Come, Lord Jesus. The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all. Amen.
Posts: 164
Favorite Verse: Anything from John
Favorite Song: Feelin Good!- Nina Simone
Favorite Animal: Blue, my mini schnauzer
Favorite Food: potatoes
Dream Vacation: To actually go on one, never been
Profession: Artist/Poet/Carpenter/Servant
Denomination: Servant of all
I'm From: All over
|
Post by servantofthelord on Jul 20, 2021 23:31:26 GMT -6
Scripture, is not the same or even synonymous with “bible”. Scripture as it was originally used and should still be, simply means divinely inspired writing. How to decide what is divinely inspired is still debated to this day, so i'll not bother to go there as there is no universally accepted principle, to which all hold to.As to the “66 books” you state are THE canon. Well, I covered the fact that the canon has never been closed, so you, by definition can't truly accurately claim ANY specific number of books that ALONE make up the canon.This fallacy has been spread for a long time by people who never bothered to do the fact checking and just accepted what they were told as absolute fact. The canon you refer to is just what has been accepted over the years by modern christian tradition. Like Easter and a few other things.but those are not pertinent here) The following is a listing of books that were accepted and when, with dates and names and references. You will see that history proves that there were and are differing accepted books, at different time periods. I will leave out the 1611 King James Bible and the Septuagint, since those have been covered already and simply provide the established historical evidence from the early Christians. I'll not go through the entire history, but enough to prove the point. I'll site the actual places you can find them as well, so you may educate yourself about the facts if you are so inclined.
So, your going to choose one book to say that all the rest don't count? Jasher, like other ancient writings was lost for some time, we are finding writings in the dead sea scrolls we didn't know existed. Since they aren't in the canon, I suppose even if Moses or Isaiah wrote them, you'd say they don't belong as well? Also, I am a little puzzled by this clause, since this part appears contradictory to your prior argument. "Along side" is not "part of" as in "incorporated in", wouldn't you agree? I mean, sure i can see how some of these scholars kept a copy around to reference (and I am willing to bet that there is a historical record to their reasons), but core doctrine? No. Not buying it.
You do realize that carrying scrolls, they were all alongside, not bound together in a book. Including all the individual canon books. So your assertion is that the scribes and priests simply kept only certain scrolls with the canon scrolls and they had no real value but possibly obscure worth? And this coincidentally was done by the priests and scribes of different locations? They all had the same obscure needs? The records are available, find them and site them as I do, it goes a lot further than base speculations on what people 2,000 years plus ago may or may not have thought or acted. There was no shortage of scrolls, why keep just those across the board? Your logic fails the "common sense test" No, technically it was compiled.The Jewish canon, yes. I specified the christian one. That one has been changed and there is actually several, which if it is settled would not be possible, right? There could only be one then. but there are at least three, if not more.I believe this is something of a red herring, as the typical statement you will find in support of the 66 books is not that canon was closed, but that all other records/documents et al must be compared, in light of what is already established by these books. This by inference; however, clearly indicates there is no new message to be found elsewhere; and any such message asserted by anyone or anything which contradicts the established 66 book message, is not new canon, but is false teaching.
I'm not looking elsewhere, these books are in the Septuagint and the 1611 King James. They are also called "deuterocanonical", which means second canon, not anti-canon or false canon. Not sure what assumption you are referring to. Maybe you could clarify. That said, the assertion that follows your statement contradicts the reason for why such books would not have been included in canon - they were either unverifiable, fraudulent or contradictory (to self or to the 66 book canon). This is well-established by more learned persons than I. So, the people of the days of the apostles churches are less learned then, according to this statement, since I showed you proof that these books, or some were used by them. Also your own canon refers to the books that are not inside. So the apostles didn't know what was canon either?Thus, the gnostics (provided as an example) would have used the non-canon documents to justify their heretical beliefs. Another reason for why they would not have been included in canon. Note: I never said they wrote them; and if the non-canon books pre-dated the gnostics, then they most certainly would have had access to them.My friend you really should understand gnosticism before talking about it as an example. Gnostics have an entirely separate view of God and Jesus. They have their own sets of gospels that they actually attribute to the apostles among others. They have no use for the books we are talking about. With the possible exception of some of Enoch, which I'm not sure they use either. It is like comparing Christians to muslims. Their entire belief system differs, they only borrow some of the characters. This was addressed before: that the universally accepted principle was to compare in light of established canonical scriptures. Namely the 66 books we currently use (I am setting aside the slight variation in the Catholic Bible for simplicity). Those groups who refused to do so were considered heretics. Established would mean agreed upon. Did you not read the list above? You think that they all agreed? This makes your argument not with us, with those men who determined what would be canon and what would not be canon. Have you read their writings? This is the point we are trying to make with you. I have no argument with you or anyone else. I gave you a very long list of facts, not disputed and not argumentative, just facts. You can ignore them if you choose, but they are still facts.The above said, you will be hard-pressed to use any non-canon scripture here as a baseline for any debate with any kind of success; since I am certain the majority (if not all) users of this forum will prefer to go with those learned men who spent much time, prayer, debate and such, choosing what books/writings best described the doctrines which would eventually be cemented in the Christian faith. Well I'm sad to see that this has to be a debate, I simply wanted to provide you with real actual historically accurate facts. Which I did. Including resources and timelines for you to check out if you chose. Instead you try to put me in an us or them sot and put me on the outside looking in. Further you completely ignore the long list I actually took a lot of time compiling to prove what I asserted, rather than make any baseless claims formed by my personal logic.I should clarify that I am not opposed the historical benefit of the non-canon books. Only their use as doctrine. I think others here will agree. This is actually rather funny. You went through all this and ignored all my proof, just to end up agreeing with the reasons I gave for using them in the first place? Brother, do you just enjoy contention? I have gone far out of the way to ensure this was not debating, but relating fact. You seem to insist on standing on personal feelings and some consensus of everyone here but me. I'll not bite again, I thought I would help you, but it appears you neither want or need it you have your mind made up despite any facts to the contrary. That is your privilege. Be blessed |
|
servantofthelord
Truth Seeker
Come, Lord Jesus. The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all. Amen.
Posts: 164
Favorite Verse: Anything from John
Favorite Song: Feelin Good!- Nina Simone
Favorite Animal: Blue, my mini schnauzer
Favorite Food: potatoes
Dream Vacation: To actually go on one, never been
Profession: Artist/Poet/Carpenter/Servant
Denomination: Servant of all
I'm From: All over
|
Post by servantofthelord on Jul 21, 2021 0:03:03 GMT -6
This is not specific to this particular topic, but since it has come up, and in my recent reading of postings across this site, i've seen it several times, I will address it straight on.
I do appreciate that trying to moderate a site is probably a very difficult job. And since I don't actually know for sure who all the moderators actually are, forgive me if I address you (anyone) that is not one.
I have read here many times that this is a place for discussion, that ideas and opinions are welcome to be expressed, and talked about. But I have also seen that when someone actually expresses an opinion which is not commonly held, they are met with a fair amount of "we" and "those of us" and "on this board" and other language which has no use but to alienate the person addressed. Also, there seems to be a very frequent habit of people being "reminded" what scripture says. As well as a bad habit of warning people that they will be challenged to prove their "truth" or opinions.
I'm old school. I am not ignorant or a child, as I assume none of the others who post opinions here are. Some may be misguided or even wrong, but that is why they are here, to learn, not to get their hand slapped or be patronized or to be ganged up on.
If the stated goal is to educate and to fellowship. To be able to exchange ideas. Then creating a "you" against "me" type environment is the opposite of that. I don't se this type thing happening when anyone parrots the opinions already held, or agrees with the majority. Which is proof in itself that holding or stating an opinion that is unpopular is frowned upon, not accepted and discussed. A discussion doesn't begin with a warning or a reminder of how to conduct oneself.
Thats what you do when someone steps out of line, not before. If we are to actually communicate, love and understanding must lead, not skepticism and rebuke. That is how you debate, which i'm told is what we are not supposed to be doing. I don't expect people to all see eye to eye, because we are all different, from different backgrounds and different lives. But if we are all also Christians, and trying to unite one another, shouldn't our fellow Christians be made welcome and allowed to openly discuss things free of our righteousness? I apologize if this sounded harsh, it was not the intent. But open discussion is not open if it means you have to convince the masses to keep from being on the outside looking in.
I am thankful for those here that express kindness and understanding, but like a mosquito bite, the irritation stands out more than the salve.
|
|
servantofthelord
Truth Seeker
Come, Lord Jesus. The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all. Amen.
Posts: 164
Favorite Verse: Anything from John
Favorite Song: Feelin Good!- Nina Simone
Favorite Animal: Blue, my mini schnauzer
Favorite Food: potatoes
Dream Vacation: To actually go on one, never been
Profession: Artist/Poet/Carpenter/Servant
Denomination: Servant of all
I'm From: All over
|
Post by servantofthelord on Jul 23, 2021 15:00:39 GMT -6
Natalie, mike, Gary, stormyknight, sog, boraddict, venge, yardstickI address this to all of you and any who believe the theories of Pre-Trib, Mid-Trib, Post-Trib, and Pre-wrath. Since those seem to cover the spectrum, other than not believing we get resurrected, which is not worth addressing. IMO. First, lets not make this a debate on who's beliefs are correct. You all have reasons to believe the way you do, i'm good with that. You each have equal right to your belief, none has more than another. I'm not even asking you to defend your belief. I just want some clarification on my personal understanding of what each is. I have very specific queries, which I will ask in the form of yes or no type questions. If I need a scriptural reference, or if you wish to provide one with your yes/no, that is great! But if possible, just the verse or the reference to book and verse. Not what you interpret it to say. This will help me understand without tainting my understanding with a personalized view of it. Also, please don't read into what you think I'm asking, I'll be direct if I am "trying to say something", instead of asking a question. Please don't answer "for" someone else beliefs, then others won't assume you are trying to put "words in their mouth", so to speak. If you would be so kind as to put either pre/mid/post/or wrath on your reply so I can be sure which category your answers will fall into, it will be greatly appreciated! Ok, all the "fine print" aside, on to my queries. 1. Does your idea of what "rapture" means, depend on the translation of the greek word "harpazo", being defined as "caught up"? 2. Is the word "rapture" a replacement word for the act of being resurrected to our new flesh/garment/etc.? 3. Do you believe we are resurrected before the dead in Christ? 4. Are we raptured to somewhere other than heaven, then "resurrected" after the dead? 5 Does your "rapture happen before or after the 144,000 are purchased and taken? 6. Do you hold to the idea of the "rapture" being a multiple time event? Meaning there are people raptured at different times. Since the dividing point for much of this topic is based on the view of tribulation vs. "The Great Tribulation", I have a few questions on this topic as well, same "guidelines" as above. 1. Do you believe we are meant to go through the Great Tribulation? 2. What precise event IS or begins this? 3. Can you provide a verse that specifically identifies the event or it's precise time, in relation to the other events in the book of Revelation? Now, a couple questions on wrath. 1. Do you believe we are not going to be in our flesh form for any of God's wrath? 2. What precise point in Revelations, do you believe God's wrath to begin? 3. Can we still be in the flesh, during God's wrath, but not have it poured out on us? 4. What marks the completion of God's wrath? Thank you all very much for your help in giving me clarification! Be blessed!
|
|
|
|
Post by Natalie on Jul 23, 2021 16:01:17 GMT -6
I would identify as pre-trib (or pre-Daniel's 70th week to be more specific)
1. Does your idea of what "rapture" means, depend on the translation of the greek word "harpazo", being defined as "caught up"? It includes the rest of the verse, too, in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air (1 Thes 4:17) How can we meet Him in the clouds if we aren't caught up to Him?
2. Is the word "rapture" a replacement word for the act of being resurrected to our new flesh/garment/etc.? No, but it includes the idea that once we are caught up we will be changed (1 Thes 4:13-18, 1 Cor 15:51-52)3. Do you believe we are resurrected before the dead in Christ? no, they rise first and we go up with them (1 Thes 4:15-17)4. Are we raptured to somewhere other than heaven, then "resurrected" after the dead? We go to the place prepared for us (John 14:1-3) I believe that to be the New Jerusalem. We aren't resurrected - we are changed in a twinkling of an eye at the last trumpet (1 Cor 15:51-52) 5 Does your "rapture happen before or after the 144,000 are purchased and taken? before6. Do you hold to the idea of the "rapture" being a multiple time event? Meaning there are people raptured at different times. The "raptures" I see in the Bible would be Enoch, Elijah, the Church, the two witnesses - Jesus ascended but I don't consider that quite the same as a rapture event Since the dividing point for much of this topic is based on the view of tribulation vs. "The Great Tribulation", I have a few questions on this topic as well, same "guidelines" as above. 1. Do you believe we are meant to go through the Great Tribulation? no2. What precise event IS or begins this? the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place (Matt 24:15) begins it3. Can you provide a verse that specifically identifies the event or it's precise time, in relation to the other events in the book of Revelation? Using Matt 24:15-21, I see it in Rev 12:13-14. Now, a couple questions on wrath. 1. Do you believe we are not going to be in our flesh form for any of God's wrath? I believe we will be in the New Jerusalem in our glorified bodies2. What precise point in Revelations, do you believe God's wrath to begin? The opening of the sixth seal (Rev 6:16) (and Revelation isn't plural  )3. Can we still be in the flesh, during God's wrath, but not have it poured out on us? My understanding is that He pours His wrath out on those on the earth, so we would have to be removed from the earth to not have it poured on us.4. What marks the completion of God's wrath? This one I had not thought about before. But I would say, when everything is completed. It's stated in Rev 16:17-21. Babylon, and the world, has been judged and has fallen. The Anti-christ and false prophet's reign is over, and Jesus returns to set up His kingdom.
|
|
servantofthelord
Truth Seeker
Come, Lord Jesus. The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all. Amen.
Posts: 164
Favorite Verse: Anything from John
Favorite Song: Feelin Good!- Nina Simone
Favorite Animal: Blue, my mini schnauzer
Favorite Food: potatoes
Dream Vacation: To actually go on one, never been
Profession: Artist/Poet/Carpenter/Servant
Denomination: Servant of all
I'm From: All over
|
Post by servantofthelord on Jul 23, 2021 16:58:04 GMT -6
I would identify as pre-trib (or pre-Daniel's 70th week to be more specific)
1. Does your idea of what "rapture" means, depend on the translation of the greek word "harpazo", being defined as "caught up"? It includes the rest of the verse, too, in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air (1 Thes 4:17) How can we meet Him in the clouds if we aren't caught up to Him? Translated would also do it, wouldn't it?
This is part of why I ask, believe it or not, I have heard many different interpretations of all these questions, so I formed and asked these to be an indication of positive or negative, free of interpretation. The questions don't interpret meaning, only define what each persons is.
2. Is the word "rapture" a replacement word for the act of being resurrected to our new flesh/garment/etc.? No, but it includes the idea that once we are caught up we will be changed (1 Thes 4:13-18, 1 Cor 15:51-52)This begs the question, once you are caught up, but not in your old flesh or your new state, what state are you in? It sounds close to the catholic "purgatory" without the negative connotations.3. Do you believe we are resurrected before the dead in Christ? no, they rise first and we go up with them (1 Thes 4:15-17)Here's where I get lost with this. We do know when they are taken, it specifies it in Revelation, at the judgement of the dead, the first resurrection. But that isn't till after you believe we are "raptured".4. Are we raptured to somewhere other than heaven, then "resurrected" after the dead? We go to the place prepared for us (John 14:1-3) I believe that to be the New Jerusalem. We aren't resurrected - we are changed in a twinkling of an eye at the last trumpet (1 Cor 15:51-52)So new Jerusalem, before it comes to earth, is not in heaven?5 Does your "rapture happen before or after the 144,000 are purchased and taken? before6. Do you hold to the idea of the "rapture" being a multiple time event? Meaning there are people raptured at different times. The "raptures" I see in the Bible would be Enoch, Elijah, the Church, the two witnesses - Jesus ascended but I don't consider that quite the same as a rapture eventMy fault, I should have specified us/we, but figured we all knew anyone not here already couldn't be raptured in the end days. I can understand Enoch and Elijah, translated and raptured being assumed to mean the same. But Jesus is a tricky one. Since he was both God and man, what does He rapture to? Or does God "rapture" at all? A strange question for another day perhaps.Since the dividing point for much of this topic is based on the view of tribulation vs. "The Great Tribulation", I have a few questions on this topic as well, same "guidelines" as above. 1. Do you believe we are meant to go through the Great Tribulation? no2. What precise event IS or begins this? the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place (Matt 24:15) begins itSo you take the word for desolation to literally mean ruin and the word for standing to mean erected or like a man type standing? Because stupify and or awed or dumfounded is also an accurate translation of the word translated as abomination and put or establish is also a translation of the word for standing. So if the people of/in the holy place were being awed or stupid and this was establish or cased to be, that too would fulfill this.3. Can you provide a verse that specifically identifies the event or it's precise time, in relation to the other events in the book of Revelation? Using Matt 24:15-21, I see it in Rev 12:13-14. Now, a couple questions on wrath. 1. Do you believe we are not going to be in our flesh form for any of God's wrath? I believe we will be in the New Jerusalem in our glorified bodiesSo then you do believe we enter heaven before New Jerusalem comes down to earth, which happens after judgement in Revelations 20.2. What precise point in Revelations, do you believe God's wrath to begin? The opening of the sixth seal (Rev 6:16) (and Revelation isn't plural ) Meant not to capitalize the "R". the book of Revelation is full of revelations, which one is what I was asking. But always happy for correction when needed. LOL3. Can we still be in the flesh, during God's wrath, but not have it poured out on us? My understanding is that He pours His wrath out on those on the earth, so we would have to be removed from the earth to not have it poured on us.It actually specifies the groups, then in the next chapter He says not to hurt till his bond-servants are marked, followed by the 144,000.
4. What marks the completion of God's wrath? This one I had not thought about before. But I would say, when everything is completed. It's stated in Rev 16:17-21. Babylon, and the world, has been judged and has fallen. The Anti-christ and false prophet's reign is over, and Jesus returns to set up His kingdom.
Very interesting, it also specifies judgement happens in chapter 20:11. So, two judgements?
Thanks a lot for contributing! I appreciate your taking the time. |
|
|
|
Post by Natalie on Jul 23, 2021 18:46:51 GMT -6
I would identify as pre-trib (or pre-Daniel's 70th week to be more specific)
1. Does your idea of what "rapture" means, depend on the translation of the greek word "harpazo", being defined as "caught up"? It includes the rest of the verse, too, in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air (1 Thes 4:17) How can we meet Him in the clouds if we aren't caught up to Him? Translated would also do it, wouldn't it?
This is part of why I ask, believe it or not, I have heard many different interpretations of all these questions, so I formed and asked these to be an indication of positive or negative, free of interpretation. The questions don't interpret meaning, only define what each persons is. You mean if "rapture" meant "translated"? Sure, because put together with the verses in 1 Cor, we are changed but the rest of the verse in 1 Thes indicates we do not remain on the earth but meet Him in the sky. So, caught up makes sense too.
2. Is the word "rapture" a replacement word for the act of being resurrected to our new flesh/garment/etc.? No, but it includes the idea that once we are caught up we will be changed (1 Thes 4:13-18, 1 Cor 15:51-52)This begs the question, once you are caught up, but not in your old flesh or your new state, what state are you in? It sounds close to the catholic "purgatory" without the negative connotations. I believe that we are caught up and changed into the bodies we will have for eternity. There isn't some intermediate state. We go from mortal to immortal.
3. Do you believe we are resurrected before the dead in Christ? no, they rise first and we go up with them (1 Thes 4:15-17)Here's where I get lost with this. We do know when they are taken, it specifies it in Revelation, at the judgement of the dead, the first resurrection. But that isn't till after you believe we are "raptured". This is where I see it a little differently than you. I believe there is a resurrection of Church age believers before Daniel's 70th week. The dead in Christ rise and those alive are taken with them before the 70th week starts. (That's the pretrib rapture belief.) Then after the 70th week is what Revelation calls the first resurrection. It's not the absolute first, but the first of a certain kind. Because remember there were some resurrected when Jesus was crucified. (I don't know if Scripture is clear on what happened to them. Maybe they ascended with Jesus. ? ? ) That should be called the first resurrection. So, the one in Rev 20:4-4 is the resurrection of 70th week martyrs and those who did not take the mark of the beast. Then after the 1000 years, everyone who was not part of the Church or those from the first resurrection will be judged and sent to their final destination.
4. Are we raptured to somewhere other than heaven, then "resurrected" after the dead? We go to the place prepared for us (John 14:1-3) I believe that to be the New Jerusalem. We aren't resurrected - we are changed in a twinkling of an eye at the last trumpet (1 Cor 15:51-52)So new Jerusalem, before it comes to earth, is not in heaven? Yes, before it comes to earth - it's in the spiritual realm, so I suppose yes, heaven5 Does your "rapture happen before or after the 144,000 are purchased and taken? before6. Do you hold to the idea of the "rapture" being a multiple time event? Meaning there are people raptured at different times. The "raptures" I see in the Bible would be Enoch, Elijah, the Church, the two witnesses - Jesus ascended but I don't consider that quite the same as a rapture eventMy fault, I should have specified us/we, but figured we all knew anyone not here already couldn't be raptured in the end days. I can understand Enoch and Elijah, translated and raptured being assumed to mean the same. But Jesus is a tricky one. Since he was both God and man, what does He rapture to? Or does God "rapture" at all? A strange question for another day perhaps. Yes that's why I put Him separate. He went from the physical world to the spiritual one. What that should be called...maybe it doesn't matter. Since the dividing point for much of this topic is based on the view of tribulation vs. "The Great Tribulation", I have a few questions on this topic as well, same "guidelines" as above. 1. Do you believe we are meant to go through the Great Tribulation? no2. What precise event IS or begins this? the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place (Matt 24:15) begins itSo you take the word for desolation to literally mean ruin and the word for standing to mean erected or like a man type standing? Because stupify and or awed or dumfounded is also an accurate translation of the word translated as abomination and put or establish is also a translation of the word for standing. So if the people of/in the holy place were being awed or stupid and this was establish or cased to be, that too would fulfill this. See my answer in the other thread - but short answer - it's got to be something physical / seen so that they know to flee.3. Can you provide a verse that specifically identifies the event or it's precise time, in relation to the other events in the book of Revelation? Using Matt 24:15-21, I see it in Rev 12:13-14. Now, a couple questions on wrath. 1. Do you believe we are not going to be in our flesh form for any of God's wrath? I believe we will be in the New Jerusalem in our glorified bodiesSo then you do believe we enter heaven before New Jerusalem comes down to earth, which happens after judgement in Revelations 20. I think I answered this above, but yes.2. What precise point in Revelations, do you believe God's wrath to begin? The opening of the sixth seal (Rev 6:16) (and Revelation isn't plural ) Meant not to capitalize the "R". the book of Revelation is full of revelations, which one is what I was asking. But always happy for correction when needed. LOL3. Can we still be in the flesh, during God's wrath, but not have it poured out on us? My understanding is that He pours His wrath out on those on the earth, so we would have to be removed from the earth to not have it poured on us.It actually specifies the groups, then in the next chapter He says not to hurt till his bond-servants are marked, followed by the 144,000. Because I do not believe we are here for Daniel's 70th week, I believe we are removed from the earth before God's wrath is poured out. I also believe that the Church and the 144,000 are two different groups. The 144,000 are sealed and protected, but it doesn't mention the Church. It doesn't say anything about the Church being protected.
4. What marks the completion of God's wrath? This one I had not thought about before. But I would say, when everything is completed. It's stated in Rev 16:17-21. Babylon, and the world, has been judged and has fallen. The Anti-christ and false prophet's reign is over, and Jesus returns to set up His kingdom.
Very interesting, it also specifies judgement happens in chapter 20:11. So, two judgements? I won't be able to answer this one very well until I study it a bit more.
Thanks a lot for contributing! I appreciate your taking the time. I added more comments in blue (the only color it's allowing me at the moment for some reason) after your comments in gold. |
|
servantofthelord
Truth Seeker
Come, Lord Jesus. The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all. Amen.
Posts: 164
Favorite Verse: Anything from John
Favorite Song: Feelin Good!- Nina Simone
Favorite Animal: Blue, my mini schnauzer
Favorite Food: potatoes
Dream Vacation: To actually go on one, never been
Profession: Artist/Poet/Carpenter/Servant
Denomination: Servant of all
I'm From: All over
|
Post by servantofthelord on Jul 23, 2021 20:09:30 GMT -6
Thanks a lot for contributing! I appreciate your taking the time. I added more comments in blue (the only color it's allowing me at the moment for some reason) after your comments in gold. Thanks again, I'd be interested in your views on my examination of Revelation on the thread "a new look at an old book - Revelation" where I'm breaking down and referencing the book. :) |
|
)