Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The "Inconvenient Tale" of the Original King James Bible
Handsonapologetics ^ | Gary Michuta

Posted on 03/17/2012 7:26:45 AM PDT by GonzoII

    The "Inconvenient Tale" of the Original King James Bible

    By Gary Michuta

    King James I at the Hampton Court Conference

    "Dr. Reynolds...insisted boldly on various points ; but when he came to the demand for the disuse of the apocrypha in the church service James could bear it no longer. He called for a Bible, read a chapter out of Ecclesiasticus, and expounded it according to his own views ; then turning to the lords of his council, he said, " What trow ye makes these men so angry with Ecclesiasticus ? By my soul, I think Ecclesiasticus was a bishop, or they would never use him so."

    (John Cassell’s Illustrated History of England, text by William Howitt, (W. Kent & Co.:London), 1859, vol. 3p. 15)

    In 1604, the Church of England commissioned a new English translation of the Scripture, which later became known as the King JamesVersion. According to it dedication to the king, the hope was that this new version would “counteract the barbs” of Catholics and a foil to the “self-conceited” Protestants “who run their own ways, and give liking unto nothing but what is framed by themselves, and hammered on their anvil…” [Preface and dedication to the King, 1611 King James Bible], namely religious dissenters like the Baptists and others. Ironically, the Church of England had moved to other translations and the King James Bible (K.J.V.) had become, at least for a time, the translation for those groups that would have been considered dissenters. Today, the New International Version has become the best selling translation among Protestants, but the King James is still widely used and revered by non-Catholics.

    Bible translations are interesting in that they can provide a snapshot of the beliefs of their translators at that time. The Latin Vulgate, for example, can show us how certain words were understood in the fourth century when it was translated by St. Jerome. The King James Bible is no exception. When one compares the original 1611 edition with subsequent editions, one can discern some very important changes in viewpoints.

    If you own a King James Bible, the first and biggest change you will notice is that the original

    1611 edition contained several extra books in an appendix between the Old and New Testaments labeled “The books of the Apocrypha.” The appendix includes several books, which are found in the Catholic Old Testament such as the books of  Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, 1st and 2nd Maccabees and others.

    Table of Contents KJV 1611

    Some may be tempted to dismiss the omission of these books from the King James Bible as superfluous “add on” to the translation and that its omission really does not change anything important about the King James Bible. On the contrary, the so-called "Apocrypha” formed an integral part of the text, so much so that the Protestant scholar E. G. Goodspeed once wrote:

    “[W]hatever may be our personal opinions of the Apocrypha, it is a historical fact that they formed an integral part of the King James Version, and any Bible claiming to represent that version should either include the Apocrypha, or state that it is omitting them.  Otherwise a false impression is created.” [Story of the Apocrypha (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1939, p. 7]

    If you pick up a modern copy of the King James Version and open to the title page, chances are you’ll not see any mention of the deliberate omission of these books (e.g. “The King James Version without the Apocrypha”). After all, who would want to put a negative statement about a product on the title page? However, perhaps to avoid false advertising, publishers do notify you that books are missing by cleverly stating the contents in a positive fashion like “The King James Version Containing the Old and New Testaments.” If you didn’t know that the Apocrypha was omitted, you’d probably assume that complete King James Bible since most modern Protestant Bibles contain only the Old and New Testaments anyway. Hence, as Goodspeed warns “a false impression is created.”

    The Cross-references

    The King James “Apocrypha” had a much more integral roll in its early editions than simply being an appendix unconnected to the two Testaments. Instead, the 1611 King James Bible included (like the Geneva Bible) cross-references from the Old and New Testaments to the so-called “Apocrypha.” Like modern cross-references, these were meant to refer the reader back to the text cited in order to provide further light on what had just been read. There were 11 cross-references in the New Testament and 102 Old Testament that referred Protestant readers back to the “Apocrypha.” The New Testament cross-references were:

     

    Mat 6:7

    Sirach 7:14

     

    Mat 27:43

    Wisdom 2:15-16

     

    Luke 6:31

    Tobit 4:15

     

    Luke 14:13

    Tobit 4:7

     

    John 10:22

    1 Maccabees 4:59

     

    Rom 9:21

    Wisdom 15:7

     

    Rom 11:34

    Wisdom 9:13

     

    2 Cor 9:7

    Sirach 35:9

     

    Heb 1:3

    Wisdom 7:26

     

    Heb 11:35      

    2 Maccabees 7:7

    1611 KJV Heb. 11:35 - 2 Mac. 7:7

    1611 KJV Matt. 27:43 - Wisdom 2:15-16

     

    1611 KJV Heb. 11:3 - Ws. 7:26

    1611 KJV Luke 14:13 - Tobit 4:7

    Like the early editions of the Geneva Bible, the editors of the Authorized Version believe that the non-Catholic readers should aware of what the “Apocrypha” had to say in regards to these passage. While some are mere correspondences of thought, others point to an awareness or even a dependence upon the “Apocrypha” by inspired New Testament writers. I detail these important passages in Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger: The Untold Story of the Lost Books of the Protestant Bible (Grotto Press, 2007).

    In addition to the eleven cross-references in the New Testament, the 1611 King James also sported 102 cross-reference  in the Old Testament as well bringing to total up to 113 cross-references to and from the Apocrypha overall. No wonder Goodspeed could say that the "Apocrypha" was an integral part of the King James Bible!

    The King James Bible was not the only early Protestant Bible to contain the “Apocrypha” with cross-references. As we have seen in a previous article (Pilgrims’ Regress: The Geneva Bible and the “Apocrypha”), the "Apocrypha" also played an integral role in other Protestant Bibles as well.

    As I mentioned earlier, translations serve as historical snapshots of the beliefs of the translators and readers. The very presence of these cross-references shows that the translators believed that the "Apocrypha" was at work within the New Testament writings and that Protestant Bible readers would benefit from reading and studying the New and Old Testaments in light of these books. Sadly, today this noble heritage has been lost.

    Now You Read Them, Now You Don’t…

    Those who viewed the "Apocrypha" as somehow being the last vestige of "popery" pressed for the Apocrypha appendix and its cross-references to be removed altogether from the Bible. In 1615, George Abbott, the Archbishop of Canterbury, went so far as to employ the power of law to censure any publisher who did not produce the Bible in its entirety (i.e. including the "Apocrypha") as prescribed by the Thirty-nine Articles. However, anti-Catholic hatred and the obvious financial advantages of printing smaller Protestant Bibles began to win out against the traditionalists who wanted the Bible in the form that was given in all previous Protestant translations up until that point (in the form of Luther's Bible - with the Apocrypha between the Old and New Testaments). The "Apocrypha" remained in the King James Bible through the 1626, 1629, 1630, and the 1633 editions. By 1632, public opinion began to decidedly turn against the "bigger" Protestant Bibles. Of the 227 printings of the Bible between 1632 and 1826, about 40% of Protestant Bibles contained the "Apocrypha." The Apocrypha Controversy of the early 1800's enabled English Bible Societies to flood the bible-buying market with Apocrypha-less Protestant Bibles and in 1885 the "Apocrypha" was officially removed with the advent of the Revised Standard Version, which replaced the King James Version.

    It is hard to pin point the exact date where the King James Bible no longer contained the "Apocrypha." It is clear that later editions of the KJV removed the "Apocrypha" appendix, but they continued to include cross-references to the "Apocrypha" until they too (like the Geneva Bible) were removed as well. Why were they removed? Was it do to over-crowded margins? The Anglican scholar William H. Daubney points out the obvious:

    “These objectionable omissions [of the cross-references] were made after the custom arose of publishing Bibles without the Apocrypha. These apparently profess to be what they are not, entire copies of the Authorized Version … Plainly, the references to the Apocrypha told an inconvenient tale of the use which the Church intended should be made of it; so, either from dissenting influence without, or from prejudice within the Church, these references disappeared from the margin.” [The Use of the Apocrypha In the Christian Church (London: C. J. Clay and Sons, 1900), 17]

    What was the inconvenient tale these cross-references told? They showed that the so-called Apocrypha actually plays a much greater role that most modern Protestants are willing to admit. Moreover, the cross-references showed that the church believed that knowledge of the so-called "Apocrypha" and their use in the New Testament benefited Christians who wished to understand the Bible. Sadly today, many Protestants use the King James Bible have been handed on to them in an unaltered and uncompromised form. The reality is that its contents had undergone several substantial changes beginning with Martin Luther's gathering together the Deuterocanon and placing it in an "Apocrypha" appendix and later when that appendix (and its cross-references) were removed altogether from Protestant Bibles.

 



TOPICS: Catholic; Charismatic Christian; Evangelical Christian; History; Mainline Protestant; Orthodox Christian; Theology
KEYWORDS: apocrypha; av; bible; deuterocanonicals; kingjamesbible; kjv; scripture
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 251-300301-350351-400 ... 601-617 next last
To: Natural Law; metmom
How then do you rationalize using "History and Science" to reject of the Book of Tobit?

This is another site that specifically disputes Tobit and says why http://www.jashow.org/Articles/apologetics/AP0704W2.htm:

    Tobit… contains certain historical and geographical errors such as the assumption that Sennacherib was the son of Shalmaneser (1:15) instead of Sargon II, and that Nineveh was captured by Nebuchadnezzar and Ahasuerus (14:5) instead of by Nabopolassar and Cyaxares…. Judith…. fits readily into the time of the Maccabean uprising (2nd century B.C.), but cannot possibly be historical because of the glaring errors it contains. Thus Nebuchadnezzar was given an impossibly long reign, as was the ruler of Media, while the Assyrians and Babylonians were hopelessly confused and the armies were made to perform impossible feats of mobility…. [In 2 Maccabees] There are also numerous disarrangements and discrepancies in chronological, historical, and numerical matters in the book, reflecting ignorance or confusion on the part of the epitomist, his sources or both.3

301 posted on 03/25/2012 5:03:14 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 294 | View Replies]

To: boatbums; Natural Law; CynicalBear; metmom
Malachi is the last Book of the Old Testament. God clearly says what He is going to do. "Behold I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: And the Lord whom ye seek shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in, he shall come saith the Lord of hosts." Malachi 3:1.

The New Testament begins with the book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. THE MESSENGER OF THE COVENANT. Chapter 1. Chapter 3 speaks of God sending the MESSENGER TO PREPARE THE WAY BEFORE CHRIST. John the Baptist.

The LAST thing God reveals in the OT is the FIRST thing God reveals in the NT.

So tell me please, what is the point of the Apocrypha? It is NOT a continuation of God's Word. Matthew is a continuation of God's Word from Malachi.

In what sense is the Apocrypha useful to God's Word? It is not about any transition, or any things God is doing while Israel is awaiting their Messiah. He simply states in Malachi that He is coming to fulfill the covenant, that He is sending a messenger to prepare the way, and then silence from Him. Until Christ and His messenger, John, appear. Case closed.

302 posted on 03/25/2012 6:10:11 PM PDT by smvoice (Better Buck up, Buttercup. The wailing and gnashing are for an eternity..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 300 | View Replies]

To: boatbums
"This is another site that specifically disputes Tobit..."

Look, I am making sport of hypocrisy because of the seemingly arbitrary nature of your arguments. I know that the essence of Scripture is more important than the punctuation. Since I recognize Tobit to be Scripture AND accept the argument that Scripture cannot be errant. Therefore, either science and history are as wrong with respect to Tobit as they are to Judith, Chronicles, Kings and other books, or we have to disregard significant portions of Scripture.

303 posted on 03/25/2012 6:10:17 PM PDT by Natural Law (If you love the Catholic Church raise your hands, if not raise your standards.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 301 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

I think your problem is trying to maintain a logical train of thought on these threads.

:)


304 posted on 03/25/2012 6:51:38 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 303 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law; smvoice; boatbums; metmom
>> Why on earth would I look first to the Far Eastern Bible College to "begin" my education?<<

I actually didn’t think you would. You see, your previous statement of “nearly identical inconsistencies in other books” would have been totally debunked by what you would have read and learned. I totally expected you not to go and learn that your contention that there are “inconsistencies” in other books of scripture is wrong.

BTW Your belief that the Catholic Church preserved the scriptures and then tell us that there are “inconsistencies” is rather contradictory to your belief in the inerrancy of the CC isn’t it? What’s the good of an “authority” if by your own admission it brings us “inconsistencies”? It’s apparent to me that the CC perpetuates error by your own admission.

305 posted on 03/25/2012 6:54:47 PM PDT by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 299 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear; Natural Law; metmom; boatbums; D-fendr
Regarding the Apocrypha:

I found this interesting information in Dake's Annotated Reference Bible, page 511, column 1, point 9.

There are 12 reasons listed why the Apocryphal books are considered uninspired. Number 9 is where I'll start, because it seems the most interesting part of this discussion.

9. The Apocryphal books were NOT a part of the ancient versions of Scripture. They were FIRST ADDED AFTER 300 AD. The Laodicean Council in 363 AD rejected them as being UNINSPIRED, thus PROVING that by that time some were claiming INSPIRATION for them. (They FIRST APPEARED in the VATICAN VERSION of the 4th century. At the Council of Trent in 1546 AD, Catholics accepted 6 of these books as inspired and added them to their MODERN VERSIONS of Scripture. They are: Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees).

1546 AD. REALLY?

Now who on the RCC "Logic Train" will tell us if this correct?

306 posted on 03/25/2012 7:14:43 PM PDT by smvoice (Better Buck up, Buttercup. The wailing and gnashing are for an eternity..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 305 | View Replies]

To: smvoice

One wonders what other beliefs the CC adapted that needed the support of the books previously declared uninspired doesn’t it?


307 posted on 03/25/2012 7:28:53 PM PDT by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 306 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear

It certainly does..some of it comes out in dribs and drabs, but it would be so refreshing if the truth were spoken AT THE FIRST, instead of being forced to cough it up..If you believe it, be proud of it, shout it from the rooftops, post it so everyone can know and not have to guess..or go on a search for the real truth of what they believe and teach.


308 posted on 03/25/2012 7:41:26 PM PDT by smvoice (Better Buck up, Buttercup. The wailing and gnashing are for an eternity..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 307 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear
"It’s apparent to me that the CC perpetuates error by your own admission."

The only thing I am admitting is bewilderment at a line of reasoning that begs others to accept as authoritative an obscure Singapore based source selected only because it corroborates your premise. As I have often said; the genius of the internet is that if one searches long enough one can always find and expert that agrees.

309 posted on 03/25/2012 8:11:34 PM PDT by Natural Law (If you love the Catholic Church raise your hands, if not raise your standards.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 305 | View Replies]

To: smvoice; Natural Law
I found this interesting information in Dake's Annotated Reference Bible..

Is there some kind of standard for acceptance as authoritative? I'm seriously curious. I have no idea about this source; I'm wondering if you do or how you determine authority. Is it up to everyone to be their own authority on what is an authoritative source?

310 posted on 03/25/2012 8:34:18 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 306 | View Replies]

To: smvoice; Natural Law
The reason for asking, the example here, is your question: "Now who on the RCC "Logic Train" will tell us if this correct?"

Wouldn't it be incumbent on you to check yourself first? Perhaps before posting?

311 posted on 03/25/2012 8:42:00 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 306 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr
"Is there some kind of standard for acceptance as authoritative?"

The Holy Spirit gave us the teaching authority of the Church and with it the Magisterium. Absent that you have the Googlesterium which I suppose has a certain appeal. If you look long enough you can always find an expert that agrees with your premise.

312 posted on 03/25/2012 8:47:57 PM PDT by Natural Law (If you love the Catholic Church raise your hands, if not raise your standards.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 310 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law; CynicalBear
It all comes down to authority again, doesn't it. I have 2,000 years of continuity directly from the human authors. You don't.

It certainly DOES come down to authority, but this "2000 years of continuity directly from the human authors" is as bogus as a football bat. Only the Holy Scriptures, the BIBLE, is the reliable and unchanged authority given to us by God himself. Anything presumed to be handed down verbally, or even in written form, that is not from the Bible is open to question as well as fallible human interference. We can trust in the Holy Scriptures because they ARE the divinely inspired words of God and, as such, are reliable and authoritative because the Word of God will never fail.

Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away. Matthew 24:35

And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail. Luke 16:17

The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God endures forever. Isaiah 40:8

313 posted on 03/25/2012 9:01:28 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 299 | View Replies]

To: smvoice; CynicalBear; metmom
So tell me please, what is the point of the Apocrypha?

I think I know the answer to that. Again, from http://www.jashow.org/Articles/apologetics/AP0704W2.htm:

    How did the Council of Trent ever declare the Apocrypha was Scripture in the first place? Much in the same way Vatican I decreed papal infallibility: expediency.

    Theologian Dr. Bernard Ramm observes that, "The story as to how the Apocrypha achieved [the] status of inspired Scripture at the Council of Trent is one of the saddest commentaries on improper scholarship in the history of Western culture."5

    Biblical scholar R. Laird Harris observes that for 1,500 years no Roman Catholic was called upon to believe the Apocrypha was scriptural—until the Council of Trent made its fateful decree. He agrees the Council adopted its position "for reasons of expediency rather than evidence."6 Thus, the Council was "unmindful of evidence, of former popes and scholars, of the Fathers of the church and the witness of Christ and the apostles" in making its pronouncement.7

    Dr. Rene Pache points out that a key reason for Trent’s decision was to respond to the arguments of the Protestant Reformers who were attempting to defend the principle of sola scriptura—that the Bible alone was the final authority for matters of faith and practice, not church tradition. Thus, Trent found in the Apocrypha a justification for unbiblical Catholic traditions that were rejected by the Reformers.

    Why, then, did Rome take so new and daring a position? Because, confronted by the Reformers, she lacked arguments to justify her unscriptural deviations. She declared that the Apocryphal books supported such doctrines as prayers for the dead (II Macc. 12:44); the expiatory sacrifice (eventually to become the Mass, II Macc. 12:39-46); alms giving with expiatory value, also leading to deliverance from death (Tobit 12:9; 4:10); invocation and intercession of the saints (II Macc. 15:14; Bar. 3:4); the worship of angels (Tobit 12:12); purgatory; and the redemption of souls after death (II Macc. 12:42, 46).8

    Thus, a strong case can be made that the reason the Council of Trent declared the Apocrypha canonical was simply as a polemical maneuver to support Roman Catholic belief against the Protestant Reformation. To illustrate, two main doctrines in dispute during the Reformation, both supported by the Apocrypha, include salvation by faith/works (Tobit 12:9) and prayers for the dead (2 Macc. 12:45-46). Concerning these doctrines, the Catholic Church claims that they are scriptural because they are canonical (i.e., apocryphal). For example, concerning prayers for the dead in 2 Maccabees 12:39-36, we find the practice of postmortem intercession where the living are able to make "propitiation for the dead,"9 allegedly loosing them from the consequences of their sins and thus undergirding the Catholic doctrine of indulgences and prayers for the dead in purgatory:

    …the troops of Judas went… to pick up the corpses of the slain… they discovered under the shirts of every one of the dead men amulets of the idols of Jamnia—a practice forbidden the Jews by law. All saw at once that this was why they had perished [by the Lord’s judgment] and… all betook themselves to supplication, beseeching that the sin committed might be wholly blotted out… [Judah] collected from them, man by man, the sum of two thousand drachmas of silver, which he forwarded to Jerusalem for a sin-offering. In this he acted quite rightly and properly…. Hence he made propitiation for the dead that they might be released from their sin.10

    Notice however that these verses 1) do not even mention purgatory and 2) actually reject the Catholic doctrine of purgatory by teaching that deliverance of soldiers who had died in the mortal, and hence unforgivable, sin of idolatry. Regardless,

    The acceptance of the Apocrypha at the Council of Trent is suspect because: ...it was used against Luther in support of the Roman Catholic position…. [Further] Not all of the Apocrypha was accepted. Only 11 of the 14 books were and one of those admitted books (2 Esdras) is against prayers for the dead….11

    We emphasize once again! Material that is either contradictory, legendary or heretical can hardly be accorded canonical status. The canonical books clearly oppose salvation by works (Galatians chs. 2 & 3) and praying for the dead (Hebrews 9:27; 2 Samuel 12:19; Luke 16:25-26). Stories such as those found in "Bel and the Dragon" are clearly legendary and therefore unauthentic as are the "Additions to Esther," "Prayer of Azriah," "Tobit," "Susanna and Judith." At other places the teaching of the Apocrypha is even immoral, e.g., where Judith was allegedly assisted by God in an immoral action (Judith 9:10-13). Both "Wisdom" and "Ecclesiasticus" teach morality based on expedience. Again, there are numerous errors in the Apocrypha. William H. Green concisely observes: "The books of ‘Tobit’ and ‘Judith’ abound in geographical, chronological, and historical mistakes, so as not only to vitiate the truth of the narratives they contain, but to make it doubtful whether they even rest upon a basis of fact."12 This probably explains why "Many of the great Fathers of the early church spoke out against the Apocrypha, for example, Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Athanasius."13


314 posted on 03/25/2012 9:19:24 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 302 | View Replies]

To: boatbums
"We can trust in the Holy Scriptures because they ARE the divinely inspired words of God and, as such, are reliable and authoritative because the Word of God will never fail."

Quid est veritas? The Church teaches and Catholics believe that Scripture is a significant part of the Revealed Word but is not 100% of the Revealed Word. No amount of arguing in this forum is going to change Catholic teaching or any educated Catholic's beliefs. I do not hope to change your views either.

Jesus spent three years preparing the 12 Apostles for their ministry. During that time he gave no written assignments or notes. Jesus wrote nothing down. The only reference to him writing anything was in the sand. Jesus then commanded the Apostles to go and preach the Word. He did not give them a book, training materials or written instructions. They took with them the Tradition. It was entirely oral and remained so for the hundreds of years it took to produce the Bible.

Even after the Bible was created there were hundreds of years in which there were very few capable of actually reading it so Christianity remained a Traditional faith.

There are hundreds of versions of the bible and many thousands of interpretations of the so-called simple, plain, clear, self-explanitory and self-interpreting writings. In this context you would have me accept that the millions of interpreters. You can keep the all of that with the added complexity of the many millions of farm hands and milk maids all clammering about what it the Truth. I am content with my Bible, my Church and the Magisterium.

315 posted on 03/25/2012 9:29:57 PM PDT by Natural Law (If you love the Catholic Church raise your hands, if not raise your standards.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 313 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
either science and history are as wrong with respect to Tobit as they are to Judith, Chronicles, Kings and other books, or we have to disregard significant portions of Scripture.

I get the point you are trying to express but there is no "seemingly arbitrary" nature to our arguments. Plain and simple, the books added to the Old Testament that were NEVER considered canonical by either the Jews NOR the early Christians have quite understandable reasons for being excluded from that Holy consideration. I think to be consistent with what has ALWAYS been regarded as divinely-inspired Holy Scripture, certain "IN-significant portions" of wrongly accounted Scripture SHOULD be disregarded as such. No one's saying you cannot READ them and glean whatever edification you can from them, just accept that they are NOT in the same league as the other canonical books and, because of that, they are not reliable for instructions on doctrine. Now, wasn't that easy? ;o)

316 posted on 03/25/2012 9:30:10 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 303 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
Googlesterium

Rudderless. Each individual on their own. I think you have to ignore the Church in Holy Scripture to get to this.

317 posted on 03/25/2012 9:32:45 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 312 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear
BTW Your belief that the Catholic Church preserved the scriptures and then tell us that there are “inconsistencies” is rather contradictory to your belief in the inerrancy of the CC isn’t it? What’s the good of an “authority” if by your own admission it brings us “inconsistencies”? It’s apparent to me that the CC perpetuates error by your own admission.

That is a VERY salient point! If the intent of Biblical scribes, translators and copiers was to have presented as "clean" and "error-free" product as they could, then why DID they leave in these presumed errors? Your link explains that quite well:

    The two passages in question are accurate English translations of the Masoretic Hebrew text—all the extant Hebrew manuscripts say the same thing! This is not some supposed “poor translation” by the translators of the Authorised, King James Version. Why, those men would run rings around 20th century scholarship—and do you not think they would have had enough sense to “patch up” such a glaring inconsistency if they really believed it was an error? (This perplexing question is actually a wonderful demonstration of the honesty of the translators of the Authorised, King James Version.)

It is to the credit of those who have passed down the Bible to us in our own langauges - those that actually DID - that they preserved the word of God as it was written and trusted the author to mean what he said and say what he meant. I trust the Bible because it is trustworthy.

318 posted on 03/25/2012 9:43:12 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 305 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr; smvoice; Natural Law; CynicalBear
Is there some kind of standard for acceptance as authoritative? I'm seriously curious. I have no idea about this source; I'm wondering if you do or how you determine authority. Is it up to everyone to be their own authority on what is an authoritative source?

If you noticed, the words from the source spoke of historical AND verifiable facts concerning these books. Rather than throw up the smokescreen of "who is your source" and "how do I know they are authoritative", why not simply verify if what they said actually happened? I realize that this is the "go to" argument when the facts cannot be refuted, but don't you think we are all wise to that by now? Obviously, whatever source "we" quote will be unacceptable to "you" and, though it is a convenient subterfuge tactic, it can only work for so long. Y'all have started a dialog, a conversation, where you have criticized others who do not hold to the same viewpoint as you about the contents of the Bible. Why not refute the facts as they are presented? Reverting to the "Is it up to everyone to be their own authority on what is an authoritative source?" canard is more than a little insulting at this stage. Don't you think?

319 posted on 03/25/2012 9:56:46 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 310 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
Jesus spent three years preparing the 12 Apostles for their ministry. During that time he gave no written assignments or notes. Jesus wrote nothing down. The only reference to him writing anything was in the sand. Jesus then commanded the Apostles to go and preach the Word. He did not give them a book, training materials or written instructions. They took with them the Tradition. It was entirely oral and remained so for the hundreds of years it took to produce the Bible.

I was born, but not yesterday! Have you forgotten that Jesus DID tell the disciples that the Holy Spirit would come to them and would "bring back to your remembrance all the things I have taught you"? Do you think that the Apostles just might have realized that Jesus was not coming back in their shortening lifetimes and that they need to write down what he taught? Have you forgotten that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, James and Jude wrote down the additional revelation given to them by the Holy Spirit so that these truths could be disseminated throughout the Christian world? Now who do you think gave them the idea to do that?

Your contention that "It was entirely oral and remained so for the hundreds of years it took to produce the Bible" is patently FALSE and I am kinda surprised you said that. An "educated" Catholic would certainly, or SHOULD certainly, know that as the epistles were written they were copied and sent out. Just because there was not a "formal" collection of these books called THE BIBLE, doesn't mean they were not accorded the same exact respect and obedience afforded to "oral" teachings from these same leaders of the early church.

I have no illusions of "changing" your mind, but I will stand up for the truth of the Gospel and the authority of the Holy Scriptures regardless. There are souls you nor I may never know about who are won to the Lord through these exchanges and I hold this possibility in mind with everything I say.

For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account. (Hebrews 4:12-13)

320 posted on 03/25/2012 10:32:12 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 315 | View Replies]

To: boatbums
Thank you boatbums! I had prayed someone would pick up on my comment. I’m going to be limited as to my time on here for the next few months as we work to get this RV Park back in shape.

It’s not difficult to see how the beliefs changed over time to accommodate the power Rome was trying to hold on too. Contrary to what they would like us to believe the RCC has surely not been consistent through the years.

321 posted on 03/26/2012 6:27:29 AM PDT by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 314 | View Replies]

To: boatbums; D-fendr; smvoice; Natural Law; metmom; caww

If one starts with the knowledge that the original scriptures are indeed “authoritative” and that God did indeed preserve for us a “source” of His written word then we can begin to establish a base. The admonition to “search the scriptures daily to see if these things be true” was and is wise advice. I have found that trusting any one “source” other than scripture itself is tenuous at best. I don’t use the “cynical” part of my name here in a frivolous manner. I have found that “trust but verify” is not only wise but is necessary if one wants to avoid being led astray. Even searching out the original meaning of Greek and Hebrew words has led to a better understanding of the intent and meaning of scripture. Putting ones trust in any other than God alone will lead to disastrous consequences.


322 posted on 03/26/2012 7:07:58 AM PDT by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 319 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

The question and post were not addressed to you for a reason. I don’t you can answer for them, though I do appreciate your thoughts on it.


323 posted on 03/26/2012 7:21:17 AM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 319 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

The question and post were not addressed to you for a reason. I don’t think you can answer for them, though I do appreciate your thoughts on it.


324 posted on 03/26/2012 7:21:44 AM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 319 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear; Natural Law; boatbums

CB, I believe you have said that each Christian is tasked with determining his/her own interpretation, or choice of interpretation, including studying the Greek and Hebrew.

Is this an accurate statement? Is this up to each individual in your view? It seems to be consistent with your post here.


325 posted on 03/26/2012 7:27:46 AM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 322 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr
>> CB, I believe you have said that each Christian is tasked with determining his/her own interpretation, or choice of interpretation, including studying the Greek and Hebrew.<<

That would not be an accurate description. What I did say is that salvation is an individual thing. Putting ones trust in Jesus alone rather than an institution or individual is the only sure way. Understanding the “meat” of scripture is not paramount to ones salvation. I have also said that putting ones trust in any individual or institution is risky at best. When a person is led to understanding the “meat” of scripture it is indeed their responsibility to “search the scriptures daily to see if these things be true” with all that entails. How deeply one delves into that understanding is an individual calling.

326 posted on 03/26/2012 7:42:44 AM PDT by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 325 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear

Thanks for your reply.

What is the difference between ‘meat’ and not in scripture?


327 posted on 03/26/2012 7:46:05 AM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 326 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr; boatbums
First of all, thank you boatbums for answering the post. As always, you answered with truth and clarity. You are more than welcome, as I'm sure you know, to answer any post of mine. I do not protect them like a mother hen sitting on her eggs, waiting for them to hatch. :)

Now, speaking of laying eggs, what exactly do you feel you need, D-fendr, to stamp information with your seal of approval? I gave you the reference,page, and column, and point number. If you want to discount any of the information, look it up. Unless you would rather believe that our side has no "authoritative" references, so you have no need to look them up. If that is the case, then stop griping about it. Look into it, don't look into it. It's up to you.

What do you think we do? Find our information from Chinese Fortune Cookies at the local Jade Palace? If that ever happens, I'll scan the information to you, along with your lucky numbers...:)

328 posted on 03/26/2012 8:36:08 AM PDT by smvoice (Better Buck up, Buttercup. The wailing and gnashing are for an eternity..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 324 | View Replies]

To: smvoice

Thanks for your reply, however I don’t see specific answers to the questions in it.


329 posted on 03/26/2012 8:38:39 AM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 328 | View Replies]

To: smvoice

Perhaps if I restate it more simply and specifically:

What makes this authority, the one you cite, an authority for you?


330 posted on 03/26/2012 9:00:34 AM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 328 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr

Gee, I don’t know, D-fendr. There isn’t even ONE red letter word in the Book, and yet...


331 posted on 03/26/2012 9:13:01 AM PDT by smvoice (Better Buck up, Buttercup. The wailing and gnashing are for an eternity..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 330 | View Replies]

To: smvoice

Thanks. “I don’t know” it is, unless you’d like to offer more.


332 posted on 03/26/2012 9:15:20 AM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 331 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr
Thanks for your "thanks". I will always be offering "more", with the necessary references and Scripture.

"Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and DOCTRINE." 2 Tim.4:2. - God. "Dake's Annotated Reference Bible, Containing the Old and New Testaments of the Authorized or King James Version Text", p. 240, column 2.

333 posted on 03/26/2012 9:35:46 AM PDT by smvoice (Better Buck up, Buttercup. The wailing and gnashing are for an eternity..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 332 | View Replies]

To: smvoice

The authoritative question involved history according to your source, not excerpts of scripture as in your reply here.


334 posted on 03/26/2012 9:40:05 AM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 333 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr
...as opposed to "authoritative history" according to your Church?

See how comical it becomes?

335 posted on 03/26/2012 9:48:36 AM PDT by smvoice (Better Buck up, Buttercup. The wailing and gnashing are for an eternity..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 334 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear; boatbums; D-fendr; smvoice; metmom; caww
"If one starts with the knowledge that the original scriptures are indeed “authoritative” and that God did indeed preserve for us a “source” of His written word then we can begin to establish a base."

The crux of this thread is that not all agree on what today constitutes the authoritative “original Scriptures”. For all of the hyperbole regarding the reliance on Hebrew sources none of them are accepted without major alteration or recognition that those that determined if rejected Jesus as the Messiah.

The Canon of the Sadducees held that only the five books of the Pentateuch were Scripture whereas the Septuagint, accepted as Scripture by the Hellenized Jews, which constituted the largest number of Jews in the first century, held that there were 70. The Pharisee Canon, to which you give most weight, was not completely closed until the 2nd Century AD and only considers 24 books of Scripture. It was set primarily to counteract the growing Christian sect and to reverse the influence of the Hellenized Jews. The Essenes and Samaritans also held different Canons.

Even after you have determined which books you accept you have to wade through the various versions since none of the original manuscripts exist today. And if you are not a native speaker of first century Koine Greek you have to accept that the translation you are using was produced inerrantly.

I am just a little curious how anyone this deeply immersed in the chaos and discord surrounding can reject outright the idea of Jesus leaving a Church with a teaching authority to deal with it.

336 posted on 03/26/2012 10:08:48 AM PDT by Natural Law (If you love the Catholic Church raise your hands, if not raise your standards.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 322 | View Replies]

To: SuzyQue

Yes, you are so right..very frustrating, I’m with you SusyQue.
Again to all skeptics and naysayers...God does not make mistakes. The King James version has been the rock basis for complete scripture and inspiration for centuries now. It was commissioned “by God, through the Holy Spirit” so that the word could be read and understood by all people in clear and poetic verse, being excruciatingly faithful to the oldest and most accepted manuscripts and Gospels. The Catholics Love pomp and circumstance and talk of venerating saints. A couple of extra ancient texts that may or may not have been inspired scripture is ok with them, as it makes for interesting reading and reflection. Not to say those books are not true or have any value to them, but for some reason with all their detailed solemn masses, God may have wanted to break away from the constraining structure of the Catholic church and bring men and women closer to him through a Bible that had no more or no less teaching than what mankind needed for a more personal way of study, belief and worship. A.K.A. The King James Version. I’m not saying the Catholic church is in the wrong in any way. Some people Love the quiet, meditative and long practiced Latin Mass...The books of the Apocrypha make for interesting reading, as do some of the other “Lost books of the Bible”. The New International Version, the New American Standard versions and a few select others are accurate translations for a modern world, but I still find myself quoting scripture from time to time in the language of the old King James.
What worries me more than the addition or omission of the Apocrypha and or other books, is the blatant “Re-translation” of accepted scripture to fit political correctness. Changing the meaning of verses completely or adding or subtracting words to fit their own self interests or lifestyle scares me more than any “conspiracy” surrounding the Apocrypha.


337 posted on 03/26/2012 10:22:58 AM PDT by Rainwave (Israel Rocks!...go get 'em gang.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: smvoice; D-fendr
"...as opposed to "authoritative history" according to your Church?"

This statement belies a profound and fundamental lack of understanding of that the Church is. It is not my Church nor D-fendr's Church, it is Christ's Church. It is not, like Protestants see a church, as one among many competing institutions that one os free to join or quit at any time and for any reason. The Church is seen by Catholics as the Bride of Christ, instituted among men by Jesus Himself.

CCC - 874 Christ is himself the source of ministry in the Church. He instituted the Church. He gave her authority and mission, orientation and goal:

In order to shepherd the People of God and to increase its numbers without cease, Christ the Lord set up in his Church a variety of offices which aim at the good of the whole body. The holders of office, who are invested with a sacred power, are, in fact, dedicated to promoting the interests of their brethren, so that all who belong to the People of God . . . may attain to salvation.

"Whatever one may think of its theology and ecclesiology, the cold heart fact of the matter is that the Catholic Church is not just one more institution among others. Structurally and doctrinally, it is the emblem par excellence of the ancient world, a continual reminder to our generation that its life did not begin yesterday, and that Western civilization would be unrecognizable, and probably nonexistent, without it, the Catholic Church reminds us as well that we are living off of a cultural capital that was millennia in the making. Its unabashed affirmation of the centrality of tradition to right conduct, its hierarchical conception of authority, its exclusion of females and homosexuals from the priesthood, and its demand that its clergy take a vow of celibacy are some of the more salient respects in which the Catholic Church has not only distinguished itself from the leveling impulses of our age, but resisted them."

– Jack Kerwick, The Catholic Church and the Left, American Thinker, February 20, 2011

338 posted on 03/26/2012 10:53:11 AM PDT by Natural Law (If you love the Catholic Church raise your hands, if not raise your standards.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 335 | View Replies]

To: smvoice; Natural Law
...as opposed to "authoritative history" according to your Church?

In essence what I'm asking is 'as opposed to any and all others'. It is the general question of authority. How do you determine what is authoritative for you? I asked in general or, if you'd like, using the specific example of your cite referenced here, Drakes.

As has been noted several times, much of this comes down to a question of authority. That's at the root of my questions here.

Earlier I had asked for the source authority of your dating of Paul's epistles, since this seemed critical to your theology. I didn't receive a reply.

So both the specific and general questions remain, if you'd like to answer for yourself, according to your methodology and beliefs.

thanks for your posts.

339 posted on 03/26/2012 11:50:35 AM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 335 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change; smvoice; metmom; Natural Law; D-fendr
Your statement about following Paul: Perhaps you can give an example. I've heard similar thoughts expressed outside of FR and never have I seen any example of a statement pitting Paul contra or to the exclusion of Christ. Got an example? Hmmm?

My closest example - you've seen them here as well as outside of FR - is that of those who follow their own interpretation of Paul to the exclusion of the Gospels. I have never claimed Paul did not preach the Gospel; I claim that those who follow Paul and exclude the Gospels are doing it wrong.

For example, we have our very own smvoice and metmom on this very thread. Notice that we have the mythical division of the Twelve versus Paul. Let us see what smvoice has to say in post 217:

Can it be any clearer? Jesus Christ had mercy on Paul, Paul is the pattern for us to follow as he followed Christ. Not Peter and the 11. You would be following them and their gospel of the Kingdom, which is to Israel, and which is in abeyance now, until the fullness of the Gentiles be brought in. Those who are in heresy situations are those who are using PETER and the 11 as patterns to follow to life everlasting. According to Jesus Christ. You may not like what you read, but that doesn't change the truth of God's word. You follow the wrong pattern, you end up in deceit and heresy. Paul is the pattern Jesus Christ set forth during this age of grace, the Church the Body of Christ. Peter is the pattern Jesus Christ set forth during the age of the law, His earthly ministry, and the Millennial Kingdom, the Millenial Church.

Notice what is being said, as well as implied (although that has been said often enough in the past). The Gospels are moot. The Twelve and all that they've been taught by Christ don't matter to the Church - they're to the Jews only, don't you see? It is Paul who personifies Christ and their interpretation of Paul is the fulfillment of Jesus, not actually Jesus in the Gospels, Himself.

That is what we have been saying.

340 posted on 03/26/2012 5:00:29 PM PDT by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

I don’t debate with people who post lies about me.


341 posted on 03/26/2012 5:01:24 PM PDT by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 275 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear; D-fendr; Natural Law
What I did say is that salvation is an individual thing. Putting ones trust in Jesus alone rather than an institution or individual is the only sure way. Understanding the “meat” of scripture is not paramount to ones salvation. I have also said that putting ones trust in any individual or institution is risky at best. When a person is led to understanding the “meat” of scripture it is indeed their responsibility to “search the scriptures daily to see if these things be true” with all that entails. How deeply one delves into that understanding is an individual calling.

Does that 'trust' involve any innate or revealed knowledge?

342 posted on 03/26/2012 5:23:17 PM PDT by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 326 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr; smvoice

Your example answers my question and thanks. Paul certainly set an example but it was he himself that said to pay attention to those taking the lead and as we saw how their course turned out we were to imitate their faith. (Heb. 13:7) Presumably that would include Peter and the others as they died in faith.

I know of but one “gospel of the Kingdom” and the twelve preached it, Paul preached it, just one, not Peter’s and then Paul’s.


343 posted on 03/26/2012 5:28:32 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 340 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr; boatbums; CynicalBear
lol! I really appreciate your unwavering appeal to source authority. It shows you are not willing to accept something just because someone says it's so. You search diligently for the answers to your questions, and will stop at nothing until you are satisfied that all the information you require has been given.

BTW: Could you please give me the dating of Peter's exodus to Rome? It IS the authority from which your Church operates from the Vatican, no? And it does seem critical to your theology.

Thanks for your reply. I know it will be enlightening.

344 posted on 03/26/2012 5:33:54 PM PDT by smvoice (Better Buck up, Buttercup. The wailing and gnashing are for an eternity..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 339 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
I know of but one “gospel of the Kingdom” and the twelve preached it, Paul preached it, just one, not Peter’s and then Paul’s.

There is Jesus the Creator, and then there are His created. We believe that the pinnacle of the revelation to man from God was the Incarnation of Christ on earth. I cannot believe that somebody's (wrong) interpretation of Paul somehow improves on the Incarnate Christ.

345 posted on 03/26/2012 5:34:53 PM PDT by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 343 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr; count-your-change; boatbums; CynicalBear; metmom
Let me give you a little lesson on The Twelve Apostles and Paul. Since you stated "It is Paul who personifies Christ and their interpretation of Paul is the fulfillment of Jesus, not actually Jesus in the Gospels, Himself." shows a severe lack of Scriptural understanding on your part. To continually mischaracterize posts is either ignorance on your part or purposeful deceit. So we'll do a little comparison of the ministries of the twelve and Paul. We'll start with Peter and the 11. Let it sink in, then we'll move on to Paul, and then we'll compare them.

1. The twelve were chosen by Christ ON EARTH (Luke 6:13).

2. At the time Paul was raised up the twelve had known only CHRIST ON EARTH. They had NOT EVEN SEEN HIM ENTER HEAVEN AT HIS ASCENSION, for, "A CLOUD RECEIVED HIM OUT OF THEIR SIGHT" (Acts 1:9).

3. They represented the NATION ISRAEL- ONE FOR EACH TRIBE. Clearly stated here: "Verily I say unto you, that ye which have followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of His glory, YE ALSO SHALL SIT UPON TWELVE TRIBES, JUDGING THE TWELVE TRIBES OF ISRAEL." Mat. 19:28).

4. These twelve were FIRST SENT FORTH to proclaim the kingdom of heaven AT HAND (Mat. 10:7, with Dan. 2:44) and then, later, to OFFER it to Israel with a view to carrying the message to all the world (Acts 1:6-8, 3:19-26).

5. They were given power to work miracles (Mat. 10:8, Mark 16:17,18).

6. Their ministry was based upon the COVENANTS AND PROPHECY (Isa. 60:1-3, Luke 1:70-75, Acts 3:22-26).

7. THEREFORE, they were sent to the Jew FIRST and looked for the salvation of the Gentiles THROUGH REGENERATED ISRAEL (Mat. 10:5,6; Luke 24:47; Acts 3:25,26).

8. They ministered in Palestine ONLY (Acts 10:39, 21:17-20). Until at least the setting aside of Israel, in Acts 28.

9. In their message and ministry they ANTICIPATED Israel's ACCEPTANCE of Christ as King and His RETURN TO REIGN. THIS IS WHAT THEY LABORED, HOPED AND PRAYED FOR. (Acts 1:11, 3:19-21).

10. In the "great commission" to the twelve, water baptism was REQUIRED for salvation and miraculous signs were the EVIDENCES of salvation (Mark 16:15-18, Acts 2:28).

Questions? If you choose not to look the Scriptures up for yourself and examine them, comparing Scripture with Scripture, then I pray there is someone lurking who will take the time.

You are making a mockery of something that is clearly stated in God's Word, if only you would take the time to STUDY IT.

346 posted on 03/26/2012 6:08:14 PM PDT by smvoice (Better Buck up, Buttercup. The wailing and gnashing are for an eternity..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 340 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr; D-fendr; Natural Law; metmom; smvoice; boatbums
Revealed knowledge is when I dig into the real meaning of the Greek word “menounge”. It’s then that I find out that Jesus really said “nay rather” when someone was trying to give veneration to Mary. Revealed knowledge is when I find out that the Catholic Church only began to claim the Apocryphal books were inspired after they needed them to confirm doctrine not found in what they formerly declared scripture.

Nice try tho Mark.

347 posted on 03/26/2012 6:15:06 PM PDT by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 342 | View Replies]

To: smvoice; D-fendr; boatbums
>> Thanks for your reply. I know it will be enlightening.<<

I will really look forward to getting that as it’s a piece I’m missing on some research I’m doing. Hopefully it will come soon.

348 posted on 03/26/2012 6:19:14 PM PDT by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 344 | View Replies]

To: smvoice

That was powerful smvoice. Wow! I truly pray that many who read that will study it and take from it what is there. Great job!


349 posted on 03/26/2012 6:25:25 PM PDT by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 346 | View Replies]

To: smvoice
Let me give you a little lesson on The Twelve Apostles and Paul.

Oh goody.

Since you stated "It is Paul who personifies Christ and their interpretation of Paul is the fulfillment of Jesus, not actually Jesus in the Gospels, Himself." shows a severe lack of Scriptural understanding on your part.

It is what I believe that you are posting, and by the way, you are reinforcing it with your post here.

To continually mischaracterize posts is either ignorance on your part or purposeful deceit.

The evidence is pretty overwhelming as to what you are posting.

So we'll do a little comparison of the ministries of the twelve and Paul. We'll start with Peter and the 11. Let it sink in, then we'll move on to Paul, and then we'll compare them.

And this will advance your thesis that Peter and the Twelve (and the Gospels) are for the Jews only and that it is to Paul that we Christians must turn for direction? Let us see. Pray proceed.

1. The twelve were chosen by Christ ON EARTH (Luke 6:13).

God is somehow different in His choices whilst on earth? Hmmm. A changeable God. What other wisdom do you proffer?

2. At the time Paul was raised up the twelve had known only CHRIST ON EARTH. They had NOT EVEN SEEN HIM ENTER HEAVEN AT HIS ASCENSION, for, "A CLOUD RECEIVED HIM OUT OF THEIR SIGHT" (Acts 1:9).

Did Paul? Acts 9: 1 Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord’s disciples. He went to the high priest 2 and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem. 3 As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. 4 He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” 5 “Who are you, Lord?” Saul asked. “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” he replied. 6 “Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”

It says that Paul was blinded. Paul never saw Jesus at all. Paul never saw Jesus until after his death. You are correct. There is a definite handicap. The Twelve had three years of the sight of Jesus. I must begin to apologize for having doubted you that Paul is of a different Apostolic calling and with different amounts of confirmation of Jesus. Paul only saw a light and then was blinded. And he still believed. Strong man.

3. They represented the NATION ISRAEL- ONE FOR EACH TRIBE. Clearly stated here: "Verily I say unto you, that ye which have followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of His glory, YE ALSO SHALL SIT UPON TWELVE TRIBES, JUDGING THE TWELVE TRIBES OF ISRAEL." Mat. 19:28).

Neat. Now, who is the Twelve here? Does that include Judas? Or Matthias? Do they get to judge anything else? Oh dear, is Paul left out? Not even a flower arranging competition? That's unsettling.

4. These twelve were FIRST SENT FORTH to proclaim the kingdom of heaven AT HAND (Mat. 10:7, with Dan. 2:44) and then, later, to OFFER it to Israel with a view to carrying the message to all the world (Acts 1:6-8, 3:19-26).

So the instruction to make disciples of all nations as a primary commission in Matthew 28, Mark 16, and Acts 1 is a mistake? The instruction of Christ has nothing to do with Israel at this except as another nation. Now who is ignoring Scripture?

5. They were given power to work miracles (Mat. 10:8, Mark 16:17,18).

Handy in power outages and when the cable goes down.

6. Their ministry was based upon the COVENANTS AND PROPHECY (Isa. 60:1-3, Luke 1:70-75, Acts 3:22-26).

Matthew 5: 17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

They were based upon the promises of Jesus.

8. They ministered in Palestine ONLY (Acts 10:39, 21:17-20). Until at least the setting aside of Israel, in Acts 28.

Acts 21 only mentions James, and not any of the 12. Why not? After all, when Paul went to Jerusalem before, he went to Peter and James. Now here, only James. Perhaps Peter had departed for foreign climes already.

9. In their message and ministry they ANTICIPATED Israel's ACCEPTANCE of Christ as King and His RETURN TO REIGN. THIS IS WHAT THEY LABORED, HOPED AND PRAYED FOR. (Acts 1:11, 3:19-21).

And they got what they got. We know that Thomas evangelized India. Why do you not take that into account? Does it spoil a nice piece of fish?

10. In the "great commission" to the twelve, water baptism was REQUIRED for salvation and miraculous signs were the EVIDENCES of salvation (Mark 16:15-18, Acts 2:28).

And you have a problem with that? The great benefactors of the gospel of prosperity use that all the time. Aren't you a fan?

Questions? If you choose not to look the Scriptures up for yourself and examine them, comparing Scripture with Scripture, then I pray there is someone lurking who will take the time.

Hear ye, hear ye, step right up. Look at the amazing March 26 2012 version of Christianity. Better get a really good photograph of it, because tomorrow it'll be wearing a whole new coat.

I hope that you understand why I am taking this tone. I have heard this a thousand times here and elsewhere. Today it's earnestly we believe this and tomorrow it's earnestly we believe that and every day it changes and every day it comes no closer to the truth. The Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ does not change with the seasons. It does not change with the political climate. It does not change with whether you are fired from your job or whether you are promoted.

Jesus is the same. The Faith is the same. 2000 years of Faith versus what, 100 years of innovation.

You are making a mockery of something that is clearly stated in God's Word, if only you would take the time to STUDY IT.

I take God's Word - Jesus - very seriously. You guys cannot even get that straight. Jesus is the Word. The Bible is God's word. I cannot communicate properly with those who will not use language to mean what it actually means. If you use Christian terminology, at least please use it correctly.

350 posted on 03/26/2012 7:21:18 PM PDT by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 346 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 251-300301-350351-400 ... 601-617 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson