Noncononical Biblical texts
- Thread starter Monnkai
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Which presents an interesting crossroad...
We have Books in our current Bible deemed inspired by God. Yet, within these inspired Books, we see the mentioning of other Books that the actual Hebrew people (followers of God) were reading and following. This leads to the question: if the Hebrews are reading Books that God instructed them to read that are mentioned in other Books, WHO should we follow (God who directed His followers to read these Books, or the Catholic church and pagan council who deemed these Books as Gnostic and unfit)?
Personally, if anyone freely chooses to follow anything the Catholics claimed (knowing how they bastardized and changed scripture - knowing how they still to this day rape children and hide it - knowing how their idealism's IS NOT OF GOD - knowing they are full of queers) that person deserves to be in darkness!!
-
1
- Show all
I sure agree about catholics. "They forbid people to marry and to abstain from certain foods." What do they expect when they forbid their priests to marry? The bible says if they can't control themselves they should marry.
How many times did they try to kill Jesus before the cross? Do you really think God would let that happen? In the same way, you can rest assured that God put in the bible what He wants in there. I took a class on how we physically got the bible. Let me tell ya, it was not an easy task or coincidence. I have read other books such as the book of Thomas. I can feel through the Holy Spirit that it is not scripture. It does not match the bible. There were far more copies of the bible found than any other ancient writing- most having all the books of the bible despite some damaged ones. I am 100% confident that no one messed up God's Will- especially God Himself.
How many times did they try to kill Jesus before the cross? Do you really think God would let that happen? In the same way, you can rest assured that God put in the bible what He wants in there. I took a class on how we physically got the bible. Let me tell ya, it was not an easy task or coincidence. I have read other books such as the book of Thomas. I can feel through the Holy Spirit that it is not scripture. It does not match the bible. There were far more copies of the bible found than any other ancient writing- most having all the books of the bible despite some damaged ones. I am 100% confident that no one messed up God's Will- especially God Himself.
I do not believe the council was doing God's will. The council was a group of Catholic priests following orders. There might be papers explaining otherwise, but that does not change the fact they removed scriptures like Matthew 28:19 originally stated to baptize in Christ's NAME (and they changed it to the TRINITY). Which we know is false because in the Book of Acts, we have both Peter and Paul baptizing in the NAME of YESHUA, not in the trinity. Obviously, Peter a Disciples and Paul the planter of churches for the Gentiles, would only baptize as they were instructed. Which indicates that Matthew 28:19 did at one time say "Baptize in NAME of Yeshua." In fact, we know the very first church (Book of Acts) were ONENESS and Baptized in Name of Yeshua (and we should be following the FIRST CHURCH'S EXAMPLE, not what the council deemed important).
Even the brother of Yeshua, Jude, quotes Enoch...which is not in our current Bible.
Christ comes from the lineage of David who quotes Book of Jasher, and Jasher is not in our current Bible.
Obviously, the Roman Council DID NOT DO THE WILL OF GOD!!
Obviously, anyone who believes the 66 Books we have was what God wanted, is someone who DOES NOT HAVE A CLUE!!
Obviously, any Book mentioned by those within our current Bible was already inspired by the Holy Spirit, and we should be wanting to read those Books!!
Obviously, there are preachers who are lost and blind when they preach the 66 Books is all God wanted...and a true believer of God should kick these preachers out of the pulpits for LYING like our Adversary LIES!!
I could obviously go on and on and on. But the bottom line is simple and obvious. The council robbed God's people of knowledge because of their own intentions. There must be a special place in the Lake of Fire for them and anyone who believes them!!
You're "playing Peter against Paul"... almost literally. Taking one verse (or even a few) as the standard and claiming another apparently-contradictory verse is therefore false is not a sound argument. You will need additional evidence to support your claim that Matthew 28:19 has been changed.
You will also need to supply evidence supporting your assertion that the Council in question consisted of "Catholic priests". Even that by itself is not evidence of tampering.
You will also need to supply evidence supporting your assertion that the Council in question consisted of "Catholic priests". Even that by itself is not evidence of tampering.
You claim that followers of God were "reading and following" other books. On what basis do you claim this, especially in regard to "following"?
The quotation of another book within accepted Scripture does not make that other book "Scripture". Paul quoted a Cretan poet; that doesn't make the poem Scripture. It also doesn't mean that "God directed His followers to read these (extra-canonical) books".
The quotation of another book within accepted Scripture does not make that other book "Scripture". Paul quoted a Cretan poet; that doesn't make the poem Scripture. It also doesn't mean that "God directed His followers to read these (extra-canonical) books".
You can call it what you will, but since most people do not even know the Bible properly, or understand sound Bible doctrine, delving into non-canonical books can be EXTREMELY DANGEROUS.
A good example is the false doctrine of Purgatory, manufactured out of 2 Maccabees 12:43-46, but not even stated therein, since all we find there is prayers for the dead.
A good example is the false doctrine of Purgatory, manufactured out of 2 Maccabees 12:43-46, but not even stated therein, since all we find there is prayers for the dead.
Treating them as equal with Scripture is extremely dangerous. Reading them for the sake of interest in the subject isn't. I thought I made that clear in my previous post.
Your example doesn't support your assertion, as you say yourself that the doctrine isn't even stated in the text. Don't blame the writing for what people invent after reading it. If that were a valid argument, you wouldn't read the Bible either.
Your example doesn't support your assertion, as you say yourself that the doctrine isn't even stated in the text. Don't blame the writing for what people invent after reading it. If that were a valid argument, you wouldn't read the Bible either.
Jesus refers to Enoch in his teachings so I would credit the book of Enoch as a valid resource for scripture.
Awhile ago I found a PDF that gives in my opinion a great view of how we got the teachings in today's new testament. "Paganism Surviving In Christianity" , authored by Abram Lewis, D.D. . Emperor Constantine had a great deal to do with what is today's canon of scripture. He even banished those who would not agree with his opinion as to what texts should be included as the new testament canon.
If you can still find it on the net I think you'll find it is a great resource to answer this type of question.
Awhile ago I found a PDF that gives in my opinion a great view of how we got the teachings in today's new testament. "Paganism Surviving In Christianity" , authored by Abram Lewis, D.D. . Emperor Constantine had a great deal to do with what is today's canon of scripture. He even banished those who would not agree with his opinion as to what texts should be included as the new testament canon.
If you can still find it on the net I think you'll find it is a great resource to answer this type of question.
The Catholics claim to have kept an encyclopedia of everything they done throughout their history. Here is some of what their encyclopedia claims:
1. The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263:
"The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century."
This particular man making the same claim went on to become Pope:
2. Catholic Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger: He even states the trinity is a COMPLETE FABRICATION:
The Trinity baptism and text of Matthew 28:19 therefore did not originate from the original Church that started in Jerusalem around AD 33. It was rather as the evidence proves a later invention of Roman Catholicism completely fabricated. Very few know about these historical facts.
3. "The Demonstratio Evangelica" by Eusebius:
Eusebius was the Church historian and Bishop of Caesarea. Eusebius informs us of Jesus' actual words to his disciples in the original text of Matthew 28:19: "With one word and voice He said to His disciples: "Go, and make disciples of all nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all things whatsover I have commanded you." That "Name" is Jesus.
4. New Revised Standard Version says this about Matthew 28:19:
"Modern critics claim this formula is falsely ascribed to Jesus and that it represents later (Catholic) church tradition, for nowhere in the book of Acts (or any other book of the Bible) is baptism performed with the name of the Trinity..."
Here is the second reference to Book of Acts baptizinf in NAME of Jesus concluding the trinity formula is false:
5. The Jerusalem Bible, a scholarly Catholic work, states:
"It may be that this formula, (Triune Matthew 28:19) so far as the fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the (Man-made) liturgical usage established later in the primitive (Catholic) community. It will be remembered that Acts speaks of baptizing "in the name of Jesus,"..."
this claims the trinity formula is FOREIGN to Jesus (as in He would never say such garbage):
6. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 4, page 2637, Under "Baptism," says:
"Matthew 28:19 in particular only canonizes a later ecclesiastical situation, that its universalism is contrary to the facts of early Christian history, and its Trinitarian formula (is) foreign to the mouth of Jesus."
This makes the claim that Jesus did not say the trinity formula:
7. The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, I, 275:
"It is often affirmed that the words in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost are not the ipsissima verba [exact words] of Jesus, but...a later liturgical addition.
More claims that the Catholic church bastardized scripture:
8. Edmund Schlink, The Doctrine of Baptism, page 28:
"The baptismal command in its Matthew 28:19 form can not be the historical origin of Christian baptism. At the very least, it must be assumed that the text has been transmitted in a form expanded by the [Catholic] church."
IF YOU LIKE, THERE ARE MANY MORE I COULD COPY/PASTE FOR YA
The biblical canon of the Old Testament was formed by the end of the first century, such literature as the Book of Jubilees, the books of Enoch, the Covenants of the twelve patriarchs, and others were revered on a par with the rest of the books of the Hebrew Bible, which later entered the Canon. Some places of the New Testament text can only be understood with the help of the above-mentioned Jewish apocrypha.