Preach the one gospel & Contend 4 Faith Once 4 All Delivered

5/3/2017 11:30:23 AM	Preach the one gospel & Contend 4 Faith Once 4 All Delivered
brashdoc Chehalis, WA 65, joined Aug. 2008	The Early Church Fathers, John 1:1 & the Pre-Existence of Christ http://www.forananswer.org/Top_Uni/ECF_Jn1_1.htm One sample: Tertullian: Against Praxeas (Modalist) http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.ix.xii.html "[God speaks in the plural ‘Let us make man in our image’] because already there was attached to Him His Son, a second person, His own Word & a third, the Spirit in the Word....one substance in three coherent persons. Tertullian: Born about AD 145 to a Roman centurion in Carthage, Quintis Septimus Florens Tertullianus was trained in Greek & Latin & became a lawyer in Rome, where he was converted to Christianity about AD 185. Carthage at that time was second only to Rome as a cultural & educational center in the West & he received an exceptional education in grammar/language, rhetoric, literature, philosophy & law. He said that he could not imagine a truly Christian life without a conscious breach, a radical act of conversion. Prior to his conversion...he enjoyed the games in the arena. He was profoundly affected by the testimonies of Christians who were martyred in the arena & it is likely that his conversion was as a result. He was ordained a presbyter in the church at Carthage (modern day Tunisia), North Africa & began writing books addressing the issues facing the church of his day. In response to a heresy about the Godhead, Tertullian wrote Against Praxus, which for the first time used the word Trinity to describe the Godhead (Godhood, Deity). Concerning Father, Son & Spirit, Tertullian said, “These three are one (substance), not one person. He was the pacesetter as the church expanded its teaching & influence into the Latin speaking world, breaking new and fertile ground in theological understanding of the Bible, helping us to understand the NT teaching about what God is like. He was one of the most fascinating leaders in all church history. When he returned to Carthage, the church there had become large, firmly established & well organized & was rapidly becoming a powerful force in North Africa. By the year 225 there were approximately 70 bishops in Numidia & Proconsularis, the two provinces of Roman Africa. Tertullian emerged as a leading member of the African church, devoting his talents as a teacher in instructing the unbaptized seekers & the faithful & as a literary defender (apologist) of Christian beliefs & practices. Heis usually considered the outstanding exponent of the outlook that Christianity must stand uncompromisingly against its surrounding culture. Tertullian's canonical NT was not perceptively different from that of the PRECEDING period. In his writings that are still existing (many copies no longer available), He mentions Scripture from all the books (23) of the NT except for: II Peter, James, II John, and III John. It does not necessarily mean he didn't recognize all 27 books, only that he didn't mention the former ones in the writings that we presently have of his. He also mentions ones that were not considered canonical. At that same time frame in the second century was also the Muratorian Canon of the NT. It is traditionally dated to about 170AD because its author refers to Pius I, bishop of Rome (142—157). The beginning & ending parts are missing but in it 22 (possibly 24) of the 27 books of the canonical Bible are mentioned, with the exceptions of James, 2 Peter, Hebrews possibly III John. ["What a marvel it is, then, that John presents these various things so consistently in his epistles, too!" This shows that III John was probably listed too.] The Muratorian canon may have included these books, but because the first & last pages of the book are damaged or missing, we cannot know for sure. You will notice the mention of a number of non-canonical books & heretical books that were already not to be considered the accepted canon of the NT & the clear teaching of the Deity of Christ & the gospel message is also mentioned back then, long before the church councils. These are historical, documented proofs & evidence. Also at this time was the epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, which listed or alluded to almost every book in the then understood canon of the NT. Polycarpus; AD 69 – 155) was the leading 2nd-century Greek Christian bishop of Smyrna (modern Izmir, Turkey) in Roman Asia by virtue of his intermediary position between the apostolic & patristic ages & his work during the initial appearance of the fundamental theological literature of Christianity, the NT canon. Polycarp was an old man, at least 86 & probably the last surviving person to have known an apostle, having been a disciple of John. He would have KNOWN & accepted all of John's writings & confirmed them as Scripture, as well as all the accepted 27 books of the canonical NT that were recognized at his time. Here is a website confirming that all 27 books of the NT were mentioned or alluded to by Polycarp & he also mentions various false teachers & heretics & writings at that time that were not considered Scripture. http://www.cogwriter.com/polycarpletter.htm Also dated at this same time frame, we have the Chester Beatty papyri (P46), (200 AD) that contains the book of Hebrews and Revelation. Here is what David Trobish writes: "There is no need to use such a document to reconstruct the New Testament when we have manuscripts from the same time period, the close of the second century, that nicely document each collection unit. There is no need to speculate about whether the Letter to the Hebrews was part of a collection of the Letters of Paul in the second century, because a 2nd-century exemplar of the Pauline letter collection, P46, containing the letter at issue, actually exists. Are we not forced by the evidence to interpret the discussion in the early church about the authenticity of certain biblical writings as a reaction to an already published book? From this perspective, the same documented debates that are usually evaluated to demonstrate a gradual growth process of the canon serve instead as proof that the Canonical Edition of the Christian Bible was finished, published, and widely used." ('The First Edition of the NT', David Trobisch, 2000, p 37) In the 3rd Century AD we have the Bodmer papyri library (Der Text Des Neuen Testaments, p. 57, Kurt & Barbara Aland), including P72, which includes Jude and 1 & 2 Peter. Meet singles at DateHookup.dating, we're 100% free! Join now!
5/3/2017 11:35:18 AM	Preach the one gospel & Contend 4 Faith Once 4 All Delivered
brashdoc Chehalis, WA 65, joined Aug. 2008	So in conclusion, we can see that as Mr. Trobish said, the early saints of the second century ALREADY had the full 27 books of the canonical NT that were recognized, written & widely used. Only a few books were in doubt in only a few pockets of Christianity. Tertullian mentions Hebrews in his writings, as does the P46 & the Muratorian Canon probably did--including Hebrews in the epistles of Paul as David Trobish mentions, which many accepted as an epistle that Paul wrote. James is quoted by Origen many times in his Commentary on John (225AD). 2 Peter is mentioned in P72. So in the later councils of the 4th century, what happened? They rehashed what was already accepted & clarified the few remaining pockets of resistence for the above mentioned few books, using much of the evidences already mentioned. However, the Roman Catholic church ADDED to the already earlier accepted & distributed canon & made their Latin Vulgate the accepted translation of the Scriptures (Jerome who wrote most of it, did not accept the Deuterocanonical books as Scripture but important to read), thus closing off the Scriptures to the majority of the masses that couldn't read. They persecuted anyone who tried to get the Scriptures into the hands of the common people--like they did in the 1st & 2nd centuries when the apostles distributed their writings of Scripture to all the apostolic established churches to be read. Here again is the factual written evidence of the actual original autographs still being kept IN THE APOSTOLIC CHURCHES in the west & east (before any of the church councils convened), that were consulted if circulating copies were in doubt. This was written by Tertullius in 180AD: “Come now, you who would indulge a better curiosity, if you would apply it to the business of your salvation, run over [to] the apostolic churches, in which the very thrones of the apostles are still pre-eminent in their places, in which their own authentic writings are read, uttering the voice & representing the face of each of them severally.” De Praescriptione Haereticorum, Ch. 36 Tertullian goes on to discuss each of these ‘authentic writings’ as being found in the very churches to which they were written. He mentions Corinth, Philippi, Thessalonica, Ephesus & Rome. Peter, Bishop of Alexandria (who died in last yr of Diocletian persecution, 311 AD): In fragment 1, he speaks of the autograph of the Gospel of John as still existing in his day: “The copy itself that was written by the hand of the evangelist, which, by the divine grace, has been preserved in the most holy church of Ephesus & is there adored by the faithful.” In context he is discussing a textual variant at John 19:14. see also: http://www.bible.ca/b-canon-disputed-books.htm In summary, the teaching of the Trinity was ALREADY established from Christ & the apostles, being taught long before the 4th century as some have stubbornly maintained. Tertullian took this already established ancient orthodox teaching & articulated it very well in his refuting Praxeus (modalism) & Marcion & the Gnostics. The primary reason the Trinitarian foundational doctrine was crystallized into a concise teaching at the centuries later church councils was because of the heretical, unscriptural teachings distorting the 'faith once for all delivered to the saints.' Quote from Lud: "There were only a few books in controversy, like Hebrews---but aye, there's the rub. Is Hebrews inspired of God or not? What about Revelation, James, Didache, Shepherd of Hermas, or Letter of Clement? And among the OT books, what about Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, I, II, III & IV Maccabees & III & IV Esdras? To well into the fourth century some local churches read these books at Mass & some did not." Thanks for your response, Lud. However, I think you missed the multiple examples verifying that by the 2nd century the Canon of Scripture was already recognized universally (east & west) except for a few small isolated 'people' at the time. One such historical example of one person is Didymus the Blind. Some twenty years after Athanasius's 39th Festal Letter (367AD)defining the already recognized Scriptural Canon & 47 years after Codex Vaticanus (340AD) were written, the Alexandrian scholar Didymus the Blind did not accept 2 & 3 John as canonical, but he fully backed & quoted 2 Peter. Such was the 'supposed' controversies. From a historical perusal of the evidence, the biblical canon was not at this time a matter of DEFINITION at all but a matter of USAGE of already recognized authoritative apostolic record. There already was a recognized canon of all 66 Scriptural books. You also inaccurately said Athanasius' canon was 73 books, when his own writing in Festal Letter 39 of 367AD (before the 2 councils below) refutes what you assert & he maintains 66 books as the canon of Scripture (the 22 of the Jewish OT Tanakh = 39 in Christian OT & the 27 NT books). He also was NOT the overseer of the Councils of Hippo & Carthage, influencing them; Augustine was. He didn't know Hebrew & assumed the OT apocryphal books included in the Septuagint were accepted by the Jews as canon, when in reality they were never accepted as canonical. Also these were only regional councils in Africa. In addition, the canon in these councils was NOT the same canon as the passed edict in the Council of Trent THIRTEEN CENTURIES LATER! It took the Roman Catholic church 13 centuries to finally decide on what the canon was & then they got it wrong even from the two councils mentioned previously. Something is definitely not right here & historical record exposes the error. (2 continue-need bump, thanks)
5/3/2017 1:41:29 PM	Preach the one gospel & Contend 4 Faith Once 4 All Delivered
ludlowlowell Panama City, FL 65, joined Feb. 2008 online now!	I'm glad that you are taking an interest in Tertullian and the other Fathers of the Church. "To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant." --Cardinal John Henry Newman
5/3/2017 3:56:03 PM	Preach the one gospel & Contend 4 Faith Once 4 All Delivered
brashdoc Chehalis, WA 65, joined Aug. 2008	Thanks Lud, for the compliment. I might differ with Cardinal Newman in that my experience is that 'to be deep in accurately confirmed history is to cease from following false church teaching whether Protestant or Catholic' & follow & contend for the faith once for all delivered to the saints. God preserves & protects His Word of truth. He is building His household despite Satan's multitudinous attempts to add to, take away, change, distort, discredit the Holy Scriptures. His 'God-breathed' Word is 'profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction & for training in righteous, so that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. Like I said, the apostolic churches by the beginning of the 3rd century already CONFIRMED the canon of both the OT & NT, not based on Roman Catholic authority but based upon already recognized APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY of the Scriptures. All the apostolic churches at that time (not just the church at Rome, only one of those) recognized the canon. The canon was ALREADY said to be 'SCRIPTURE' by the end of the second century/early third century. You said Hebrews or Revelation were in controversy or the book of Hermas was considered Scripture & controversial? It wasn't. Let us look at what Athanasius' said at the Council of Nicea (325AD), where 318 bishops were present from all over Christiandom, east & west (largest council in any time of history, which inclued the emeror Constantine). He is refuting the false heresy of the Arians (Arius & 2 bishops he brought were actually present at Nicea). The only controversy was the false teaching & beliefs of the Arians! Athanasius[1] (296-373 A.D.) writes in the Decrees of the Synod of Nicea (5:18): "For the blessed Paul in his EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS says, “By faith we understand that the ages were framed by the Word of God, so that which is seen was not made of things which do appear.” But nothing is common to the Word with the ages; for He it is Who is in existence BEFORE that ages, by whom also the ages came to be. And in the Shepherd of [of Hermas] it is written (since they allege this book also, though it is NOT OF THE CANON)." Are you FULLY UNDERSTANDING what Athansius said that was historically recorded & written down at Nicea? Is it beginning to sink in yet? He quoted directly in front of 318 bishops & the emperor of Rome & the Christian historian Eusibius (also prsent) from the already recognized canonical book of Hebrews! None of them disputed thisHe also before all of these openly stated that the Shepherd of Hermas WAS NOT RECOGNIZED BY THEM ALL AS CANON. (it was confirmed as eccesiastical, a book to be read by the esslesia but not canonical). All those in attendance from all over the Christian world & recognized by the emperor of Rome himself, already authoritatively recognized & knew what the actual canonical books, the Canon of the Bible was--AT THAT TIME. What else also confirms this, that happened immediately after Nicea? The Roman emperor, Constantine, commissioned Eusibius, to make 50 Bibles. He could not make them if the canon wasn't already authoritatively recognized for both the OT & NT--AND those 'other books' that the church read regularly were shown to be NONCANONICAL--like Hermas & the apocryphal books. Some authorities claim that the Codex Vaticanus ("found" in 1481 in Vatican library in Rome, where currently held & written on expensive vellum) was one of a batch of 50 Bibles ordered from Egypt by Emperor Constantine; hence its beautiful appearance. It consists of the same NT books in the same order as in Athanasius’s 39th festal letter—which is particularly noteworthy given the peculiar order. The Codex Vaticanus probably was originally written in Rome, in 340, by Alexandrian scribes for Emperor Constantine, during Athanasius’s 7 year banishment. It would thus predate the festal letter. However, the Codex Vaticanus in the Rome library today is not the same as the orginal one; it has been altered many times. Listen to those textual critics who have examined it closely. The entire manuscript has been mutilated...every letter has been run over with a pen, making exact identification of many of the characters impossible. Dr. David Brown observes: "I question the 'great witness' value of any manuscript that has been overwritten, doctored, changed & added to for more than 10 centuries." ('The Great Unicals'). "It was corrected by revisers in the 8th, 10th, and 15th centuries." (W. Eugene Scott, Codex Vaticanus, 1996). The Westminster Dictionary of the Bible, "It should be noted...that there is no prominent Biblical (manuscripts) in which there occur such gross cases of misspelling, faulty grammar & omission, as in (Codex) B." One quickly realizes that the establishment of the canon was not a sudden decision made unilaterally by a bishop in Alexandria, but a process of careful investigation & deliberation, documented in a codex of the Greek Bible & 27 years later, in a festal letter. By the way, of the above statements & those ratified at Nicea that day, only 3 people voted against them--you guessed it--the 3 dissenting votes were Arius & the two bishops he brought. As to the book of Revelation being 'authentic' Scripture & recognized as canonical, let Eusebius (remember he was at Nicea too) speak. Arthur Cushan McGiffert in his translation of 'The Church History of Eusebius' footnote 20 p.154, says "The Apocalypse is one of the best authenticated books of the NT." Andreas Caesariensis, Fragment 8: "With regard to the INSPIRATION of the book (Revelation), we deem it superfluous to add another word; for the blessed Gregory Thaumaturgus & Cyril & even men of still older date, Papias, Irenaeus, Methodius & Hippolytus, bore ENTIRELY SATISFACTORY TESTIMONY to it." Polycarp also quotes as Scripture from the book of Revelation in his letter to the Philippians. Polycarp was a disciple of the apostle John & if anyone would know its authenticity directly from an apostle, he should. Papias is also mentioned as a disciple of the Apostle John & Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp. There were very few who doubted, which doesn't negate the overwhelmingly recognized apostolic authority that Revelation was part of the canon & Scripture. Athanasius, theologian, ecclesiastical statesman & Egyptian national leader, was one of the chief defenders of Christian orthodoxy in the 4th-century battle against Arianism, the heresy that the Son of God was a creature of like, but not of the same substance as God the Father. He attended the Council of Nicaea (325) & shortly thereafter became bishop of Alexandria (328). For the rest of his life he was engaged in theological & political struggles with the Emperor & with Arian churchmen, being banished from Alexandria several times. He suffered for His stands against heresy & the already recognized canon. He wrote many important works, including his major theological treatises, 'The Life of St. Antony' & '4 Orations against the Arians' & 'Speech against the Pagans' and 'Speech on the Incarnation of the Word' & a number of letters. One letter in 367AD was his 'Festal Letter #39.' Historically it is monumental, in that he confirms what was already recognized, once again, as the whole Canon of the Scriptures & being sure to mention also what was NOT RECOGNIZED AS CANONICAL.
5/3/2017 4:14:12 PM	Preach the one gospel & Contend 4 Faith Once 4 All Delivered
brashdoc Chehalis, WA 65, joined Aug. 2008	(continued) A clear acknowledgment is made of the OT canon of only 39 books (22 in the Hebrew Jewish Tanakh, the OT--when Jeremiah & Lamentations & Judges & Ruth are combined the total is 22; if split 24). Also the NT canon of only 27 books appears in the 39th Festal Letter of Athanasius. Against them are set the spurious apocrypha fabricated by the heretics. Only the Didache & Shepherd of Hermas, besides a few OT apocrypha, are permitted for reading by those newly received into the Church, since the Fathers have so appointed. But these writings are NOT "canonical". He makes that very clear & wrote it in to make sure no one misunderstood him. So Athanasius did not have a 73 book canon but a 66 book canon. Lest any doubt the historical record of Athanasius, not only at the Council of Nicea but in this letter, here the extant translated copy we have (witnessed in 3 different languages). Remember, that as a recognized national leader in Africa & a bishop of Alexandria, the largest Christian learning center of the then known world & largest depository of bible manuscripts. He is writing to Christians influential over the realm of Christianity & this letter was distributed all over & to other recognized bishops & church fathers, as well as to the Roman emperor, who did not refute what was being said. He did have other disagreements with the emperor in his stand for righteousness & truth & was imprisoned & banished several times. He was not afraid to 'contend for the faith once for all delivered to the saints.' Nor was he not going to participate in the ex-communication of some from the local body of believers in Alexandria that failed to meet the instructions that Jesus gave in Matthew 18 & Paul gave in I Cor 5. For this he was first banished. Evidently the emperor was concerned more about polical ecumenism & compromise, not Scriptural church discipline authorized by Christ Himself & His apostles, in order to protect the flock. Also many of the charges leveled against Athanasius were false charges as shown here in his defense before the emperor. (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.toc.html) Festal Letter #39: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2806039.html [Source. Translated by R. Payne-Smith. From Nicene & Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd Series, Vol. 4. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1892.) Revised & edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight.] http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2806039.html [Preface by Kevin Knight, Roman Catholic New Advent editor: "(For 367AD.) Of the particular books & their number, which are accepted by the Church. From the 39 Letter of Holy Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, on the Paschal festival; wherein he defines canonically what are the divine books which are accepted by the Church." It had been customary after Epiphany each year {festival held 12 days after Christmas} for the Alexandrian bishops to write a letter to fix the dates of Lent & Easter & thus, all other church festivals in that year. These letters were also used to discuss other matters. He wrote 45 festal letters; 13 have survived] 1. "They [heretics] have fabricated books which they call books of tables , in which they show stars, to which they give the names of Saints. And therein of a truth they have inflicted on themselves a double reproach: those who have written such books, because they have perfected themselves in a lying & contemptible science & as to the ignorant & simple, they have led them astray by evil thoughts concerning the right faith established in all truth & upright in the presence of God." 2. "But since we have made mention of heretics as dead, BUT OF OURSELVES AS POSSING THE DIVINE SCRIPTURES for salvation & since I fear lest, as Paul wrote to the Corinthians [2 Cor 11:3], some few of the simple should be beguiled from their simplicity & purity, by the subtlety of certain men & should henceforth read other books— those called apocryphal— led astray by the similarity of their names with THE TRUE BOOKS; I beseech you to bear patiently, if I also write, by way of remembrance, of matters with which you are acquainted, influenced by the need & advantage of the Church. 3. "In proceeding to make mention of these things, I shall adopt, to commend my undertaking, the pattern of Luke the Evangelist, saying on my own account: 'Forasmuch as some have taken in hand Luke 1:1,' to reduce into order for themselves the books termed apocryphal & to mix them up with THE DIVINELY INSPIRED SCRIPTURE, CONCERNING WHICH WE HAVE BEEN FULLY PERSUADED, AS THEY WHO FROM THE BEGINNING WERE EYEWITNESSES & MINISTERS OF THE WORD, DELIVERED TO THE FATHER--it seemed good to me also, having been urged thereto by TRUE BRETHREN & HAVING LEARNED FROM THE BEGINNING--TO SET BEFORE YOU THE BOOKS INCLUDED IN THE CANON AND HANDED DOWN AND ACCREDITED AS DIVINE; to the end that any one who has fallen into error may condemn those who have LED HIM ASTRAY & that he who has continued steadfast in purity may again rejoice, having THESE THINGS brought to his remembrance." 4. "There are, then, of the OLD TESTAMENT, 22 BOOKS IN NUMBER; for, as I have heard, it is HANDED DOWN that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order & names being as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers & then Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua, the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after these 4 books of Kings, the 1st & 2nd being reckoned as one book, & so likewise the 3rd & 4th as one book. And again, the 1st & 2nd of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra, the 1st & 2nd [Nehemiah] are similarly one book. After these there is the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes & the Song of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the 12 being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations & the epistle, one book; afterwards, Ezekiel & Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the OT."
5/3/2017 6:05:30 PM	Preach the one gospel & Contend 4 Faith Once 4 All Delivered
ludlowlowell Panama City, FL 65, joined Feb. 2008 online now!	Athanasius had his own canon, and this canon was adopted by the authority of the Church in 393 a.d. Until that time Athanasius' canon was by no means the only canon, and Shepherd of Hermas, Didache, Letter of Clement, the Gospel of Barnabus, and III and IV Maccabees were considered canonical in some places. The Greek Orthodox consider III and IV Maccabees to be canonical to this day. In fact their Bible has 76 books, the Catholic Bible 73 books, and the Protestant Bible has 66 books. So in a way nothing has changed---fourth century, twenty-first century, some Christians accept some books as canonical that other Christians reject. Who is to decide who is right or wrong here? The only answer to this is that the Church---the Catholic Church---the only one founded by Christ and the only Church with Christ-given authority---decides what is canonical and what is not. The Church decided this at Hippo in 393 and the decision still stands. I think you're wrong about Athanasius adressing the Council of Nicea about the canon. My information is that the subject of the canon was not discussed at Nicea at all.
5/3/2017 8:14:47 PM	Preach the one gospel & Contend 4 Faith Once 4 All Delivered
isna_la_wica Brantford, ON 63, joined Mar. 2012	So in conclusion, we can see that as Mr. Trobish said, the early saints of the second century ALREADY had the full 27 books of the canonical NT that were recognized, written & widely used. Only a few books were in doubt in only a few pockets of Christianity. Tertullian mentions Hebrews in his writings, as does the P46 & the Muratorian Canon probably did--including Hebrews in the epistles of Paul as David Trobish mentions, which many accepted as an epistle that Paul wrote. James is quoted by Origen many times in his Commentary on John (225AD). 2 Peter is mentioned in P72. So in the later councils of the 4th century, what happened? They rehashed what was already accepted & clarified the few remaining pockets of resistence for the above mentioned few books, using much of the evidences already mentioned. Interesting stuff Doc, and a great topic. I have some of Tertullians writings, I will have to look closer at them. What you have said jives with what NT Wright has said in his books. Cannot recall off the top of my head which one right now. But yes, Scripture was well established in use, prior to any official 'endorsement". Again I am reminded of NT Wright when that comes to mind, on the "authority " of scripture.But this in turn, is related to other issues Scripture. Such as the inspiration of Scripture. Wright pointed out how, if one thinks of God as a distant figure, far away from man kind, and used humans as "type writers" to dictate what he said? Then its easy to miss much of the meaning in Scripture. Much of Scripture, is written by men, describing their relationship to God. But this does not mean it is with out authority. But we must remember that authority belongs to Christ first and fore most: Matthew 28:17-19 Amplified Bible (AMP) 17 And when they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some doubted [that it was really He]. 18 Jesus came up and said to them, “All authority (all power of absolute rule) in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations [help the people to learn of Me, believe in Me, and obey My words], baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, But how did Christ, expect us to to accomplish all that? And this is something that struck me beyond the points made by Wright. Jesus did not write the Scripture him self, Scripture then, would have been worshiped and turned by man into an idol if you think about it. And he did not simply dictate what words to use, then we would have been like Wright said, just "type writers". - 1: What gives Scripture "authority"? -2: makes it inspired? -3: how were we to do what he commanded us to do? These are the three questions I ask my self when reading scripture, and try to keep whose authority all things belong to. Great topic.
5/5/2017 1:26:50 PM	Preach the one gospel & Contend 4 Faith Once 4 All Delivered
brashdoc Chehalis, WA 65, joined Aug. 2008	Thanks, Lud & Rich for your comments. It is indeed a fascinating study on what makes the Bible the Bible, the 'holy Scriptures' passed down to us as 'God-breathed.' I would correct you, Lud, on several things you said in your last post. #1 Athanasius did NOT have his own canon. If you had carefully read his Festal Letter #39, you would have seen that the 'official' canon of Scripture was HANDED DOWN TO HIM...by THE FATHERS! It was not something he came up with on his own. It was the earlier church fathers, who knew the Apostles or their direct disciples, that gave this canon & also said the OT Apocryphal books were not canon nor the NT books like Shepherd of Hermas or the Didache. #2. It was not Athanasius's canon that was delineated as the supposed canon in 393AD but the one most likely promoted by Augustine at the localized African councils of Hippo (where Augustine lived) & Carthage. We don't have the actual writings on the Council of Hippo & Carthage. What we do have is a much later composition that was put out in 419AD by someone named Dionysius Exiguus. This was done TWENTY-SIX years AFTER the councils! The original canon has been clearly edited by someone who has adapted it to churchly developments after 418AD as is observed by B.F. Westcott ('A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the NT'; one of the main translators of the American Authorized Version of 1881) and Karl Joseph von Hefele, in his 'History of the Councils of the Church.' There are two different documents & the endings are different. The Council of Hippo appeals to Boniface & other bishops for confirmation of this canonical list yet Boniface didn't even become pope until 418AD. Also the listing of the book of Hebrews is titled completely different than any other listing of it in this supposed council compilation, indicating a possible later date of insertion. Added to this was the statement that the canon itself purports to give a list of books which were TRADITIONALLY READ IN THE AFRICAN CHURCHES: “quia a patribus ista accepimus in ecclesia legenda.” One other supposed code in this 419AD compilation was for the 397AD council that stated that this council should be made known 'for the purpose of confirming that Canon, because we have received from our fathers that those books must be read in the Church. Let it also be allowed that the Passions of Martyrs be read when their festivals are kept." This last statement again differs from the previous one, one stating these were the traditionally read books and the other stating the prior church fathers stated these books MUST BE READ and no others, other than the Passions of Martyrs, which is not listed in other lists of the canon. Let us remember back to Athanasius now. Athanasius was one of the most well known AFRICAN BISHOPS IN AFRICA! He also stated that the canon he had, had been passed down from the early church fathers AS WELL, some of them disciples of actual apostles. And when did he say this? He said it in 367AD, TWENTY-SIX FULL YEARS PRIOR TO the Councils of Hippo & Carthage! Here again is what he wrote & this is indeed documented in historical writings: "Forasmuch as some have taken in hand Luke 1:1,' to reduce into order for themselves the books termed apocryphal & to mix them up with the divinely inspired Scripture, concerning which WE have been fully persuaded, as they who from the beginning were EYEWITNESSES & MINISTERS OF THE WORD, DELIVERED TO THE FATHERS; it seemed good to me also, having been urged thereto by TRUE brethren & having learned FROM THE BEGINNING, to set before you the books included in the Canon AND HANDED DOWN & ACCREDITED AS DIVINE; to the end that any one who has fallen into error may condemn those who have led him astray." Here we have a clear difference between a supposed compilation of those councils but not put together until 26 years later. This supposed canon was to be confirmed fully 52 years AFTER the already confirmed canon at the time Athanasius wrote his festal letter! And this was at the insistance of Augustine, who opposed Athanasius on this. Something fishy is going on here that places great doubt on this supposed later canonical compilation in 419AD!
5/5/2017 2:11:24 PM	Preach the one gospel & Contend 4 Faith Once 4 All Delivered
ludlowlowell Panama City, FL 65, joined Feb. 2008 online now!	Any way you cut the mustard, Doc, the Catholic Church decided which books went into the Bible and which ones not. The Church Fathers---Athanasius, Tertullian, Augustine, etc.---they were leaders, most of them bishops, in the Catholic Church!
5/5/2017 2:22:39 PM	Preach the one gospel & Contend 4 Faith Once 4 All Delivered
brashdoc Chehalis, WA 65, joined Aug. 2008	(continued) Just to clarify further, Lud. I didn't say that Athanasius' or others confirmed a canon at the Council of Nicea in 325AD. What I did show, however, was that WHEN Athanasius was defending the Deity & the Trinity against the Arians, he quoted Hebrews as canonical & Scripture clear back then & confirmed the Shepherd of Hermas was an ecclesiastical book recommended by the fathers for reading but it was already recognized as a non-canonical book of Scripture back in 325AD! What Athanasius wrote in 367AD was only confirming what he said in 325 AD. Hebrews was recognized as Scripture already & the Shepherd of Hermas as not canonical or non-Scripture. Also in 367AD it was OK by the church fathers to merely read the Shepherd of Hermas but in 419AD supposedly all other books were forbidden to read by the church, only its supposed canonical list & the Passion of the Martyrs. It seems worthy of being questioned. #3. You stated "The Church decided this at Hippo in 393 & the decision still stands." It is not a correct statement. The small group of African leaders back then (some not even bishops & none of them were Hebrew scholars) made an arbitrary decision on what the canon was going to be and the two different accounts of the appeal to the church across the sea shows it wasn't a full Church council, but one decided without authoritorial representation from Rome. And it appears the appeal was not heeded UNTIL the Council of Trent that finally ended in 1563 (not many know this but it took 18 FULL YEARS before the Council of Trent finally finished). There the canon was FINALLY CONFIRMED by the whole Roman Catholic church ecclesiastical authority. That occurred 1170 years after Hippo! However, the actual vote on confirming the canon as a DECREE then was made by only 55 attendies present (and 16 abstained to even vote!). And the supposedly Holy Spirit, infallible decree was decided by the following vote: “The Council of Trent on April 8, 1546, by vote (24 yea--44%, 15 nay--27%, 16 abstain-- 29%) approved the present Roman Catholic Bible Canon including the Deuterocanonical Books.” Bruce Metzger, 'The Canon of the NT: Its Origin, Development & Significance' p. 246. Do you realize that almost 57% did NOT vote for this canon! Out of 55 present, only 24 voted for it. Does “the majority vote” go against the opinions of the best scholars at the Council of Trent? What if those who were considered some of the best scholars on the canon at the Council of Trent thought the apocryphal books were not Scripture? There was a group of scholars at the Council of Trent that were considered fairly knowledgeable on this issue. One particular was Cardinal Seripando. The Roman Catholic historian (and expert on Trent) Hubert Jedin explained “he was aligned with the leaders of a minority that was outstanding for its theological scholarship” at the Council of Trent. Jedin is worth quoting at length: “[Seripando was] impressed by the doubts of St. Jerome, Rufinus & St. John Damascene about the deuterocanonical books of the OT. Seripando favored a distinction in the degrees of authority of the books of the Florentine canon. The highest authority among all the books of the OT must be accorded those which Christ Himself & the apostles quoted in the NT, especially the Psalms. But the rule of citation in the NT does not indicate the difference of degree in the strict sense of the word, because certain OT books not quoted in the NT are equal in authority to those quoted. St. Jerome gives an actual difference in degree of authority when he gives a higher place to those books which are adequate to prove a dogma than to those which are read merely for edification. The former, the protocanonical books, are “libri canonici et authentici“; Tobias, Judith, the Book of Wisdom, the books of Esdras, Ecclesiasticus, the books of the Maccabees & Baruch are only “canonici et ecclesiastici” & make up the canon morum in contrast to the canon fidei. These, Seripando says in the words of St. Jerome, are suited for the edification of the people, but they are not authentic, that is, not sufficient to prove a dogma. Seripando emphasized that in spite of the Florentine canon the question of a twofold canon was still open and was treated as such by learned men in the Church. Without doubt he was thinking of Cardinal Cajetan, who in his commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews accepted St. Jerome’s view which had had supporters throughout the Middle Ages.” Source: Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent (St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947), pp. 270-271. “For the last time [Seripando] expressed his doubts [to the Council of Trent] about accepting the deuterocanonical books into the canon of faith. Together with the apostolic traditions the so-called apostolic canons were being accepted, and the eighty-fifth canon listed the Book of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) as non-canonical. Now, he said, it would be contradictory to accept, on the one hand, the apostolic traditions as the foundation of faith and, on the other, to directly reject one of them.” Source: Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent (St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947), p. 278. “In his opposition to accepting the Florentine canon & the equalization of traditions with Holy Scripture, Seripando did not stand alone. In the particular congregation of March 23, the learned Dominican Bishop Bertano of Fano had already expressed the view that Holy Scripture possessed greater authority than the traditions because the Scriptures were unchangeable; that only offenders against the biblical canon should come under the anathema, not those who deny the principle of tradition; that it would be unfortunate if the Council limited itself to the apostolic canons, because the Protestants would say that the abrogation of some of these traditions was arbitrary & represented an abuse… Another determined opponent of putting traditions on a par with Holy Scripture, as well as the anathema, was the Dominican Nacchianti. The Servite general defended the view that all evangelical truths were contained in the Bible & subscribed to St. Jerome's canon, as did also Madruzzo & Fonseca on Apr 1... Madruzzo, the Carmelite general & the Bishop of Agde stood for the limited canon & the bishops of Castellamare & Caorle urged the related motion to place the books of Judith, Baruch & Machabees in the “canon ecclesiae.” It is evident that Seripando was by no means alone in his views. In his battle for the canon of St. Jerome & against the anathema & the parity of traditions with Holy Scripture, he was aligned with the leaders of a minority that was outstanding for its theological scholarship.” Source: Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent (St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947), pp. 281-282. Your typical argument, Lud, is that the canon was conclusively decided by the Roman Catholic Church at the councils of Hippo/Carthage (4th century) and only officially "reaffirmed" at Trent & only the Roman church had authority to decide. This argument is made to imply an "indebtness" of all Christians to Holy Mother Church, but in reality, the exact composition of the biblical canon was disputed up until the time of the Reformation and even at the Council of Trent by a sizable minority!
5/5/2017 6:41:10 PM	Preach the one gospel & Contend 4 Faith Once 4 All Delivered
ludlowlowell Panama City, FL 65, joined Feb. 2008 online now!	The Council of Hippo was not a "full" council (not a general, or ecumenical council like Nicea or Vatican II). It was what we call in the Church a synod, or lower-level council. It did set the canon, the 73-book canon the Church still recognizes. It did not set this canon arbitrarily or in a vacuum---Athanasius had advocated the same 73-book canon for years. You say it was not original with Athanasius. You might be right. But like I said, any whoever it was who first came up with the canon used today, it was somebody with authority in the Catholic Church. To believe in the Bible without believing in the Catholic Church would be like believing in the Boy Scout Handbook without believing in the Boy Scouts.
5/6/2017 1:11:10 AM	Preach the one gospel & Contend 4 Faith Once 4 All Delivered
brashdoc Chehalis, WA 65, joined Aug. 2008	(Continued) A 44% majority (only 9 more votes) is far from convincing me that the council members at Trent were sure of the historical witness to the exact nature of the canon. From a divine perspective, a 44% majority is a weak testament to a supposedly “Holy-Spirit-guided” infallible council. If only 24 votes were in favor of decreeing the 73 book canon to be Scripture & 15 were in favor of decreeing the 66 book canon to already be recognized as Scripture & 16 wouldn't even vote, what does that tell you about the lack of confidence in the supposed 73 book canon? To me it is astounding that such a monumental decision as deciding the canon was only decided on 9 mere votes. This is not counting the consistent Christian witness from the first century on that staunchly stated the OT apocryphal books were not canonical but ecclesiastical. Even Catholic apologist Corey Keating states this: Augustine of Hippo declared without qualification that one is to "prefer those that are received by all Catholic Churches to those which some of them do not receive" (On Christian Doctrines 2.12). By "Catholic Churches" Augustine meant those who concurred in this judgment, since MANY Eastern Churches REJECTED some of the books Augustine upheld as universally received. In the same passage, Augustine asserted that these dissenting churches should be outweighed by the opinions of "the more numerous & weightier churches", which would include Eastern Churches, the prestige of which Augustine stated moved him to include the Book of Hebrews among the canonical writings, though he had reservation about its authorship. Also it wasn't until 419AD that the book of Revelation was added & it wasn't until Trent in 1563 that the book of Sirach was listed as non-canonical, which before Catholic tradition has stated it was. Augustine arbitrarily & without any qualification stated his canonical list was received by all Catholic churches, which wasn't true at all. It was actually only the ones he deemed as 'more numerous & weighty.' But the historical evidence shows otherwise & I will show the historical record from the first century all the way to Trent that the disagreement with his arbitarily assigned canon with a small minority of bishops in North Africa, including the OT apocrypha, was not the mainstream understanding & acceptance of the canonical books excluding the OT apocrypha. Just the title, deuterocanonical ('2nd canon') shows it to be an addition to the protocanonical books ('1st canon'). The watershed issue is this: The Roman Catholic & the Greek Orthodox churches rejected the OT canon (22 books minus any OT apocryphal books) of the Jews, the very ones who painstakingly guarded the OT TeNaKh AND TO WHOM THE ORACLES OF GOD WERE COMMITTED (CAME). God chose them to safeguard His holy Scriptures AND THEY DID. Jesus acknowledged that. Paul acknowledged that. Peter acknowledged that. The apostles & their disciples acknowledged them as the divinely inspired OT canon But the Catholic hierarchy didn't. The Orthodox hierarchy didn't either. Any way you cut it, Lud, the Roman Catholic church did NOT decide which books went into the canon and which ones didn't. The OT canon was already decided and already authoritatively verified by none other than Jesus Christ Himself in the 3 fold division of the TeNaKh in Luke 24 & Luke 11 on the closed canon of the OT. Scripture itself also verified it with the testimony of an Apostle, Paul. Rom 3:2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them (the Jews) were committed the oracles of God. Who authoritatively decided the epistles of Paul were Scripture (included & recognized was the epistle to the Hebrews)? Not the Catholic church! The Apostle Peter did! Athanasius at the Council of Nicea said that the blessed Paul wrote in his Epistle to the Hebrews--thus confirming the book of Hebrews was a recognized epistle of Paul & those were already verified as Scripture by the Apostle Peter. Who authoritatively decided the gospel of Luke was Scripture? Not the Catholic church! The Apostle Paul did! Who authoritatively decided the OT canon was the three fold division of the TeNaKh, the Torah, the Ketuvim & the Nevi'im of 22 books? Not the Catholic church! Jesus did. The Father did by stopping the PROPHETIC WORD with the prophet Malachi. Who also verified this 'prophetic word' made more secure? The apostle Peter did in 2 Peter 1. Who recognized that the writings of the prophet Jeremiah were Scripture? Not the Catholic church! The prophet Daniel did. He also had the prophetically recognized Scripture at the time he was alive. Daniel 9:2 In the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, understood from the Scriptures, according to the word of the LORD given to Jeremiah the prophet, that the desolation of Jerusalem would last seventy years. I will try & show the consistent witness next of all the canons through time that agreed that the OT apocryphal books were ecclesiastical not canonical. But their OT canon was rejected by the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox church. Instead noncanonical books were ADDED as a 'SECOND' CANON despite the protest of the Jews and despite the loud, historical protests of the long line of already established canons concerning the OT books as 22 (39 if some split) and the OT aprocryphal ones as ecclesiastical not canonical. Instead they mistakenly thought the Septuagint Greek version of the OT, which included the OT apocryphal books as all being canonical. One forgets that the Septuagint was translated by JEWS! The Jews had always maintained the OT apocryphal books were only ecclesiastical, to be read by the assembly for edification but not considered 'sacred or holy' Scripture. One branch of the Orthodox church, the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahdo Church, has 81 books in their canon.
5/6/2017 2:08:32 AM	Preach the one gospel & Contend 4 Faith Once 4 All Delivered
ludlowlowell Panama City, FL 65, joined Feb. 2008 online now!	My understanding is that the Alexandrian Jews accepted I and II Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Baruch, and Sirach as canonical (not deutero-canonical, a term I hate because it means nothing---either a book is inspired of God or it is not), but the Palestinian Jews of the fourth century did not accept these books. Our Holy Mother the Catholic Church accepted them as canonical, still does, and that's good enough for me. Martin Luther deleted them from his Bible when he invented Protestantism, eleven centuries after the Council of Hippo, mainly because II Maccabees contains a reference to praying for the dead (Purgatory). Luther also tried to throw the book of James out because James emphasizes good works.
5/28/2017 7:11:57 AM	Preach the one gospel & Contend 4 Faith Once 4 All Delivered
brashdoc Chehalis, WA 65, joined Aug. 2008	https://www.jashow.org/articles/bible/reliability-of-the-bible/20-reasons-for-the-uniqueness-of-the-bible/ 20 Reasons for the Uniqueness of the Bible by John Weldon The Bible is the only book in the world that offers objective evidence to be the Word of God. Only the Bible gives real proof of its divine inspiration. The Bible is the only religious Scripture in the world that is inerrant. The Bible is the only ancient book with documented scientific and medical prevision. No other ancient book is ever carefully analyzed along scientific lines, but many modern books have been written on the theme of the Bible and modern science. see for statistical evidence: http://christinprophecy.org/articles/applying-the-science-of-probability-to-the-scriptures/ The Bible is the only religious writing that offers eternal salvation as a free gift entirely by God’s grace and mercy. The Bible is the only major ancient religious writing whose complete textual preservation is established as virtually autographic (based on over 25,000 historical documents & manuscripts). GotQuestions.org: "What we have today are thousands of ancient documents & citations that have allowed us to virtually re-create the autographs. The occasional phrase, verse, or section may come under scholastic review & debate, but no important doctrine of Scripture is put in doubt due to these uncertainties. That the manuscripts are the subject of ongoing scholarship does not prove there is something wrong with God’s Word; it is a refining fire—one of the very processes God has ordained to keep His Word pure. A belief in inerrancy underpins a reverent, careful investigation of the text." The Bible contains the greatest moral standards of any book. Only the Bible begins with the creation of the universe by divine fiat and contains a continuous, if often brief and interspersed, historical record of mankind from the first man, Adam, to the end of history. Only the Bible contains detailed prophecies about the coming Savior of the world, prophecies which have proven true in history. see for statistical probablities: http://christinprophecy.org/articles/applying-the-science-of-probability-to-the-scriptures/ Only the Bible has a totally realistic view of human nature, the power to convict people of their sin, and the ability to change human nature. Only the Bible has unique theological content, including its theology proper (the trinity; God’s attributes); soteriology (depravity, imputation, grace, propitiation atonement, reconciliation, regeneration, union with Christ, justification, adoption, sanctification, eternal security, election, etc.); Christology (the incarnation, hypostatic union); pneumatology (the Person and work of the Holy Spirit); eschatology (detailed predictions of the end of history); ecclesiology (the nature of the church as Christ’s bride and in a spiritually organic union with Him); etc. Only the Bible offers a realistic and permanent solution to the problem of human sin and evil. Only the Bible has its accuracy confirmed in history by archeology, science, etc. The internal and historical characteristics of the Bible are unique in its unity and internal consistency despite production over a 1500-year period by 40-plus authors in three languages on three continents discussing scores of controversial subjects, yet having agreement on all issues. The Bible is the most translated, purchased, memorized, and persecuted book in history. For example, it has been translated into some 1700 languages. Only the Bible is fully one-quarter prophetic, containing a total of some 400 complete pages of predictions. Only the Bible has withstood 2000 years of intense scrutiny by critics and not only survived the attacks but prospered and had its credibility strengthened by such criticism. (Voltaire predicted that the Bible would be extinct within 100 years, but within 50 years Voltaire was extinct and his house was a warehouse for the Bibles of the Geneva Bible Society.) Only the Bible has molded the history of Western civilization more than any other book. The Bible has had more influence in the world than any other book. Only the Bible has a Person-specific (Christ-centered) nature for each of its 66 books, detailing the Person’s life in prophecy, type, antitype, etc., 400 to 1500 years before that Person was ever born. Only the Bible proclaims a resurrection of its central figure that can be proven in history. Only the Bible provides historic proof that the one true God loves mankind.
5/29/2017 3:09:45 PM	Preach the one gospel & Contend 4 Faith Once 4 All Delivered
brashdoc Chehalis, WA 65, joined Aug. 2008	http://blog.adw.org/2014/04/for-worldly-sorrow-brings-death-a-meditation-on-the-sad-end-of-judas-and-what-might-have-been/ This article shows what it means to be lost (perish), what worldly sorrow is vs godly sorrow and the life of Judas Iscariot. Judas did NOT feel separation from God according to Scripture. He felt GUILTY & had feelings of regret & remorse for betraying an innocent man & returned the money he had paid to betray Christ, the price one would pay for a slave. But he didn't change his mind, which is true repentance. Mt 27:3-5 When Judas, who had betrayed Him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was filled with remorse & returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests & elders. “I have sinned by betraying innocent blood,” he said. “What is that to us?” they replied. “You bear the responsibility. So Judas threw the silver into the temple & left. Then he went away & hanged himself. Mk 14:21 The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born.” As a result of his guilt & remorseful feelings--that wouldn't go away--he went & hanged himself. He didn't turn to Jewish animal sacrifice to appease the guilt of his sins which Jewish people did. He didn't turn to Christ as Peter did, who repented & was used mightily by the Lord to further His kingdom & the early church. He didn't even turn to the heavenly Father, that Jesus taught the disciples to pray to in His name. He turned to himself & there was no answer nor relief. He also was a thief & frequently stealing out of the money bag & then to cover up--acted self-righteously in condemning a woman for using costly ointment--on Jesus' body. The guilt of being a thief must have also entered into his remorse, as he THREW the 30 pieces of silver into the temple & left, evidently disgusted-- with the covetousness associated with the love of money--that had made a RUIN of his life. In Mt 27 the word used for 'repent' for Judas is not the normal Greek word used for repentance, metanoia. Here it has the same prefix meta (afterwards) but the main root is not the word for mind but 'melo' the word for care or concern. So the normal word for repent means to 'think afterwards' while this term regret or remorse means to 'care or be concerned afterwards.' The first one brings GODLY sorrow leading to salvation, while the second brings worldly sorrow only after the fact & doesn't lead to salvation. He didn't go to the very One who could forgive sins. He had watched many people repent & be forgiven of their sins by the Lord Jesus Christ. He had preached this as an apostle sent out. Judas knew THE WAY to forgiveness & salvation yet he chose not to truly repent & turn to Christ to be saved. His guilt due to worldly sorrow did not lead to true repentance which in turn opened the door to faith & salvation. The other thing important in our confession in order to be saved is that Judas said 'he betrayed an innocent MAN, innocent blood!' Judas did not believe Jesus was the Lord & Savior of the world. Judas did not believe that Jesus was God manifest in the flesh, THE only begotten Son of God. Judas did not believe Jesus to be the true Messiah. His dashed hope was in a man he had hoped would deliver Israel from Roman oppression. Guilt & a dashed hope in just a man led to his committing suicide. It did not lead to salvation. Another factor to keep in mind is that Judas was given the same title as the antichrist of 2 Thess 2, the 'son of perdition [DESTRUCTION]' & the 'man of sin' & the 'beast' that leads the world astray to worhip him as God in Revelation. The word perdition is none other than the SAME Greek word used for 'DESTROY' in Mt 10:28 & none other than the SAME word used in Jn 3:16 & other places: PERISH. It is also translated as 'LOST' in other passages. Here is what the Hebrew & Greek scholar, W.E. Vines has to say in His Expository Dictionary of Old & NT Words concerning this Greek word, 'apollumi.' Destroy, Destroyer, Destruction, Destructive Verb,G622, apollumi, apo away & ollumi ruin] a strengthened form of ollumi, signifies to destroy utterly;" in Middle Voice, "to perish." THE IDEA IS NOT EXTINCTION BUT RUIN--LOSS--NOT OF BEING BUT OF WELL-BEING. This is CLEAR FROM IT USE, as, e.g., of the marring of wine skins, Luke 5:37; of lost sheep, i.e., lost to the shepherd, metaphorical of spiritual destitution, Lk 15:4,6, etc.; the lost son, Lk 15:24; of the perishing of food, Jn 6:27; of gold, 1 Pet 1:7. So of persons, Mt 2:13, "destroy;" Mt 8:25, "perish;" Mt 22:7 & 27:20; of the loss of well-being in the case of the unsaved hereafter, Mt 10:28; Lk 13:3,5; Jn 3:16 (Jn 3:15 in some mss.); Jn 10:28; Jn 17:12; Rom 2:12; 1 Cor 15:18; 2 Cor 2:15, "are perishing;" 2 Cor 4:3; 2 Thess 2:10; James 4:12; 2 Pet 3:9. See DIE, LOSE, MARRED, PERISH. Mt 27:20 But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask Barabbas & DESTROY Jesus. I Cor 8:7,8 Be careful, however, that your freedom does not become a STUMBLING BLOCK to the weak. So this weak brother, for whom Christ died, is DESTROYED by your knowledge. Rom 14:13-15 Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any STUMBLING BLOCK or obstacle in the way of a brother or sister...U are no longer ACTING IN LOVE. Do not by your eating DESTROY SOMEONE FOR WHOM CHRIST DIED...Do not DESTROY the work of God for the sake of food. Again one of many verses demonstrating that translating destroy as annihilation is NOT biblical or Scriptural. Jesus was not annihilated. But physical death did render his mortal, physical body useless for a period of 3 days. Again just like every other person whose physical mortal body is 'destroyed,' it is obviously NOT annihilated because that mortal body returned to dust will be resurrected. It won't be annihilated but CHANGED into an immortal spiritual body, one that continues unending & living in the spiritual realm along with the unending soul/spirit that after physical death was existing conscious & then was returned from Hades back into the newly resurrected body of that person. http://studybible.info/vines/ Here is a website near the bottom that gives both the preface & the forward to it that you will find very intersting. Enjoy & enjoy using this wonderful Bible study tool for great understanding of the original languages & usages in the translated English Scriptures. I have already shown that the term destroy & destruction used of the beast, the final antichrist, does NOT MEAN annihilate at all but simply means 'to bring to ruin' to be 'lost' & to bring to a point of their former power & influence 'being useless.' He & the false prophet, two men & the devil are not annihlated in the Lake of fire! Now we know what happened to Judas Iscariot as well, also being a 'son of destruction' a son of perdition. (to be continued with a bump)

listcrawler over 40

megapersnals