S
severntofall
Guest
Jerusalem would have been the only location witin the vacinity of Bethlehem. A two hour walk would have been nothing back then (particualrly in the ME).
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
H
heiscominginthe
Guest
This was the year that the reading of God’s Word on the Sabbath which is called daily offering in Daniel was changed to Sunday.Well obviously if I take your dates and add 321 + 1290 the result is 1611. I do not have the time do to health issues to go digging around for your challenge. If you 'd like to make yourself clear p;ease do so, but your response has nothing to do with the question posed.
On March 7, 321, Sunday was declared the official day of rest, on which markets were banned and public offices were closed (CJ 3.12.2) (except for the purpose of freeing slaves).
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_I_and_Christianity
H
heiscominginthe
Guest
It wasn’t Rabbinical authority that was in question when determining what canons went into the KJ bible with concerns to the OT. The basic and main reason is facts based on how the Jews documented their own history. Certainly it would be foolish to accept Rabbinical interpretation in regards to the NT since they did not recognize their own messiah. Yet, we are not talking about the NT, we are talking about the old which was passed down from generation to generation of Jews.And here I think your dispensationalism is coming into play. I reject the theological premises that lead you to think that there is some intrinsic distinction between “Jews” and “Christians,” rather than between believers under the Old Covenant and the “new Israel” based on faith in Christ fulfilling the promises of the Old Covenant (ironically, it’s common in mainline circles to agree with dispensationalism on this point out of “political correctness”!), or horizontally between Christians and rabbinic Jews as rival claimants to continuity with Second Temple Judaism. It makes no more sense for Christians to accept the authority of rabbinic Judaism on the Old Testament canon than it does for Protestants to accept the authority of the Council of Trent (indeed, arguably less, since we believe that Jesus brought new revelation and we presumably don’t believe that the Reformers did).
So how can those who where not there or took part of the first 4000 years have more credence over those who actually lived it and documented it?
D
diggerdomer
Guest
Correct. It also means the Church does not require us to believe the rest is inerrant in matters not relating to the truth necessary for our salvation.IN BOLD ABOVE: That does not mean the rest is not inerrant.
C
Contarini
Guest
Well, obviously the KJ Bible was translated many centuries later!It wasn’t Rabbinical authority that was in question when determining what canons went into the KJ bible
Sure it was. There was debate about Esther and Song of Songs among the rabbis even after the destruction of the Temple.with concerns to the OT.
Vague–could mean a lot of things. No substance to this claim.The basic and main reason is facts based on how the Jews documented their own history.
You have no evidence that a fixed canon was in place for generations. You have some references, most notably Josephus, to a canon identical to that of later Jews and Protestants. We also have the testimony of Josephus (and others I think?) that the Sadducees at least accepted only the first five books. We also have indirect evidence from Qumran and from other ancient Jewish texts that books other than those of the eventual “Hebrew canon” were circulated and used in ways that make them look like “Scripture.” And we have the clear fact that the manuscripts of the Greek OT used by early Christians included books other than those of the “Hebrew Canon.” Where did these books come from? (I’m sure you have some conspiratorial theory.) All of this points to a much looser canon than you are claiming.Certainly it would be foolish to accept Rabbinical interpretation in regards to the NT since they did not recognize their own messiah. Yet, we are not talking about the NT, we are talking about the old which was passed down from generation to generation of Jews.
For the obvious reason that those who lived it haven’t testified on the subject. You can’t claim that later rabbinical Judaism gets an automatic right to speak for earlier generations of Jews. That makes no sense.So how can those who where not there or took part of the first 4000 years have more credence over those who actually lived it and documented it?
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
Sigh. . . you really don’t see the absurdity of saying that a large city is in the vicinity of a small village?Jerusalem would have been the only location witin the vacinity of Bethlehem.
The text doesn’t say that there were other towns and villages. By the time of the final redaction of Matthew, the author/redactor’s geography may have been pretty vague and the language may reflect this. But in fact the text as it stands could easily mean “the small village of Bethlehem and outlying farms within a couple of miles.” It’s much more likely to mean that than “the small village of Bethlehem and the center of the Jewish world, which I didn’t bother to mention by name but which is a sort of suburb of this small village.”
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
But you have provided no evidence that this marked a change in Christian worship practice. There is abundant evidence that Christians had been worshiping on Sunday since the first century. Your argument presupposes what you set out to prove: that Christian worship practice was changed in response to Constantine’s law rather than the other way round.This was the year that the reading of God’s Word on the Sabbath which is called daily offering in Daniel was changed to Sunday.
On March 7, 321, Sunday was declared the official day of rest, on which markets were banned and public offices were closed (CJ 3.12.2) (except for the purpose of freeing slaves).
Edwin
H
heiscominginthe
Guest
But you have provided no evidence that this marked a change in Christian worship practice. There is abundant evidence that Christians had been worshiping on Sunday since the first century. Your argument presupposes what you set out to prove: that Christian worship practice was changed in response to Constantine’s law rather than the other way round.
Dear Edwin,Edwin
I am not so sure that Daniel is speaking to Gentiles in regard to the daily offering being stopped. I suspect this message may apply to the daily offering being stopped for the Jew at that time. I am not finished seeking the meaning of this. The Lord revealed this to me about one to two years ago. So I gave the chalenge in hopes a brother in the Lord can help shed light on the subject.
It is very interesting how the the 321 AD adds up with 1290 in Daniel.
Something even more interesting is the rest of Daniel where it says this.
12 Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days.
When you add this into the picture, you come to the number 45. And it was this many years later that England opened up her borders to the Jews as a safe haven from persecution.
C
Contarini
Guest
I don’t think that’s relevant to the point I was making, which is that there is absolutely no historical reason to think that Christians only began to worship on Sunday in 321.Dear Edwin,
I am not so sure that Daniel is speaking to Gentiles in regard to the daily offering being stopped.
I suppose it would be futile for me to question why you think England has such a central place in the divine purposes?When you add this into the picture, you come to the number 45. And it was this many years later that England opened up her borders to the Jews as a safe haven from persecution.
Edwin
J
JRKH
Guest
In actuallity none of this should matter to a person in accepting or rejecting the Bible canon. What the Jews accepted or rejected is of no importance in determining the Bible Canon.It wasn’t Rabbinical authority that was in question when determining what canons went into the KJ bible with concerns to the OT. The basic and main reason is facts based on how the Jews documented their own history. Certainly it would be foolish to accept Rabbinical interpretation in regards to the NT since they did not recognize their own messiah. Yet, we are not talking about the NT, we are talking about the old which was passed down from generation to generation of Jews.
So how can those who where not there or took part of the first 4000 years have more credence over those who actually lived it and documented it?
The Bible Canon was determined for Christians at the councils of Hippo and Carthage in the 390’s. It was reaffirmed at several additional councils well before Martin Luther and the other reformers changed it.
So what you are saying by the argument above is that the Christian Church councils erred in the selection of the larger OT. If this is so, then what assurance do we have that they did not err in the selection of the NT books?
Peace
James
H
heiscominginthe
Guest
I believe it can be found in the NT where it is said the saints broke bread on the first day of the week and many believe this is referring to the Lord’s Supper.Yet, what else can be found to support this belief?I don’t think that’s relevant to the point I was making, which is that there is absolutely no historical reason to think that Christians only began to worship on Sunday in 321.
I suppose it would be futile for me to question why you think England has such a central place in the divine purposes?
Naturally it is because the Word of God was made available to all men, and not just a few. Tynsdale, a great man of God, was burned at the stake for his endeavors in bringing the Word of God to the common man. And I believe just as Steven looked up into heaven and seen our Lord standing at the right side of the Father, Tynsdale very well may have seen the same thing.Edwin
H
heiscominginthe
Guest
In actuallity none of this should matter to a person in accepting or rejecting the Bible canon. What the Jews accepted or rejected is of no importance in determining the Bible Canon.
The Bible Canon was determined for Christians at the councils of Hippo and Carthage in the 390’s. It was reaffirmed at several additional councils well before Martin Luther and the other reformers changed it.
So what you are saying by the argument above is that the Christian Church councils erred in the selection of the larger OT. If this is so, then what assurance do we have that they did not err in the selection of the NT books?
Unfortunately, during the early period of the church, an age came where men excelled vastly in education where theologians, philosophers, teachers decided to break down the simplicity of the Word of God through analyzing and disecting and complicating that which was not meant to be complicated.Peace
James
Men began to rely on their own intellect instead of being led of the Holy Spirit when it came to interpretation of the Word of God, creating a massive compiling of traditions and rituals that glorified the flesh and not the spirit.
It is written, a little leaven, leaveneth the entire lump. If even one word was taken our of context from the original writings of the apostles, it could cause doctrinal change that would create a church that had a form of godliness, but denied the power of the Holy Spirit, which it did.
You ask by what assurance do we have that there was not err in the selection of canons in the NT?
The answer is simple. The Word of God cannot be torn assunder. If doctrine or interpretation is of God, untruths cannot stand against it. For God is the author of all truth.
It is written that Jesus is the Word of God. All who have been saved have Christ in their hearts and the Word is written on the fleshly tablets of the heart.
So for a man to discern what is and is not of God, he must be completely submissive to the will of our Heavenly Father through his Son, not leading the spirit, but being led of the spirit.
J
JRKH
Guest
So then by your own words you accept that the councils which compiled and reaffirmned the canon of Scripture (That is Proofed and reproofed) were either completely correct or completely incorrect.Unfortunately, during the early period of the church, an age came where men excelled vastly in education where theologians, philosophers, teachers decided to break down the simplicity of the Word of God through analyzing and disecting and complicating that which was not meant to be complicated.
Men began to rely on their own intellect instead of being led of the Holy Spirit when it came to interpretation of the Word of God, creating a massive compiling of traditions and rituals that glorified the flesh and not the spirit.
It is written, a little leaven, leaveneth the entire lump. If even one word was taken our of context from the original writings of the apostles, it could cause doctrinal change that would create a church that had a form of godliness, but denied the power of the Holy Spirit, which it did.
You ask by what assurance do we have that there was not err in the selection of canons in the NT?
The answer is simple. The Word of God cannot be torn assunder. If doctrine or interpretation is of God, untruths cannot stand against it. For God is the author of all truth.
It is written that Jesus is the Word of God. All who have been saved have Christ in their hearts and the Word is written on the fleshly tablets of the heart.
So for a man to discern what is and is not of God, he must be completely submissive to the will of our Heavenly Father through his Son, not leading the spirit, but being led of the spirit.
Therefore, If one accepts that the NT canon is correct, it follows that the OT canon, as compiled by the Early Christian Church Councils, must be correct. This Canon includes the DC therfore the DC books are inspired Scripture and the KJV fails the test of being complete scripture.
Peace
James
H
heiscominginthe
Guest
So then by your own words you accept that the councils which compiled and reaffirmned the canon of Scripture (That is Proofed and reproofed) were either completely correct or completely incorrect.
Therefore, If one accepts that the NT canon is correct, it follows that the OT canon, as compiled by the Early Christian Church Councils, must be correct. This Canon includes the DC therfore the DC books are inspired Scripture and the KJV fails the test of being complete scripture.
As I said before, if Jesus would have quoted from even one of those canons, that would given them merrit, but he did not. Certainly the NT would be easier to get right since it was given to the gentiles. Yet, the copulation of canons accepted by the council against rabbinical authority should not have been supported and the council itself had already traveled down the road away from truth. Proof of this is the changing of how baptism was to be administered in the church.Peace
James
J
JRKH
Guest
YOu evidently missed my post (#43 I think) where I gave a link demonstrating that the DC books were used by Jesus/ Please go back and check it out.As I said before, if Jesus would have quoted from even one of those canons, that would given them merrit, but he did not.
Which council are you refering to here - Hippo? Carthage?Certainly the NT would be easier to get right since it was given to the gentiles. Yet, the copulation of canons accepted by the council against rabbinical authority should not have been supported **and the council itself had already traveled down the road away from truth. ** Proof of this is the changing of how baptism was to be administered in the church.
These councils in the 390’s AD set the canon of the Bible.
Are you saying that these councils were Apostate?
If they were already in error then how do youaccept anything from them?
How can you accept a NT that was assembled by an apostate council?
On the other hand if you accept that the Council got the NT right, how can you deny that they got the OT right?
Do you think that the Holy Spirit would “Selectively” protect a Chriatian Church Council?
This to me is the Huge Flaw in the whole Bible canon issue. Either the councils were protected or they were not. Which is it?
Peace
James
H
heiscominginthe
Guest
Which council are you refering to here - Hippo? Carthage?
These councils in the 390’s AD set the canon of the Bible.
Are you saying that these councils were Apostate?
If they were already in error then how do youaccept anything from them?
How can you accept a NT that was assembled by an apostate council?
On the other hand if you accept that the Council got the NT right, how can you deny that they got the OT right?
Do you think that the Holy Spirit would “Selectively” protect a Chriatian Church Council?
The amount of time it would take to go through history and the canons and p(name removed by moderator)oint each point that was added or taken away from the Word of God could not be done on a forum as this unless we were to debate the issue for the next several years.This to me is the Huge Flaw in the whole Bible canon issue. Either the councils were protected or they were not. Which is it?
Peace
James
So instead of going that direction, I would rather we discuss two points in general that changed the shape of christianity. And they are baptism and the trinity.
H
heiscominginthe
Guest
Does it not make sense in that the canons that were accepted by God are the ones protected by God?This to me is the Huge Flaw in the whole Bible canon issue. Either the councils were protected or they were not. Which is it?
J
JRKH
Guest
That is fine if you wish to discontinue this line. However I would remind you that you are teh one who invited us to discuss the “KJV” with you. Certainly the validity of the canon therein contained is relevent to that conversation.The amount of time it would take to go through history and the canons and p(name removed by moderator)oint each point that was added or taken away from the Word of God could not be done on a forum as this unless we were to debate the issue for the next several years.
So instead of going that direction, I would rather we discuss two points in general that changed the shape of christianity. And they are baptism and the trinity.
Peace
James
J
JRKH
Guest
Certainly it does. The following also makes sense - especially in view of your statement:Does it not make sense in that the canons that were accepted by God are the ones protected by God?
That God keeps His promises
That Christ Founded a Single Church
That Christ promised to Protect and Guide Said Church
That The Church, under the promised Protection and Guidance, established the canon of Scripture we refer to as the Bible.
That the Church, protected and guided, proofed and reproofed the canon several times between 400 and 1500 AD.
Do you see the logical and Spirit Guided consistancy here?
Compare the above line of logic to the view that:
The Early Church councils only got the NT right.
The SAME early Church councils got the OT wrong.
Seven Church councils convened after the canon was established, reviewed said canon and ALL made the same error as the original councils.
In order to accept such a scenerio, one would have to accept the possiblility that the Holy Spirit would only “partially protect” a council of Church Bishops.
Yet how can one accept such a thing and then assume to know which parts of a council were protected and which were not?
How could one accept such a concept and then accept that the Holy Spirit is of God who is the same yesterday today and tomorrow?
I agree that it would take a lot of time to dig into how the canon developed - and I am not that learned or complicated a person when it comes to such issues.
I am a simple man - I look at things in a simple way.
Christ Promised and delivered an Authoritative Church (Mt 16:15-18)- Spirit Guided and Christ protected (John 16:12-15).
That Church was given by Christ the Authority to Bind and loose (Mt 16:19, Mt 18:18).
That Church was considered to be authoritative by the Early evangelists (1Ti 3:15)(Acts 15:1-29)
We were given the Charge to listen to and Abide by the Church’s teachings (Mt 18:15-18
That Church then, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and exersizing its authority established the canon of Scripture.
What the Jews were or were not accepting is of little relevance to what we as Christians should be accepting.
If you can show where this flow of logic is flawed then you might have a case. But the flow is consistant and logical. I honestly believe that, if you take a serious look at the logic of this and study the Early Church objectively you will see how much sense it makes.
Peace
James
H
heiscominginthe
Guest
The problem with the debate is as I said before, the amount of time to get through all that has brought us to today could not be contained in a forum. Certainly there are many things we would agree on, but there also would be many things we disagree on.That is fine if you wish to discontinue this line. However I would remind you that you are teh one who invited us to discuss the “KJV” with you. Certainly the validity of the canon therein contained is relevent to that conversation.
As for defense of the KJ, how much different is it from the vulgate? I don’t believe it is that different with the exception of the books not included in the KJ.
To me, it is more dire to confront not the Word, but the interpretation of the Word.
As I said before, I believe two events occurred that changed the shape of God’s christianity to that of man’s christianity. And that is baptism and how it was to be administered in the church along with the theologian, philosoper created trinity doctrine.
Was it the will of our Lord to go torture and even kill people with disagreed with his teachings. No.
So something had to happen in the early church that changed the messege of our Lord from loving one to the faith to threatening on to the faith.
And I believe that baptism and the trinity doctrine was in part a moving away from the faith.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.