Comments on: News Round Up 04/23/09

By: Tribwarrior

Tribwarrior — Tue, 05 May 2009 05:33:20 +0000

Then by your respone QC, I can only assume that the answer is no, none of the lost books have lead you to the Biblical truth that “there is no other name under Heaven by which man can be saved, Acts 4:12. “an act that is physically impossible.” To you or I yes. This is also a core belief or principle. Acts 2:32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. Acts 3:15 And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses.
“I can sin my own sins, and take my own punishment,” Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
This isn’t just a one time death and you turn to dust and never know anything again, this is an eternity in the lake of fire. We all have eternal life, you just have to decide where you want to spend it. As far as scapegoating, No one is putting anything on Christ, that he didn’t have the power to call ten thousand angels, to set HIm free. He took the price for our sins wilingly because, John 3:16 (King James Version)
16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Now whether you want to discuss which books of the Bible were left out by men in long funny robes, many, many moons ago or not, the unerring truth of the Bible down through the centuries, accounted by those who sought to discredit it to prove their own sceptism, as well as historians, archeology, and the fact that even though tyrants have tried to wash the name of Jesus from the face of the earth with the very blood of those whov’e claimed it, though it has been forced to go underground at times, the purest water is that which has had to force its way through solid rock. the fact is that down through the centuries, it still stands. Sir William Ramsey was professor at Oxford and aberdeen Universities, gained three honorary fellowships from Oxford and nine honorary doctorates from other universities. he spent a lifetime digging up Asia Minor, and was told to believe luke (witer of the Gospel of luke and the Acts of the apostles) would be completely in error with most of his facts.
His Conclusion: “You may press the words of Luke in a degree beyond any other historian’s and they stand the keenest scrutiny and the hardest treatment.” “Christanity did not originate in a lie; and we can and ought to demonstrate this as well as believe it.” He was convinced by the evidence.

By: DelRioTango

DelRioTango — Mon, 04 May 2009 20:53:55 +0000

I understand your view QC. Let me put it this way in light of your comments. Christianty is not a Religion, it’s a faith, it’s seperate from traditional man made religion (Catholic, Jewish, Islam etc). It started with Christ and will end there. It cannot be contained in a religious dogma setting where man takes some of, but not all of its contents and twists it to their accord and have it work. This is the very thing Christ was harshly against because God’s word is inspired by Him, not by man and is to used “by faith” in Christ. To say that if you lived before 1500, to be Christian was to be a Catholic may have been correct in light of those the Papal dogma was forced upon, but it was not Christianity. It cannot be contained, but it can be tampered with. Just like our Constitution in that what it was meant for, and what it is being altered to become are two different things. That’s why I site Tertullian. He converted to Christianity around year 200AD and is considered to be a founding father of the Christian Faith, not religion. He believed that the church at the time was becoming complacent, and capitualting under direct pressure from Rome and that the church should not trade hope in God for dependency in the power of the Empire. He rejected earthly power and advantage, including worldly education and social ranks as “dung” in relation to the things of Christ. This is true Christianty, and is nothing like Catholic teaching. Christ died bringing this new Faith to light because it took away the power from Rome, or the Jews to continue to put people in bondage, Christianity is true freedom and that is factually accurate…Biblically anyway.

By: Quantum Conservative

Quantum Conservative — Mon, 04 May 2009 19:49:47 +0000

DelRio,
“Traditionaly Christianity as it was known operated independently from the Church of Rome.”
Factually inaccurate. The first split from the Catholic Church was in the 11th century, and that was by what we now call the Eastern Orthodox Church. If you lived prior to the 1500’s, to be a Christian was to be a Catholic. Not to mention that with Apostolic Succession, there is a strong argument to be made that the Catholic Church is the only true church of Christ. I’m not making the argument, as I see the reformation as the birthplace of both the enlightenment and of the modern age, but the argument is there, nonetheless.
Trib,
I remain unconvinced. The two core principles of Christianity are 1. Original Sin, and 2. The death and rebirth of Christ redeems believers from said Original sin.
So, regarding 1. To me, the concept of original sin only has validity as a metaphor for our recently evolved mental processes. We still think like animals because we very recently were animals, without the mental capacity for long term, altruistic thinking.
2. Be it Lazarus or Jesus, no man returns from the grave. So there can be no redemption from an act that is physically impossible. Not to mention my absolute conviction that the concept of scapegoating is morally reprehensible. For example, if I kill a man, and am sentenced to death for the act, it would be outrageous to let my innocent friend take the rap for it and die in my place. If it is so obviously unjust in one concrete example, how much more so on the mythological level? I can sin my own sins, and take my own punishment, thank you very much.
-QC-

By: DelRioTango

DelRioTango — Mon, 04 May 2009 18:28:25 +0000

QC, I should clarify my comments to Trib. The Bible I was speaking of is the King James version. Concieved in 1604 and brought to frution by the Church of England in 1611. Forty seven scholars whom were the members of The Church of England were given instructions by King James I to establish a version that would guarantee its conformance with Englands ecclesiolgy, and reflect the at that time Episcopal structure freshly adopted as the history of the church had been of under Papal authority for over a thousand years before seperating from Rome around 1534. Now granted the new choice for religious doctrine was deamed bascially Episcopal under King Herny VIII, and then Edward VI adpoted more protestant views, Queen Mary I basically ended the Reformation, and sought to bring back Papal authority along with Roman Catholic doctrine. Then King James I came on the scene with the King James Version amidst the reformation turmoil, which was still essentially heavily Catholic but mixed with Puritain, and Protestant views. Then the Anglican middle of the road view was adopted for a time, and then eventually became the new Reformed Catholic doctrine.
I think historically the earliest proof of Christian doctrine in England was found in the writtings of Tertullian, and Origen around the 3rd century. Traditionaly Christianity as it was known operated independently from the Church of Rome. Eventually they meshed to a degree, however the Catholic view of Christianity can be viewed as very different from traditional Christian teaching. Also, the writtings of Flavius Josephus are indeed considered part of the lost books of the bible. There are over five hundred books that can be used in this discussion including Josephus as he spoke of the Ark, King David’s tomb, the plight of the Jews and much more.

By: Tribwarrior

Tribwarrior — Mon, 04 May 2009 04:09:15 +0000

As far as Jude 1:14 goes I’m going to have to do more research on that and get back to you.

By: Tribwarrior

Tribwarrior — Mon, 04 May 2009 03:59:43 +0000

No, not exactly, Luke 16:28-31 says;
28For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.
29Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
30And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
31And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
So, if they will not hear Moses or the Prophets, or the Bible as it is commonly accepted, I doubt very much if the Lost Books” will convince them either. Have they convinced you that Christ is the only name under Heaven by wich man can be saved?

By: Quantum Conservative

Quantum Conservative — Sat, 02 May 2009 19:27:00 +0000

Sorry Trib, Jude 1:14-15 is a direct quote from the Book of Enoch. And don’t you think your argument against the lost books could equally be applied to non-believers?

By: Tribwarrior

Tribwarrior — Sat, 02 May 2009 05:25:19 +0000

I never could figure out why they were called the “lost books”, wouldn’t that make God look kind of sloppy, and unorganized. What would those who didn’t make Heaven say when they stand before God on Judgement day? “Hey wait a minute, If I had access to the lost books, then I would’ve believed and wouldn’t be condemned to hell, this isn’t fair!

Be careful when people tell you what “all scholars believe.”
The first century historian Josephus (about AD90) recognized 22 books (the 39 of our Old Testament) as the Jewish record of history. The purpose of the “Council of Jamnia” (between AD90 & 100) was to examine the books that were already accepted in the Old Testament canon. The Gnostics were considered 2nd Century heritics. All the way back in AD 108, Iraneaus made the acdurate statement that the Judas Gospel is a ficticious history. The Apocrypha were never used as authorities by the Jews or Josephus, and most importantly they were NOT quoted by Jesus or the Apostles.
The earliest available list of N.T. books is the Muratorian Canon, dated around AD 150, which is nearly a complete list of the N.T. we have today. In addition to the 4 Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles and the 13 letters of Paul were all accepted as scripture from the earliest records known today. It was not a church council that confirmed our N.T. that we have today, but rather they were gathered together by the common churches long before the Counsel of Carhtage in 397. A.T Robinson (New Testament scholar and noe time Dean at Trinity College, Cambridge) concluded that the books of the N.T. were completed prior to AD 70, partly based on the absence of any mention of the destruction of Jeruselem. I strongly urge you to go to the link above and seriously consider getting that series, it is well worth the time, and it will put to rest tons of myths perpetrated over the years.

By: Quantum Conservative

Quantum Conservative — Fri, 01 May 2009 18:30:47 +0000

There are two books of Enoch, not one: The Book of Enoch, and The Secrets of Enoch. Both are fantastic reads, and contain most of the stories of Christian mythology that are not actually in the Bible (i.e. the war in heaven, the story of Lucifer and the fallen, etc.). They are part of the Christian tradition called the Apocrypha, and were left out of the modern bible by the Council of Nicaea in 325AD, not the 16th Century. And you can’t make a distinction between Catholic and Christian at that point in time, because that distinction only has merit after Martin Luther’s reformation in 1648. And by the way, Catholic means ‘universal,’ so if Christ’s church is truly universal than every believer is a Catholic.
And Josephus was a Jewish Historian, not a prophet. His History was never even considered for inclusion in the Holy Writ.
Read Elaine Pagel’s “The Gnostic Gospels,” The Nag Hamadi Library, and any translation of The Dead Sea Scrolls for further information regarding the Apocrypha, which are not and have never been “lost,” just not included.
-QC-

By: DelRioTango

DelRioTango — Fri, 01 May 2009 13:41:53 +0000

I was just reading some of Josephus yesterday. Enoch, Josephus, and many other books are considered “The Lost Books” of the Bible. They were left out of what would become the King James version for various reasons by the Catholic entities that be in the 16th century. There are some fantastic writtings in those books and you seem deep into scripture so I thought I’d ask.