Re: CHARLES SWALLOWS ATHANASIUS' CANON--Hook, Line, & SINKER

Subject:

Comments:
: : : : : Probably the Books of Moshe..first five books! As is accepted today as Torah...and always has been since Moshe. : : : : : : Actually, he has quoted in the gospels many passages that are not in the Torah. : : ................. : : Yes....you may be right....but these could be passages that are in the Oral Torah considering they compiled and wrote it down later....but these passages of aggaddot/parables were concepts that they had disgussed for hundreds of years. People forget that He was Jewish and grew up Jewish...so He would have known the Oral Torah too...they were very strict on memorizing it down through the ages..until the diaspora after the destruction of the second Temple...that is why it was decided to write it down so it wouldn't be lost to the people over time..it became what we know today as the Talmud. I am not saying that I agree with all of the Oral Torah...I know it has many decrepencies in it....but you have to dig through it and measure against Scripture. I don't use the gemera much for reference ...usually just Mishnah...since it is halacha and usually lines up with Scripture in most cases. : The Oral and Written Torah's are a fine distinction that is very tricky to understand. Most don't want to understand because it casts a shadow on the veracity of the claims of Biblical authenticity. The written Torah comprises the Old Testament minus all the books that are considerd to be apocryphal (such as the Maccabees) and were first written down in 586 BCE. This was during the exile, and it was for the purpose of preserving what was written that it might not get lost. The Oral Torah, became known as the Mishnah, and the commentary on the Written Torah the Midrash. Both of these were later commented on and that became known as the Talmud. The Talmud I do not accept, though it is an interesting read for what the theological concepts presented therein are, as it was written with the purpose of defending Judaism from Christian beliefs, bascally denying that Yahshua was the Messiah (or that Jesus was the Christ). : : .................... : : : : Of course if you accept the gospels, then you are also accepting the decision of the patristics who selected those four gospels out of many that were written. The Gospel of John, amazingly enough, almost didn't make it because they thought it smacked of Gnosticism.: : : If you are willing to say that the church fathers got it wrong in some parts, then you have to admit that they could have screwed up with every single book. If none of the gospels can be accpeted then, how are we to know which of the Tanakh can be accepted? : : : : : ................... : : And what if it didn't make it? Then it must have meant HaShem didn't want it to make it. I really don't understand the arguing between people of what did and didn't get in the Brit Chadashah...big deal....what I have is what HaShem wanted me to have....if He had enough power and chachma to create all...then don't you think He has enough power and chachma to make sure we get what we need to understand Him and His plan? The problem is people don't search in His word they allow stuff like this to get them detoured away from the Devar of Elohim! If people don't accept the Brit Chadashah as being error free {which I don't}.....then dig in it with renewed mind and the leading the Ruach HaKodesh....because all people are doing is losing out on the messages that are in the Brit Chadashah that was meant for them to find....because they fell for the deterent that was allowed to be put there. : I agree with this. I accept that it was given to me becuase He wanted me to have it. Any mistakes found therein can be found and taken care of. : : : *Now, we may seek after the spirit, which is a good thing, I do it myself, : : I am not judging you, so don't get the wrong idea...but I do feel that you have the wrong idea of the Ruach HaKodesh. When I became a believer in Yeshua as my Redeemer...I was told that I WOULD receive the GIFT of the Ruach HaKodesh...and I did. Now, when I say I am letting the Ruach guide me..I don't mean I am seeking after a 'spirit' or the 'spirit' I am meaning that by seeking HASHEM'S WILL I will be guided by the Ruach HaKodesh to understanding of His Devar if it is HaShem's WILL. I don't see why a believer would have to SEEK AFTER THE RUACH???? : This seems to be a worrying over semantics than anything else. I seek all the aspects of His Holiness. I want His spirit to dwell within me and guide me. For without it, I will be lost. If by using the word seek I caused confusion, I apologize. : : It is fact that there are mistranslations and deceptions that has crept in..but I am finding the more and more I allow the Ruach HaKodesh to lead me in understanding it..it just doesn't matter. Do I think that the Tanach has been mistranslated or deceptions are in it...most likely...but I haven't found them yet. It is a lot easier to tell from the Brit because we have the Tanach to measure it against.....there are contraditions no doubt I don't disagree....but in our translations of the original..I don't believe the inspired original had any errors. And when you put the contradictory portion back to it original setting and understanding then there is no contradictions usually....but what if there is still? Then dig a little deeper! *smile* : I cannot think that if we are willing to doubt the New Testament (the Brit) then we certainly cannot use the Tanakh as a measure against because errors will also be present in it, and therefore, any such measuring against it will be done in error as well. You may be rejecting the truth becuase of an error in the Tanakh! : : : : I personally believe that the Brit Chadashah is True in the truest sense of the word....AFTER you dig through the pile of Hellenistic deception and get to the beauty of the Hebraic understandings underneath....goes wonderfully with the Tanach....there is no contradiction in Elohim's Devar....so if you find one...you can figure...deception...better start digging! : : : : : : So here is a question (not to say that I am ignorant, I just want your take on this), what is the Hellenistic deception? : : .............. : : All the Greek understandings that was inserted to deceive and make the Brit Chadashah more Gentilized! Like the fact that there is no such book as James....He was Ya'acov..which the English is Jacob...but why did they not want to use that name? Because it sounded toooooo Jewish! 'Must get all Jewishness out, can't have that'..that is why people have a hard time picturing a Yeshua instead of a Jesus. And why you might ask did they then leave the name Jacob in the Tanach then.....because the Tanach is considered to be "the Jews part..the OLD testament...we have the NEW and better, we don't have to do those burdensome things in the 'old'...we were given our own".....get my drift! In fact, I still have somewhere from childhood those little tiny 'NT Bible' they use to so abundantly give away at churches and revivals...and one of the major culprits in this little deception by the 'Early Church Fathers' was the well-known Marcion. : : You don't see the deceptions in these kind of things the ECF did???? Should make all believers want to prove out the translations we have. : I know of Marcion well. The reason th eNew Testament is given to young kids is because it is generally easier to understand. I am not defening this practice, just stating something that is true. Whether this was a deliberate attempt based off of racial bias I am not going to say, though I do not deny the possibility that it could have happened. However, the fundamental truths have not been taken out of it, and I believe that most of the church fathers had His best interests at heart (preserve that which is sacred) when they did what they did in organizing the scriptures. : : : Then you will be deceived....because unless you put it back in it's correct context how are you going to get to the truth under the misconceptions? Not by your concordances alone! : What? Translate it back into Hebrew? That is a pointless exercise since it will be more skewed than it was before since you will be exercising two fundamental misunderstandings between languages. Attempting to learn the original Hebrew is probably the best bet, and what most peopel here have decided to do. However, that is what a Concordance was designed for anyway, to get at the original language that was used (for the NT we have Greek, no original manuscripts written in Hebrew). : I see what you are saying though, and I think that it would be good to know as much of what was intended by the words used on the basis of Jewish culture at that time. : : No I am not...but you don't have that as an excuse to not prove all things! People always use that one....it is a very old one you know....but you can't use that excuse...You don't sound like you have a mental handicap...just a blindness.....Avinu has given in abundance aids and materials to help search out and prove all....there is no excuse. You admit there are discrepancies..so there is no excuse. : I wasn't using that as an excuse. I just want everybody to be consisten in their theology. If salvation is possible by the Messiah alone, then why is so much effort being put into the names, and obeying the Torah? The scriptures seem pretty clear to me that is not what was intended, but of course, we can just account whatever we don't like to mistranslation or tampering by the ECF. I think the idea that there was a large scale deliberate attempt to orchestrate the Hellenization of the scripture, to rob it of it's power, is ludicrous! It's about as silly as the idea that the media is an orchestrated voice for liberalism. : Go ahead, say that I am blind, and that I am rejecting the truth. I have investigated these matters, and I see no convincing reason why I should admit that these things happened. Perhaps one day I will change my mind, perhaps one day you will. However, at the moment, I know that He died on the cross for me, and I rejoice int he salvation that was made possible through that. I find no restrictive authority binding me to the Torah any longer. Should I choose to obey it in part or in whole, I will do so because I know it is right, not becuase of what some are saying on this list. They have no authority over me, nor do they convince me of what they say, mainly becuase they will not answer my questions. : : I can't say you don't....not my place....but you still have to prove all things....hahaha...can't get away from it...your Bible says so. : Really, what verse? : I don't have to prove anything to you. I'd rather go and prove my faith by showing others love and charity than by nitpicking over what if any had existed original Hebrew documents of the New Testament said. : : : The idols you so refer to are simply the best translations into other languages of the concept fo Elohim. It is an analogy that helps us understand his nature, nothing more. To claim that it is idol worship to so use is proclaiming your ignorance of such theological matters. : : ............. : : Not if you if you are saying it is the word of the idols you mentioned...the NAMED ones...this shows an ignorance of Elohim's Devar! : Please explain this statement, I do not understand what you are pointing at. They are just titles, analogies. That is all we can refer to Him as; analogies. : : I think I already answered this above. So you are saying that you know there are errors in the Scriptures...but your just going to overlook them? Doesn't even bother you that you might be deceived and not receiving the correct message because it is not important enough to test and prove the translations? : So here's the million dollar question. Can we trust the Tanakh? : : : I know about Origen. He strikes me as a forerunner to arianism. That he might have burned the Hebrew copies changes my opinion not one iota. So what? : : ........... : : Please don't let 'so what' be your motto in this! : It isn't, I just wanted to know the significance of that act, if it really happened. : : :How does that affect the present discussion? It casts a shadow of doubt over Origen's credibility, but has that stopped God from using people before? : : ............. : : I pray HaShem will open your eyes. : Here's a typical response when the ones with the truth don't have an answer for your question. "We pray that He would open your eyes. We want you to see what we have discovered by our own investigations, everybody but us is wrong." If this is your answer to my questions, why am I to believe you? : : : That they might have been deceived has not escaped my notice. I have argued that if you are willing to believe that the New Testament is full of fraud, then so is the Old. I am not saying that if you apply deception to one group of scholars, then it must be equally applied elsewhere. This is known as intelllectual honesty. : You didn't bother to answer my statement. Is the Tanakh also defective? : : : : May we all being given chachma/wisdom and da'at/knowledge to withstand the adversary! : : : : : : Truly, I agree with this. : : : : : Thank you and you too be blessed! : I hope my sarcasm does not come across as harsh. I want answers, not platitudes. : No offense, but I get really frustrated when people cotinuosly dodge the question. If I do it as well, call me to task for it. : May He bless you and keep you in His grace and love, : Charles Matthias

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: