Note: The beliefs expressed on these pages are not necessarily my own. EliYah

Thread Closed  Thread Closed
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone!
  Forums at EliYah's Home Page
  EliYah's Home Page Discussion Forum
  Did the writers of the "NT" considers their writings to be Scripture (Page 1)

Post New Topic  
profile | register | preferences | faq | search


Old Forum | New Forum
The Main Site (excluding Scripture & Forums)
Search:

Disclaimer


Search/Read Scriptures | Enter Chat Room | Study Tools
This topic is 2 pages long:   1  2 

This topic has been transferred to this forum: The True Faith.

next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   Did the writers of the "NT" considers their writings to be Scripture
YoshaYah

Posts: 75
Registered: Mar 99

posted 01-15-2000 07:16 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for YoshaYah   Click Here to Email YoshaYah     Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
We know that the writers of the "NT" were all humble men, so did they consider their writings and letters were to be put in the same category as the TaNaK. When they lived their wasen't even such thing as the "NT". What they knew as Scripture was the TaNak. The "NT" was formed many years after their deaths by a society who disliked the chosen people of YHWH and their laws. This society wanted to distance themselves from those "crazy laws" which were written threwout the TaNaK (The only collection of Scripture). So this society came up with the "New Testament", then to top it off they labled the TaNak as the "Old Testament" (it gives the impression of "out with the Old, in with the New).

So should the writings of the Apostles be considered Scripture, and just as important as the TaNaK?

I'm looking forward to your replys.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Shalom
May YHWH Be Glorified

[This message has been edited by YoshaYah (edited 01-15-2000).]

IP: Logged

DeAnna

Posts: 800
Registered: Jan 99

posted 01-15-2000 08:02 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for DeAnna   Click Here to Email DeAnna     Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Shalom YoshaYah,

I do not believe that the writers of the new test. was thinking "i am writing scripture",
Any more then the ones writing the Tanak did at the time they were writing it.
However they "all" believed they were writing the "word" of Yahweh.

The word "scriptures" simply means "writings". "holy scriptures" are the writings of those that wrote what they were instructed through the spirit of Yahweh.

But you are correct to think "Tanak", whenever you read the word "scriptures" in the N.T. for that is what they are referring to. or "It is written", that too is speaking of the tanak. "Holy scriptures" really is anything that is in writing that was given by the Father. but the ones they are referring too is the "old test." part of our bible.

I do not think that at the time the prophets were writing their revelations and what they perceived (correctly) to be of the Father that their writings were going to be collected and put into a book. They wrote down what they saw and heard to help or warn others, that were to read it.
Much like we do for eachother. If one does not know the Father, and Yahshua, and they "write", then what they have written or "scribed" is just that... words written. But if one does Know the Father and his son, and "writes" what they Know of him, is actually a "holy writ". for it came from the Father.

That is my understanding anyway.

Shalom,
DeAnna

IP: Logged

YoshaYah

Posts: 75
Registered: Mar 99

posted 01-15-2000 08:35 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for YoshaYah   Click Here to Email YoshaYah     Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Thanks for your reply DeAnna, the light bulb went off as soon as I read the first sentance.

Shalom

IP: Logged

BrotherBC

Posts: 60
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 01-16-2000 01:51 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for BrotherBC   Click Here to Email BrotherBC     Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Dear Brothers and Sisters,
I will answer a question partly with another question.
How could they have not known what was being feed thru their hearts,minds,fingers and mouths?
----------------------------------------------------------------

When I read My personal Bible which could be a King James Version or another version that is close to it like a New Jerusalem,ect.ect.

I pray to our Father in the name of Yahshua Messiah to open my eyes to see and my mind to understand and to be fed the things that I am suppose to be fed.And then when I start to read the Word comes alive and is the answer to everything that could come into mine and anyone's life .So how could it not be straight from The Creator of all things?

IP: Logged

Lou

Posts: 789
Registered:

posted 01-17-2000 09:46 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Lou   Click Here to Email Lou     Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Shalom everybody,

DeAnna failed to point out that Moshe had a set of "Scriptures," namely the tables of the 10 commandments that were written by the very finger of Yahweh.

Exodus 31:16-18 * The Israelites are to observe the Sabbath, celebrating it for the generations to come as a lasting covenant. It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever, for in six days Yahweh made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he abstained from work and rested.'" When Yahweh finished speaking to Moses on Mount Sinai, he gave him the two tablets of the Testimony, the tablets of stone inscribed by the finger of Elohim.

Apparently, when Father Yahweh wants to communicate anything of utmost importance to us, he puts it in writing himself! Christianity is very contemptuous of the very Scriptures written by Yahweh. They outdated his commandments calling them "old" in spite of the fact that Yahweh stated that Shabbat keeping is a lasting covenant and a sign to last forever. They came up with a new covenant set in which they changed Shabbat for "The LORD's day" (interesting to note Webster "Baal" = "The LORD.") So when it comes down to define any scripture as inspired you cannot trust the Christians. None of the prophets of old ever changed any of Yahweh's commandments, only the Christians did that!

May Father Yahweh have mercy on all of us!
Lou

[This message has been edited by Lou (edited 01-17-2000).]

IP: Logged

OldShepherd

Posts: 672
Registered: May 99

posted 01-19-2000 06:51 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for OldShepherd   Click Here to Email OldShepherd     Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
YoshaYah,

We know that the writers of the "NT" were all humble men, so did they consider their writings and letters were to be put in the same category as the TaNaK.
     I cannot say if the individual NT writers believed what they, themselves, were writing were scripture, but in one case Peter referred to Paul's letters as scripture.

2 Peter 3:15 Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote to you with the wisdom that God gave him.
16 He writes the same way in all is letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
17 Therefore, dear friends, since you already know this, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of lawless men and fall from your secure position.

     Note Peter uses the plural "all his letters", i.e. more than one. In view of this verse, those who reject or disparage the writings of Paul are treading very dangerous ground.

John 17:20 ¶ Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

     Here Yeshua establishes the fact that the writings of His disciples were to be considered authoritative. How could subsequent generations believe on Yeshua "through their (i.e. the disciples) word", unless they wrote it down?
     I have no trouble accepting the writings of Peter, Paul, John, etc., as inspired. Beware of snake oil salesmen who tell you different!

Zaqunra'ahyahuw

IP: Logged

Lou

Posts: 789
Registered:

posted 01-19-2000 10:08 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Lou   Click Here to Email Lou     Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Kefa wrote...
He writes the same way in all is letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Kefa gives proof to the fact that Sha'ul's letters were distorted. The next sentence ...as they do the other Scriptures... may have been a footnote inserted by a copyist, too. Was Kefa or this copyist knowledgeble in the LXX? I'm sure they were. The early church fathers pointed out a considerable amount or translation errors in the LXX. Enough to change the meaning of full passages... most notable is the absence of the tetragrammaton in the copies of the LXX in circulation in those days. Except fo the Hebrew Scriptures, there is hardly any absolute point of reference in the NT.

BTW... 'We know that the writers of the "NT" were all humble men, so did they consider their writings and letters were to be put in the same category as the TaNaK'

I don't find Sha'ul being "humble" at all. Can you tell me a few examples?

[This message has been edited by Lou (edited 01-19-2000).]

IP: Logged

OldShepherd

Posts: 672
Registered: May 99

posted 01-20-2000 08:57 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for OldShepherd   Click Here to Email OldShepherd     Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Lou,

Lou: "The next sentence...as they do the other Scriptures...may have been a footnote inserted by a copyist, too."
     "may have been. . .inserted?" Do you have any documentary/historical substantiation for this pereh fantasy? Or is this just your opinion because it doesn't fit your little doctrine? I believe the N.T. is the word of YHWH! Evidently you don't.
Lou: "Except fo the Hebrew Scriptures, there is hardly any absolute point of reference in the NT."
     You keep hinting that the N.T. is unreliable, filled with errors, corrupted, etc. Why don't you get off the fence and take a stand one way or the other. Either it is the Word of Yahweh or it isn't. If it is the Word of YHWH then we don't "have to be careful" how we read it. Where do you stand?

Zaqunra'ahyahuw

IP: Logged

uriah7

Posts: 729
Registered:

posted 01-20-2000 09:17 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for uriah7   Click Here to Email uriah7     Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Lou,
Peter wrote that Pauls letters were hard to be understood. He did not write that Pauls letters were distorted, but that ignorant and unstable men had distorted the understanding of them.

Please look at that passage from Peter again.

IP: Logged

Robert

Posts: 171
Registered:

posted 01-21-2000 01:06 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert   Click Here to Email Robert     Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Shalom All,

Remember this parable that Yeshua taught:

Matt. 13 (KJV)
24 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:
25 But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.
26 But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.
27 So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?
28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?
29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.
30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

Consider this parable in the light of another...

Luke 8:11 ...The seed is the word of Elohim.

The seed is the word, the 'good news' of malkut shamayim (kingdom of heaven). The field is the world. The 'N.T' is the seed of the gospel sown into the earth. While men slept, an enemy sowed in the tares. But now, the harvest has begun, and the tares (mistranslations and their subsequent doctrines) are being gathered to be burned, while the wheat (spiritual food) is being stored into the barns.

I believe the original Brit Cadashah Ketuvim are inspired by the Ruach haKodesh. The translations and source documents available at this time, however, show an increasingly anti-Jewish 'renovation' by theologians as the years have gone by. We must compare scripture with scripture, translation with source language, and most important, pray without ceasing! Baruch haShem! Who has given us TaNaK, which is exactly what those first witnesses used when preaching and writing those letters and accounts we now study so diligently!

If we ask Him, He will give!

Abba, Father, How great is Your Name in all the earth! May your eternal Word abide in my heart forever. Amen

In Yeshua,
R

[This message has been edited by Robert (edited 01-21-2000).]

IP: Logged

Lou

Posts: 789
Registered:

posted 01-21-2000 08:09 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Lou   Click Here to Email Lou     Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Shalom Robert,

Before I answer anyone else, let me tell you how much of a blessing was your reply. You hit the nail square on the head. Hopefully we won't pull the wheat with the tares. As you probably know, the tares look like wheat.

WOW! such a simple explanation and it fits just right...

May Father Yahweh greatly bless you for posting!

IP: Logged

Robert

Posts: 171
Registered:

posted 01-21-2000 06:23 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert   Click Here to Email Robert     Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Shalom, Lou,

Remember...

Matityahu 7
15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

I suppose we need to become horticulturists! (experts on fruits, etc...)

b'haShem,

R

[This message has been edited by Robert (edited 01-21-2000).]

IP: Logged

Lou

Posts: 789
Registered:

posted 01-22-2000 05:30 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Lou   Click Here to Email Lou     Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Shabbat Shalom Old Shepherd,

Here we have some samples of what I'm trying to say:

Mark 15:34 (KJV) And at the ninth hour Yahushua cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? (Insertion)which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?(End of Insertion)

Mark 15:34 (NIV) And at the ninth hour Yahushua cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" (Insertion)--which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"(End of Insertion)

In the English text the "insertion" is hardly noticeable, but in a Spanish translation it is very explicit...

Mark 15:34 (Valera 1960) Y a la hora novena Yahushua clamó a gran voz, diciendo: Eloi, Eloi, ¿lama sabactani? que traducido es: Dios mío, Dios mío, ¿por qué me has desamparado?

Now this is very serious... you must remember that "Dios" is the Latin transliteration of the Greek "Dios" (gen. "Zeus"). Can you possibly imagine Yahushua calling on his Father, but addressing him as "theos" ("Zeus")... the last words out of his mouth were meant for "Zeus" and not for his El. I believe that this is more than a simple translation error. I believe that this is the wrong seed planted in here. You can go ahead and still insist that "God" in English is OK. But you and I know that "God" is the name of the idol that the Germanic people worshipped before Christinity gave them a more meaningful religion which made their "God" or "Gott" more respectable even to this day. The Latin speaking Christians made "Zeus" or rather "Dios" very respectable, too. You must be totally blind Old Shepherd not to see the "insertion." I can give you many more "insertions" like that. Most of these "insertions" were meant to translate a Hebrew or Arameic word, and even then, the Christian doing the "insertion" didn't interpret accurately...

Mark 5:41 (KJV) And he took the damsel by the hand, and said unto her, Talitha cumi; (Insertion)which is, being interpreted, Damsel, I say unto thee, arise.(End of Insertion)

This "insertion" is in error. "Talitha cumi" simply means "Damsel, get up." There is no "I say unto thee" in it! so the copyist or translator, or even Mark goofed. I'm sure any of them must have been "inspired" to write that kind of a footnote, but since there is no "I say unto thee" in the original sentence whoever "inserted" that in there is a false witness. His testimony cannot stand in any court of law. If you dare to say that this kind of error is OK because it came under the inspiration of the Sacred Spirit, then I can say that the Sacred Spirit does a very poor job, at least when it has to do it in Greek. Again, the NT is adequate for our needs, but it is not accurate.

BTW this matter of "insertion" I learned from my professors at Moody Bible Institute long before I knew anything about the sacred name.

References:
Dioscuri (das kyor) Gr. Myth. Castor and Pollux, twin sons of Leda --Etymology [Gr Dioskouroi < Dios (gen. of Zeus) + kouroi, pl. of kouros, boy, son] (C)1995 Zane Publishing, Inc. (C)1994, 1991, 1988 Simon & Schuster, Inc.

[This message has been edited by Lou (edited 01-22-2000).]

IP: Logged

OldShepherd

Posts: 672
Registered: May 99

posted 01-23-2000 07:56 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for OldShepherd   Click Here to Email OldShepherd     Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Lou,

     To refresh your memory here is what I posted.
Lou: "The next sentence...as they do the other Scriptures...may have been a footnote inserted by a copyist, too."
     "may have been. . .inserted?" Do you have any documentary/historical substantiation for this pereh fantasy? Or is this just your opinion because it doesn't fit your little doctrine?
     In response you went off on a totally irrelevant rabbit trail about Mark 5:41, and 15:34 and Theos, Zeus, Dios.
     I will repeat my question. Do you have any documentary/historical substantiation for this pereh fantasy, that the words, "as they do the other Scriptures", in 2 Peter 3:16 are not original and were inserted by some sinister "Christian"?
     I have reviewed my "The Greek New Testament" ed. K. Aland, M. Black, C. M. Martini, B. Metzger, and A. Wikgren, 1977, United Bible Society., there are no variant or alternate readings for 2 Peter 3:16. The oldest, most reliable manuscripts, lectionary, and ECF evidence confirm it to be accurate. Where is your proof that the words, "...as they do the other Scriptures...", are an insertion?

Lou: "Mark 15:34 (KJV) (Insertion)which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?(End of Insertion)

     Neither, John A. T. Robertson's, Word Pictures in the New Testament (RWP) nor The Greek New Testament show the words you have marked, to be a variant reading. All manuscript evidence show this passage to be genuine. There are some minor differences in the last two words me egkataleipo. It is shown variously as me egkateleipes, egkateleipes me, egkateleipes, me egkateleipas, and egkateleipas. However none of these variations change the meaning.
     (Note; Robertson's exegesis of this verse refers back to Matthew)
"{My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?} (|Thee mou, thee mou, hina ti me egkatelipes;|). Matthew first transliterates the Aramaic, according to the Vatican manuscript (B), the words used by Jesus: _Elö´i, elö´i, lema sabachthanei_; Some of the MSS. give the transliteration of these words from #Ps 22:1 in the Hebrew (_Eli, Eli, lama Zaphthanei_)." (RWP)

Strong's 1459 egkataleipo eng-kat-al-i'-po
from 1722 and 2641;; v
AV - forsake 7, leave 2; 9
1) abandon, desert
1a) leave in straits, leave helpless
1b) totally abandoned, utterly forsaken
2) to leave behind among, to leave surviving

Lou: Mark 5:41 (KJV) And he took the damsel by the hand, and said unto her, Talitha cumi; (Insertion)which is, being interpreted, Damsel, I say unto thee, arise.(End of Insertion)
Lou: "You must be totally blind Old Shepherd not to see the "insertion." I can give you many more "insertions" like that."
     Oh, I can clearly see where you allege insertions and I'm sure you can invent many more, but can you show me any documentary evidence at all, e.g. manuscripts, lectionary, ECF, etc. supporting your assertions?
Lou: "Most of these "insertions" were meant to translate a Hebrew or Arameic word, and even then, the Christian doing the "insertion" didn't interpret accurately..."
     Funny, I don't see any problem with interpreting correctly.

Strong's 5008 Taliqa talitha tal-ee-thah'
of Aramaic origin, cf 02924 atylj;; n f
AV - Talitha 1; 1
1) damsel, maiden

2891 koumi koumi koo'-mee
of Aramaic origin 06966 ymwq;; v
AV - cumi 1; 1
1) arise

Lou: "This "insertion" is in error. "Talitha cumi" simply means "Damsel, get up.". . since there is no "I say unto thee" in the original sentence whoever "inserted" that in there is a false witness. . . Again, the NT is adequate for our needs, but it is not accurate.
     Your quote of Mk 5:41, shows this entire clause, " (Insertion)which is, being interpreted, Damsel, I say unto thee, arise.(End of Insertion)", to be false. However, your discussion only addresses the words "I say unto thee".
     Once again, as in the case of 2 Peter, neither Robertson's, Word Pictures in the New Testament nor The Greek New Testament" show the words you have marked, to be a variant reading. All manuscript evidence show this passage to be genuine.

"{Talitha cumi}. These precious Aramaic words, spoken by Jesus to the child, Peter heard and remembered so that Mark gives them to us. Mark interprets the simple words into Greek for those who did not know Aramaic (|to korasion, egeire|), that is, {Damsel, arise}. Mark uses the diminutive |korasiôn|, a little girl, from |korê|, girl. _Braid Scots_ has it: "Lassie, wauken." #Lu 8:5-9 has it |Hê pais, egeire|, {Maiden, arise}. All three Gospels mention the fact that Jesus took her by the hand, a touch of life (|kratêsas tês cheiros|), giving confidence and help." John A. T. Robertson's, Word Pictures in the New Testament."
     Conceding, simply for the sake of this discussion, that you are right, the words "I say unto thee" are an insertion, you are saying that it is a false witness to insert words for clarification or a smoother reading when translating from one language to another?
     For example "Sh'ma (hear) Yisrael (Israel) YHWH eloheinu (mighty one) YHWH echad (one)". Then according to you it is a false witness to translate that as "Hear (O) Israel YHWH (our) Mighty One (is) One YHWH!" (Mark 12:29) The words added are in bold, they are not in the original but they do make a smoother reading in English.
     The words which seem to offend you so much do not change the meaning of the sentence and simply identify the subject and object, which if not expressly stated is implied in this or any sentence.
Lou: "BTW this matter of "insertion" I learned from my professors at Moody Bible Institute long before I knew anything about the sacred name.
     Pity! I kinda like to document stuff that supposedly proves scripture to be false. It's a little difficult to verify/refute something allegedly spoken in a classroom several years ago.
     Lou, is this your best shot trying to prove how "inaccurate" the N.T. is? His Word still stands!

Zaqunra'ahyahuw

[This message has been edited by OldShepherd (edited 01-25-2000).]

IP: Logged

Lou

Posts: 789
Registered:

posted 01-23-2000 09:51 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Lou   Click Here to Email Lou     Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote
Old Shepherd,

I only said, "may have been inserted" -- If I had evidence, I would have said, "This was inserted and here is the evidence." Although I do remember reading the early church fathers about "insertions" and using words to "favor the faith." To make a point I illustrated where I feel the "insertions" took place.

I don't know what you are reading for documentation, but let me tell you that when I spoted in your reply the following quote, "{Talitha cumi}. These precious Aramaic words, spoken by Jesus to the child, Peter heard and remembered so that Mark gives them to us..."... I can see that John Robertson is a very subjective person. I don't trust this kind of "charismaticism." Why is he saying "This precious Aramaic words?" I am not attacking the main body of the NT text, only the alleged "insertions." I believe more in the NT than you are giving me credit for! Please give me a break!

Anyway, when I read "Dios mio, Dios mio" in Spanish and knowing that the name stems from "Zeus" ("Theos")--I hurt! I know that Yahushua quoted the Psalm most likely in Hebrew. Don't you think so? Why should he use a second rate language like Aramaic to talk to his Father? If true, then there must be a very profound reason that we don't know yet. He didn't use Greek except for the "insertion." Can't you smell a bit of anti-Shem in here? I have a big nose for that. I think it comes with the territory

IP: Logged

This topic is 2 pages long:   1  2 

All times are ET (US)

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Open Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  
Hop to:

Contact Us | EliYah's Home Page

Please read the disclaimer

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.44a
© Infopop Corporation (formerly Madrona Park, Inc.), 1998 - 2000.