sororitygurl4life wrote:

not to mention all these gospels are written by men... not by jesus nor
by people who were sitting there writting stuff down as it occured...
and the fact that somethings have been changed...

=====================================================================================
SpiderCMB replied:

So your stance is that "Jesus didn't teach from the Torah, because I
said so". Yeah...that's um...great.

not to mention look where you quote that it isn't in relation to the law
it is in relation to...blessed are the poor in spirit, for theres is the
kingdom of heaven, blessed ar ethose who mourn for they will be
comforted blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness for
they will be filled, you are the salt of the earth but if salt has lots
its tate how can its saltiness be restore? blah blah blah do not think
that i have come to abolish the law of the prophets; i have come not to
abolish but to fulfill for truly i tell you until heaven and earth pass
away not one letter not one stroke of a letter will pass from the law
until ass is accomplished therefore whoever breaks one of thee least
of these commandments and teaches others to do the same, will be called
least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them
will be called great in the kingdom of heaven ... ANOTHERWORDS he
first descripbes the ideal characteristics of the members gods comofort
and coming jesus and his followers fulfill the law through jesus
teaching, though they were accused of neglecting the law ...... READ
YOUR BIBLE PLEASE do not merely quote 1 verse because by doing that i
can prove the bible supports many things...

it should say it isn't in relation to the law as you put it, but as >>>

sororitygurl4life,

That section of the Bible is called "The Sermon on the Mount" or "The
Beatitudes".

The part I quoted was directly referring to the Law of the Torah. I
also posted a link to a website that documents the many many times Jesus
quoted the Torah, the Law and the prophets.

Matthew 5:17-20
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not
come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and
earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the
Law until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of
these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called
least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he
shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say to you that
unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees,
you will not enter the kingdom of heaven"
-----------------------------------------------------------

If you actually read your Bible instead of telling a Bible reader to do
so, you will find that the Beatitudes ends at Matthew 5:12 and then
Jesus starts teaching about Diciples and the world / law.

Please go to http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0406scripture.asp,
so that you can see that Jesus really did teach from the Torah.

Mark 11:15-18
15 And they come to Jerusalem: and Jesus went into the temple, and began
to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the
tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold
doves;(doves were sold for women who met with their menstruation)?

16 And would not suffer that any man should carry any vessel through the
temple.

17 And he taught, saying to them, Is it not written, My house shall be
called of all nations the house of prayer? but you have made it a den of
thieves.

18 And the scribes and chief priests heard it, and sought how they might
destroy him: for they feared him, because all the people was astonished
at his doctrine.


In fact, the first time He did this a couple of years before, He even
made a whip out of cords.
He was physically thrashing people out of the temple!
What made God’s Son so angry?
His house was being prostituted for purposes other than what was
intended.

On this I must agree with you spider.

Jesus did not come to abolish the law but to strengthin it.

Yet as I look about I see churches that are performing these same
disrespectful things.

One example of money changers...

Bingo in the churches. Is this not gambling? Is this not using sin to
increase the wealth of the church?

Will this not decrease the true wealth of those churches that practice
it in the measure of the spirit... and the eyes of god.

We are in complete agreement. The only thing is that only Catholics
allow Bingo in their Churches and most Christians don't believe
Catholics are Chrisians.

But, the money changers weren't gambling, they were outright ripping
people off. There was also a scam where one guy would say that
someone's sacrifice wasn't good enough, so they should buy a new
one...somehow they always either had or knew someone who had a perfect
sacrificial animal. The animals for sale were stabled in the gentile
section of the courtyard. That section was just for gentiles, so that
they could come to worship if they so desired. That place had been set
aside at the command of God. So one of the things that offended Jesus
was how the Jews were treating non-Jews and foreigners. Many things
offended Jesus that day, I'm sure anywhere Jesus went today, he would
find reasons to be offended, not just to Catholic churches.

To all,
There are only three surviving Codex other than the current Bible that
contain New Testament. Two are partial and very fragmented. and include
writings from as close as about 100 years after the death of Jesus.

There is One Codex, the oldest known in the world called
The Codex Sinaiticus, written in Greek about the mid 4th century. It
has writings believed to have been penned as close as 45 years after the
death of Jeses. This is also the most complete reference material ever
found. It was divided some time ago, kept in museums. It contains many
books that have never even been heard of, and many accounts in the book
are different than the ones in our current Biblical text. It is the
largest volume of biblical writing ever dicovered. What's more, google
it, there are plans underway to carefully translate and make it
available on-line to the public. It will be interesting.

SPIDER, my point here is to confirm what Sority was saying. The Council
of Trent had access to all of those books and probably many more. THEY
DID in fact determine which books they felt would promote, on a
consistant basis the basics of what and how they wanted thier beliefs to
be taken. The rest were burned. Further, anyone found with any version
or book not of the connon, would pay dearly. This is why we see so many
'LOST BOOKS' of the Bible emerging as archeology became a great
exploration. They were hidden by those who did not agree with the
council and their choice to destroy them. For many believed they might
be destroying something actually written first hand - and maybe they
did.

One more point, as far as a Bible already being in 'circulation' at the
time of the council of trent. Common sense in this case would rule that
out. For it cost a fortune even for a Ruler as great as Constantine
just to commission 3 copies. Religion was still word of mouth. Not
even all priest in those early times ever read the entire Bible. It was
not until King James and the invention of the printing press, that the
first mass production of Bibles was consigned. It did not go out to the
people, it went out to those who would teach the masses and to the
wealthy who could afford and were well expected to pay for them.

I love your comment "Ole jeb"

Interesting posting.

I'm enjoying watching.

michael

PS thanks for keeping it peceful!!!!!

PEACEFUL!!!!!!

Sorry


Michael

Ole Jeb wrote:
“Do you have any thoughts as to when, in honor of Dr. King, time will be
split...our calendars will revert to year 1 a.d. the year of our Lord,
Martin Luther King?”

Why would we do that? I was suggesting that Jesus was a man, not that
Martin Luther King was god.

Why should we base are calendar on a religious event anyway? There's no
need to do that, historically it was just an arbitrary choice. In fact,
if we were going to start a new calendar today we’d probably base it on
a celestial event rather than on an event from human history. After
all, the days, months, and years are all caused by celestial events, it
seems only natural that we should then choose a celestial event as a
temporal reference point. The reference point of precisely when we
start counting days is entirely arbitrary.

In fact, if we actually knew when the first humans came into existence
we, as a human species, should really use that date to base our calendar
on. I think that would make this year something like year 150 thousand.
I guess that all depends on precisely when you want to start counting.
Using our earliest primate ancestors as a starting reference this could
be year 25 million. That’s a pretty long calendar.

You know, I really can't argue this with you guys. Historians tell us
that some of the Gospels were in circulation by 100 AD. How did Paul
write his letters, if paper and ink we so expensive? Christians would
spent their life transcribing the gospels, so that other believers could
have copies. Instead of using "common sense" or offering your opinions,
why don't you read what historians have to say.

http://history-world.org/bible.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------
The first part of the New Testament to gain general acceptance was a
collection of the letters of Paul, in circulation before the end of the
1st century. The four Gospels were widely regarded as canonical by the
end of the 2nd century. The rest were slowly received, but by AD 325 the
historian Eusebius of Caesarea made a compilation that listed most of
the present canon and left a few books on the list as disputed. In 367
Athanasius, the bishop of Alexandria, Egypt, made a canonical list of
all the presently accepted New Testament books. Church councils in
subsequent decades established his list as final. Still, controversy
over the Book of Revelation and some of the Catholic Epistles lasted for
at least two centuries.
--------------------------------------------------------------

The Bible as it currently exists was not in circulation, but the
individual books of the New Testament and copies of the Old Testament
WERE. It's a historical fact and you all make yourself into idiots by
claiming otherwise. You should be ashamed of the fact that you run your
silly little tongues without the slightest clue of what you are
speaking. Perhaps you should get your history education from another
source, rather than just listening to Dan Brown and Richard Dawkins.

One copy of a book or chapter is not a 'circulation'.

I can read also. In the case of most of the chapters or books/letters
there was but one copy. When a church leader of the time needed to
transfer it from one place to another it was receipted for and in the
case of a lot of the original works they were hidden to prevent their
destruction since some of them were not 'accepted' by the leaders of the
church at the time.

An example is the Codex Sinaiticus which was not included in the agreed
upon texts. Instead it was agreed to include the Codex Vacticaticus and
the Sinaiticus (which contains at least two chapters that were not
included in the printed version of the bible) was hidden away.

Another example is the Dead Sea Scrolls you mentioned in another thread.
They were hidden for quite a long time and I will warrent you they have
never been included in any bible you have read.

How many disciples of christ where there?

How many of them have chapters in the bible?

12?

12?

AdventureBegins wrote:

One copy of a book or chapter is not a 'circulation'.

I can read also. In the case of most of the chapters or books/letters
there was but one copy. When a church leader of the time needed to
transfer it from one place to another it was receipted for and in the
case of a lot of the original works they were hidden to prevent their
destruction since some of them were not 'accepted' by the leaders of the
church at the time.

An example is the Codex Sinaiticus which was not included in the agreed
upon texts. Instead it was agreed to include the Codex Vacticaticus and
the Sinaiticus (which contains at least two chapters that were not
included in the printed version of the bible) was hidden away.

Another example is the Dead Sea Scrolls you mentioned in another thread.
They were hidden for quite a long time and I will warrent you they have
never been included in any bible you have read.

How many disciples of christ where there?

How many of them have chapters in the bible?

=========================================================================================
SpiderCMB replied:

You remind me of Paul Newman in "Cool Hand Luke". Everytime I prove you
wrong, you just come right back with NOTHING.

You can obviously read, but why you choose not to is beyond my capacity
for imagination.

>>>>>The first part of the New Testament to gain general acceptance was a collection of the letters of Paul, in circulation before the end of the 1st century. <<<<<<<<

Did you see that? According to historians, the letters of Paul were in
circulation before the end of the 1st century. But yet, you claim that
it was ONE copy. Wow. Do you see what I mean about coming back with
NOTHING? Was that link not good enough for you? How's this?

http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/bib-qur/bibmanu.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When we consider the New Testament, however, we find a completely
different scenario. We have today in our possession 5,300 known Greek
manuscripts of the New Testament, another 10,000 Latin Vulgates, and
9,300 other early versions (MSS), giving us more than 24,000 manuscript
copies of portions of the New Testament in existence today! (taken from
McDowell's Evidence That demands a Verdict, vol.1, 1972 pgs.40-48; and
Time, January 23, 1995, pg.57). Though we do not have any originals,
with such a wealth of documentation at our disposal with which to
compare, we can delineate quite closely what those originals contained.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Codex Sinaiticus was a copy of the Bible in Greek.
Codex Vacticaticus was a slightly older copy of the Bible, also in
Greek.
Yes, there were two books that weren't included in the Protestant Bible.
Epistle of Barnabas and The Shepherd of Hermas. Barnabas wasn't included
because it taught things about Mary that aren't suggest anywhere else in
scripture and those same things actually contradict other parts of the
New Testament. The Shepherd teaches that Jesus was not God, which
directly contradicts what Jesus taught, therefore it is not accepted as
canon.

The Dead Sea Scrolls were, as I have pointed out to you twice before,
most comprised on ancient copies/synopsis of the books of the Old
Testament. There are parts that are newly discovered and not accepted
as canon, because they contradict the remainder of scripture. The Dead
Sea Scrolls are thought to have been written / compiled by Gnostics, a
Greek cult that tried to adapt Jesus to their existing philosophy, which
makes anything they wrote about Jesus suspect.

12.
Peter
Andrew
Bartholomew
John
Jude
Thomas
Matthew
James Less
James Brother of John
Philip
Simon
Judas

12.
Peter
Andrew
Bartholomew
John
Jude
Thomas
Matthew
James Less
James Brother of John
Philip
Simon
Judas

WHAT THE HECK!!?? Why do I keep getting two posts when I only post
once??