3 edits
Originally posted by sonhouseIt is clear to me that Jesus did approve the New Testatment scriptures because it explains the Old Testament. If it had not been approved by Jesus, He would not have allowed it in the New Testament. Jesus even ended the new Testament with His on Revelation given to John, who said the following:
Yet 'scripture' WAS broken. You do realize this reference to 'scripture' was the Septuagint , right? That WAS their bible. And mostly the Greek LXX translation, not even the original Hebrew.
So all the books written after that WAS 'Scripture broken'. As spoken by Jesus himself.
It looks clear Jesus would not have approved any of the NT. His words say that much very clearly.
I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.
Revelation 22:18-19 NASB
From the Old Testament:
Do not add to His words Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar.
Proverbs 30:6 NASB
Originally posted by RJHindsYou really don't get it. That verse PROVES JC would have dissed any NT books. And just how could he have approved of books written 50 years after he fled up the silk road, escaping sure death?
It is clear to me that Jesus did approve the New Testatment scriptures because it explains the Old Testament. If it had not been approved by Jesus, He would not have allowed it in the New Testament. Jesus even ended the new Testament with His on Revelation given to John, who said the following:I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prop ...[text shortened]... to His words Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar.
Proverbs 30:6 NASB
Originally posted by sonhouseYou are overlooking the fact that Jesus rose from the dead and was given all authority in heaven and on earth to instruct His disciple what to do, as well as the Holy Spirit to guide and direct the building of His church and inspire the writing and establisment of the Holy Bible.
You really don't get it. That verse PROVES JC would have dissed any NT books. And just how could he have approved of books written 50 years after he fled up the silk road, escaping sure death?
We also have proof by the Shroud of Turin and empty tomb that Jesus did not excape sure death, but died by crucifixion and rose from the dead. 😏
Originally posted by twhiteheadIn one sense you are correct, that anyone can add sections to the Bible (or take them away), since no one owns copyright in the Bible in the way that someone does own copyright in, for example, The Da Vinci Code. Moreover, there are variants of the Bible, despite the canon having been established in the 4th c. However, it is hyperbole to say that there is no such thing as the Bible.
You mean 'your Bible'. There is no such thing as 'the Bible'. If I want to add a book, then I will add a book and there is nothing you can do to stop me.
Originally posted by RJHindsThe writers of the NT, whoever they were, were at very great pains to interpret the OT -- which is to say, the Jewish scripture -- as pointing to the coming of a Messiah in the person of Jesus. However, there is nothing in either the OT or the NT to suggest that Jesus thought of himself as founding a new religion separate from Judaism, or that he expected his teaching to be preserved in written form apart from the Jewish scripture already known to him.
It is clear to me that Jesus did approve the New Testatment scriptures because it explains the Old Testament. If it had not been approved by Jesus, He would not have allowed it in the New Testament. Jesus even ended the new Testament with His on Revelation given to John, who said the following:I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prop ...[text shortened]... to His words Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar.
Proverbs 30:6 NASB
3 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadOf course I saw the words "most likely".
Did you see the words 'most likely'? And you then ask 'you know'? I did not claim to know.
I'll try to lay it out as simply as possible for you since you struggle with conceptualizing.
Following is the definition of "realize"
To understand something:understand, know, work out...
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/british/realise
You wrote the following to sonhouse:
You do realise that 'his words' were...most likely made up by the NT writers?
By simple substitution you were asking sonhouse:
You do [know] that 'his words' were...most likely made up by the NT writers?
The inference there is that you "[know] that 'his words' were...most likely made up by the NT writers" and you're asking sonhouse if he knows this also.
I asked you:
And you know this how exactly?
So I'm asking you: How exactly do you know "that 'his words' were...most likely made up by the NT writers".
Understand now?
I certainly hope so, because I don't know if I can dumb it down much more for you.
If you remain true to form, you'll continue to say that you "did not claim to know". You're really something.
Originally posted by sonhouseThere are (and were) variants of Christianity which pre-dated Pauline Christianity. (The Thomas Christians in India, for example, trace their lineage directly back one of the Twelve, not to Paul.) They were denounced as heretical by the faction which won.
Which is why I think so-called Christianity should in fact be called Paulinity.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Of course I saw the words "most likely".
I'll try to lay it out as simply as possible for you since you struggle with conceptualizing.
Following is the definition of "realize"To understand something:understand, [b]know, work out...
http://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/british/realise
You wrote the following t ...[text shortened]... true to form, you'll continue to say that you "did not claim to know". You're really something.[/b]If you saw the words 'most likely,' why have you chosen to ignore them?
'Realize' (or know) is negated by 'most likely' which makes clear it is not presuming to be a statement of fact. (Merely a likely one).