|
|
Post by twilly on Nov 7, 2006 23:19:52 GMT -8
www.angelfire.com/nt/theology/Bible04.htmlThis site is owned by a married couple in the religion of the Protestant, John Knox, and here's the FULL AND FACTUAL website on KNOX.... www.newadvent.org/cathen08680a.htmJosephus artifically arrived at 22, the number that matches the number of letters in the Hebrew alphbet, by means of collocations and combinations borrowed from the SEPTUAGINT, the GREEK Jewish Bible. He never knew Protestant bibles. Josephus [37-101] only knew Original Christians, Original Christianity, and the Original Christian Bible and all thress ARE unbiased, without 16th Century bagage. Again, he used the GREEK Jewish Bible to come up with the number 22 and he got along better with the Greek Jews. Josephus never mentioned the Apocrypha; however in his "Jewish Antiquities", Books I-XI are based on the SEPTUAGINT. The Septuagint is the FIRST translation of the Hebrew Old Testament made into popular Greek before the Christian Era, it is the most ancient translation of the Old Testament, it is invaluable to critics for understanding and correcting the Hebrew text since the Hebrew text had textual corruptions, additions, omissions, and transpositions. Here's the FULL, FACTUAL website on Josephus.......... htt'://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08522a.htm Christians don't need the Jewish Josephus' "OK" since the Books of THE Bible have all the prophecies that Christ fulfills. Looks like "some" Protestants threw St. John the Baptist off the train....but, don't tell the Protestant Baptists. They won't appreciate hearing it. But that's not all! If you call within 10 minutes, we'll sent you...absolutely FREE...your very own, "do-it-youself", non-prophet organization! Ahhh....can wait! The suspense is enough to....<YAWN>...OK..back to the "Can't-Convincey-Code"..... Artaxerxes I [458 BC], Artaxerxes II [398 BC], line ends there, and one of them proves the Deuterocanonical Book, I Esdras, which found its way into the Hebrew Bible, and where it has remained in use. The Protestant English changed...again changed.... the REAL Apocrypha book, IV Esdras, to II Esdras and call it THEIR Apocrypha book, since it's not ours....but the history time line will always place it back at IV. Ahhh....not for the...<YAWN>...world.... Doubt he ever paid attention to the Gnostic and fiction writers. A DEUTEROCANONICAL BOOK with no comment from Josephus, except his history helped to date the book. It's a deuterocanonical book, it was written in 280, and this statement directly contradicts the one above, since....if this book "divides" the prophets from something, then it must state who the prophets are in order to divide them from something, it MUST mention who they are, and by mentionng them, they are KNOWN.....whether or not they PENNED something. What's more, not ALL prophets PENNED and not everyone who PENNED was a prophet....BUT, some prophets were thrown in the PEN. That's when the PEN ended up with a prophet. Even Josephus was thrown in the PEN for a couple of years by Roman pagans. When he was finally let out, he owed those who sprang him, so he worked and lived with the pagans...and he became materialistic. His family and former Jewish friends knew he and his PEN were far from being TRUE prophets, and, since it takes one to know one, Josephus apparently couldn't tell a prophet from a PEN. The pagan house he HAD to live in was just another PEN and he died there...and there was no prophet in that. The censorship bureau.... Mega censorship...... The Jerusalem Jews put a pad lock on the deuterocanonical books when they found out the Greek Jews translated it into Greek...BUT...they couldn't stop them from making a prophetable business out of seeing to it the Christians got copies. And, there wasn't one Christian group that when along with Jamnia. Doesn't add up....Christ is God, not the Jews.
|
|
|
|
Post by jfree on Nov 8, 2006 10:49:42 GMT -8
Apocrypha, no not a popular term now adays was used by Catholics in the Glossa Ordinaria and here is a quote for those unaware of it's actually meaning:
Thomas Aquinas, in the thirteenth century, followed Augustine in accepting the full canonical status of the Apocrypha. He wrote:
"Jerome designates a fourth division of books, namely the apocrypha. Apocrypha is named from 'apo', which means 'very', and 'cryphon', which means obscure, because their teachings and authors are in doubt. But the catholic church has received these books in the category of holy scriptures, whose teachings are not in doubt, though its authors are; not because the authors of these books are unknown, but because these men were not of known authority. Hence the books have their power not from the authority of the authors, but rather from the reception of the church."
|
|
|
|
Post by tits on Nov 8, 2006 11:37:22 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by jfree on Nov 8, 2006 12:03:39 GMT -8
Tittus, as you were interested in the times of the Jews from the ending of the prophets to the New Testament, I thought you would like this site, it has some very good information including the founding of Hellinism and the writing of the Aprocrphya, how the era of Philosphy effected the writings and contributed to those books: The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah THE OLD FAITH PREPARING FOR THE NEW DEVELOPMENT OF HELLENIST THEOLOGY: THE APOCRYPHA, ARISTEAS, ARISTOBULUS THE PSEUD-EPIGRAPHIC WRITINGS. The translation of the Old Testament into Greek may be regarded as the starting-point of Hellenism. It rendered possible the hope that what in its original form had been confined to the few, might become accessible to the world at large.1 But much yet remained to be done. If the religion of the Old Testament had been brought near to the Grecian world of thought, the latter had still to be brought near to Judaism. Some intermediate stage must be found; some common ground on which the two might meet; some original kindredness of spirit to which their later divergences might be carried back, and where they might finally be reconciled. As the first attempt in this direction - first in order, if not always in time - we mark the so-called Apocryphal literature, most of which was either written in Greek, or is the product of Hellenising Jews.2 Its general object was twofold. First, of course, it was apologetic - intended to fill gaps in Jewish history or thought, but especially to strengthen the Jewish mind against attacks from without, and generally to extol the dignity of Israel. Thus, more withering sarcasm could scarcely be poured on heathenism than in the apocryphal story of 'Bel and the Dragon,' or in the so-called 'Epistle of Jeremy,' with which the Book of 'Baruch' closes. The same strain, only in more lofty tones, resounds through the Book of the 'Wisdom of Solomon,'3 along with the constantly implied contrast between the righteous, or Israel, and sinners, or the heathen. But the next object was to show that the deeper and purer thinking of heathenism in its highest philosophy supported - nay, in some respects, was identical with - the fundamental teaching of the Old Testament. This, of course, was apologetic of the Old Testament, but it also prepared the way for a reconciliation with Greek philosophy. We notice this especially in the so-called Fourth Book of Maccabees, so long erroneously attributed to Josephus,4 and in the 'Wisdom of Solomon.' The first postulate here would be the acknowledgment of truth among the Gentiles, which was the outcome of Wisdom - and Wisdom was the revelation of God. This seems already implied in so thoroughly Jewish a book as that of Jesus the Son of Sirach.5 Of course there could be no alliance with Epicureanism, which was at the opposite pole of the Old Testament. But the brilliancy of Plato's speculations would charm, while the stern self-abnegation of Stoicism would prove almost equally attractive. The one would show why they believed, the other why they lived, as they did. Thus the theology of the Old Testament would find a rational basis in the ontology of Plato, and its ethics in the moral philosophy of the Stoics. Indeed, this is the very line of argument which Josephus follows in the conclusion of his treatise against Apion.6 This, then, was an unassailable position to take: contempt poured on heathenism as such,7 and a rational philosophical basis for Judaism. They were not deep, only acute thinkers, these Alexandrians, and the result of their speculations was a curious Eclecticism, in which Platonism and Stoicism are found, often heterogeneously, side by side. Thus, without further details, it may be said that the Fourth Book of Maccabees is a Jewish Stoical treatise on the Stoical theme of 'the supremacy of reason,' the proposition, stated at the outset, that 'pious reason bears absolute sway over the passions,' being illustrated by the story of the martyrdom of Eleazar, and of the mother and her seven sons.8 On the other hand, that sublime work, the 'Wisdom of Solomon,' contains Platonic and Stoic elements9 - chiefly perhaps the latter - the two occurring side by side. Thus10 'Wisdom,' which is so concretely presented as to be almost hypostatised,11 is first described in the language of Stoicism,12 and afterwards set forth, in that of Platonism,13 as 'the breath of the power of God;' as 'a pure influence flowing from the glory of the Almighty;' 'the brightness of the everlasting light, the unspotted mirror of the power of God, and the image of His goodness.' Similarly, we have14 a Stoical enumeration of the four cardinal virtues, temperance, prudence, justice, and fortitude, and close by it the Platonic idea of the soul's pre-existence,15 and of earth and matter pressing it down.16 How such views would point in the direction of the need of a perfect revelation from on high, as in the Bible, and of its rational possibility, need scarcely be shown. But how did Eastern Judaism bear itself towards this Apocryphal literature? We find it described by a term which seems to correspond to our 'Apocrypha,' as 'Sepharim Genuzim,' 'hidden books,' i.e., either such whose origin was hidden, or, more likely, books withdrawn from common or congregational use. Although they were, of course, carefully distinguished from the canonical Scriptures, as not being sacred, their use was not only allowed, but many of them are quoted in Talmudical writings.17 In this respect they are placed on a very different footing from the so-called Sepharim Chitsonim, or 'outside books,' which probably included both the products of a certain class of Jewish Hellenistic literature, and the Siphrey Minim, or writings of the heretics. Against these Rabbinism can scarcely find terms of sufficient violence, even debarring from share in the world to come those who read them.18 This, not only because they were used in controversy, but because their secret influence on orthodox Judaism was dreaded. For similar reasons, later Judaism forbade the use of the Apocrypha in the same manner as that of the Sepharim Chitsonim. But their influence had already made itself felt. The Apocrypha, the more greedily perused, not only for their glorification of Judaism, but that they were, so to speak, doubtful reading, which yet afforded a glimpse into that forbidden Greek world, opened the way for other Hellenistic literature, of which unacknowledged but frequent traces occur in Talmudical writings.19 www.studylight.org/his/ad/edr/ljm/view.cgi?book=1&chapter=3 |
|
|
|
Post by cataracts on Nov 8, 2006 12:03:48 GMT -8
jfree,
Your post explains exactly what has been said to you in previous posts. The books removed from the Bible by Luther and his compadres are books included as the canon of the Bible. The true canon of the Bible. Not the King James Version. You can call these books whatever you like, they are still part of the authentic canon of the Bible. The same canon that was chosen infallably by the Magisterium in and around the year 400.
It was never the authors that put a book into the canon, it was always the Magisterium of our Church and their working with the Holy Spirit that made the canon.
If I may I'll add one more imporant point. The Bible is part of the Tradition of the Roman Catholic Church.
The Tradition of the Catholic Church is divided between the Bible and the unwritten Tradition of the Catholic Church. You cannot understand the Bible without understanding the other Traditions of the Catholic Church. There never has been a Protestant reformer that understood the Bible. There never has been a Protestant that understood the Bible. They cannot. It is impossible. I know, you don't believe me.
Then answer this very simple question. How many Protestant Churches are there in the USA? How many Roman Catholic Churches are there in the USA? The answer is as plain as the nose on yourface.
Cataracts
|
|
|
|
Post by tits on Nov 8, 2006 12:08:24 GMT -8
Hi, Tittus..... As long as posters are discussing Christ, Satan loses. Satan is not on our minds....CHRIST is. The non-believers post their tripe about stuff like....Christianity is just like "this myth", "that myth", and some other danged "myth"....LOL Pagans attempt to post that Christianity is based in "paganism"....LOL The facts are....Judaism was originally FROM paganism because Judaism...or monotheism...sprung from a tribe which originally held to various forms of paganism....until Abraham, who sincerely search his mind and his heart for the truth, heard God's Voice, listened, and followed what God said. Christ's teaching of "love thy neighbor" IS a cornerstone of Christianity, true, but it's not the ONLY teaching....there are the Beatitudes, the Lord's Prayer, the parables, Christ's miracles, His Incarnation, His Baptism, His Ministry and His call to His Apostles and disciples, His Transfiguration, His establishment of His Church, His Crucification, His Resurrection, His Great Commandment, His Ascension, His sending of the Holy Spirit, etc., and all of this CAN'T be "whittled down" into a few words and stuck into a thimble...as non-Christians would like. What's more, Christians have the RIGHT to discuss Christianity...to even fight like cats and dogs...and non-believers have NO right to say "boo" about it....especially when they attempt to use the "love thy neighbor" quote against Christians because they're non-believers and they're non-believers for a reason....they don't WANT to believe. Therefore, THEY have no right to quote Christ. Since they are so set against believing, then they need to stop being self-contradictory by posting ANYTHING to Christians. So...heck with them. Twill, great response. You have some excellent thought behind these points. Like I said before, I am very busy and just cannot afford to take the time to go into detail. The thing that really troubles me is something that I just cannot seem to get my hands around. I love social-psych and how history is replete with story after story of the "lemming" mentality of humans. But it seems that we are at a cross-roads where this country is repeating the mistakes of Israel of the eighth century b.c.. What became of those God fearing Levitical Law abiding Jews of the northern tribes? There is no reference in my Protestant bible where any of them were saved. The closest that I can find is the reference in Ezra where a group came to Zerubabbel and asked for permission to participate in the rebuilding of the Temple because their "fathers" worshiped the same God. Zerubabbel told them to get lost because they did not have the certificate of Jewish birth. In fact, a group of Levities without the certificate yet known priests were denied the right to participate until they had purified themselves. However, Hebrews tells us that God established Jesus to be the next Melchizedek because he found the people and not the law wanting. I find this interesting because so many of our God fearing preaching friends claim that Jesus established a new law because the old was flawed because it was too difficult for us to keep. The writer of Hebrews tells us that it was man and not the law that was flawed. That by establishing Christ as the high priest, a non-Levite, the law had to be revised or done away with. This example shows what I believe may be the cause for my concern. Our society is a Christian society who have followed the leading of Solomon for 50 years. We are at a crossroads where most Christians no long believe that Christ is the high priest and king in the order of Melchizedek. Whereas Christ was almost stiff-necked in his opposition of the Jewish authorities, He apparently had little concern for the earthly law of the Roman authority. We have elected a government which champions foreign gods and ungodly practices. A government which appears to be headed toward a revision of the First Amendment to silence the right to freedom of religious speech and beliefs. Yet, Christ was apparently unconcerned with the same practices of the "Roman" rule. He was primarily concerned with the hypocrisy of the ruling religious leaders. What is the example for us today? What should we do when laws are written which champion behaviors which our scriptures teach as ungodly acts worthy of stoning? How long can we sit silent awaiting the Isaiah destruction? How do we render unto Ceaser what is Ceaser when Ceaser impacts upon our religion? |
|
|
|
Post by jfree on Nov 8, 2006 17:46:30 GMT -8
To believe that Cataracts I would first have to have proof that Christ established the RCC, which he did not. The first churches were in the ME not Rome, I do not believe in Apostalic succession nor the traditions of the Catholic Church, nor do I believe that the apostles were anything else but followers of Christ/Christian. Here is the point where it can get too emotional/personal for many. I really am not a follower of men, just because someone decided they liked the way a book looked even though they knew the author was not inspired by God is somehow proof of the Apocrypha's divinity, because that is just what Thomas says, also if you read the writings from Trent, they say unabashidly that they add the Apocrypha and call them Deuter.. to silence the critics and because of the Reformation w/out any attempt to check authorship or validity of the books. If you look at the History of Christianity, you will see that there was no Papalcy, except of course for the Pontificus Maximus/the Emporer of Rome who was the leader of the Pagan religions in Rome for hundreds of years prior to Christ and till Constantine, not the leader of Christianity, also if you look at early history you will not find the RCC or Catholicism mentioned anywhere nor apostalic succession. Early church history shows that Christianity existed first in Isreal/Palestine and then spread out w/the teachings of Christ and his apostles. Here is a good synopsis, look at PBS.org. Holland Lee Hendrix: President of the Faculty Union Theological Seminary Christianity, or one would rather say "Christianities," of the second and third centuries were a highly variegated phenomenon. We really can't imagine Christianity as a unified coherent religious movement. Certainly there were some religious organizations.... There were institutions developing in some Christian churches, but only in some. And this was not universal by any means. We know from, for example, the literature recovered at Nag Hammadi, that gnostic Christianity didn't have the kind of clear hierarchy that other forms of Christianity had developed. They still clung to a charismatic leadership model. And so there was a lot of variety in 2nd and 3rd century Christianity.... There were very different views of Jesus in the various types of Christianity.... Perhaps the starkest contrast was among those who considered themselves as gnostic Christians, and those who considered themselves Christians in the old Pauline view of things. On the one hand, Paul, and Pauline Christianity, would have placed all of the emphasis on Jesus' death and resurrection, and the saving power of that death and resurrection. Gnostic Christianity, on the other hand, would have placed its prime emphasis on the message, the wisdom, the knowledge, the gnosis, that's where the word gnostic comes from, the Greek word for knowledge, the knowledge that Jesus transmits, and even the secret knowledge that Jesus transmits. So one would have on the one hand faith in the saving event of Jesus' life and death, and on the other hand knowledge as the great source of adherence to the Jesus movement on the other hand. Helmut Koester: John H. Morison Professor of New Testament Studies and Winn Professor of Ecclesiastical History Harvard Divinity School Christianity did not start out as a unified movement. We have to remember that the disciples were probably dispersed at a very early time.... That is, at a time where there was no fixed formulation what the set of Christian beliefs should be. What Christian rituals should be. What they should think about Jesus or what they should tell about Jesus. The sources that we have tell us that Christianity started as a very diverse movement, as the founding of churches... moved into very different cultural and language contexts.... Paul's conversion as an apostle to the gentiles may date as early as three years after Jesus' death. No later than the year 35, but probably already 32 or 33.... He was in Damascus when he was called, according to his own witness. So we have, already, within two years or three or five years, of Jesus' death probably Greek speaking communities outside of Palestine, very early in Antioch, but we have also the founding of communities in Samaria.... We have apparently more isolated Christian communities founded very early in Galilee. Paul's mission carried Christianity all the way over Asia Minor, present Turkey into Macedonia, into Greece, within 20 years. And at the end of that period, Paul already knows that there's a Christian community in Rome which he has not founded. With this explosive spread of Christian churches, not a very slow moderate growth, getting a few new members every few years, but an explosive spread of this movement, it cannot be expected that everywhere, everybody was doing and believing the same thing, singing the same hymns and reading the same scriptures and telling the same story. So we have a beginning with great diversity, and the slow process, particularly in the second century, to establish a greater unity among the very diverse churches. Already a process in Paul's churches themselves, because that's why Paul writes letters, because he wants to make sure that these newly converted Christians in Ephesus and Philippi and Thessaloniki and in Corinth have some unanimity in their beliefs. And his work is made even more difficult because once he had left Corinth, some people came to Corinth and told them, "Really Paul has not told you enough of the deep wisdom of the words of Jesus. Those you have to contemplate in order to learn the wisdom that comes from Jesus," and Paul has to write back and say, "Now, I taught you nothing but Christ crucified, not Christ wisdom." So you get a conflict of different traditions also at a very early stage. One interesting problem is simply the experience of diversity. We sometimes think that it's just such a shame that we have so many Christian denominations and so many other religions all in one country. "Wouldn't it be great if we have only one belief and one religion as it was in the time of the early Christians?" No, it wasn't in the time of the early Christians. The early Christians had a hard time to discuss with each other, fight with each other to establish certain patterns and criteria for the organization of community, what was important in the churches. Was it indeed important that churches established mutual responsibility for each other and care for the poor as part of their dossier? This is what they're supposed to do. And that discussion in our church was very helpful twelve years ago, when we discussed whether we should open a shelter for homeless people in the basement of our church. But the other aspect is the diversity of religious movements. And that in fact early Christianity, by moving into different realms of the different universes of thought and of religion in the Greco-Roman world, adopted a lot of concepts from other religions, lots of them pagan religions, which enriched the early Christian movement tremendously. This probably should encourage us to say that our discourse, not only inner Christian discourse with other denominations, but also our discourse with other religions, with the Jews, with Moslems, with Buddhists, may in fact, indeed be very fruitful..., rather than staying away from this and saying, "Oh God, now we have even more Muslims in America than we have Jews." Which some people find terrible. But they have to learn to say "maybe that is very good." L. Michael White: Professor of Classics and Director of the Religious Studies Program University of Texas at Austin We tend to think of the success of Christianity in the second and third centuries just on the eve on really when it becomes the prominent religion in the Roman Empire as if it were just one form of religiosity, when in fact the opposite is true. Christianity was extremely diverse during this period, and we probably ought to think of it as a kind of regional diversity; that is, the Christianity of Rome was different than Christianity in North Africa in certain ways, and that was different from what we find in Egypt, and that different from what we find in Syria or back in Palestine. We have, in effect, different brands of Christianity living often side by side, even in the same city. So, it's a great deal of diversity. At one point in Rome,... Justin Martyr has his Christian school in one part of the city, and the gnostic teacher Valentinus is in another school in Rome, and another so-called heretic by the name of Marcion is also in Rome just down the street somewhere. All of these along side of the official papal tradition that developed as part of St. Peter's See in Rome, all there together. So, even within one city, we can have great diversity. Now, what's significant about this diversity is the fact that each form of Christian tradition tended to tell the story of Jesus in different ways. The image of Jesus for Justin Martyr is rather different than that that we see for Valentinus or Marcion or others as well. And this is especially true even in other parts of the empire. This is where we start to see a kind of proliferation of gospels ... all over the empire, and by the third and early fourth century [more] than you can actually count, and certainly more than you can easily read within a bible. www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/first/diversity.html |
|
|
|
Post by cataracts on Nov 8, 2006 19:46:07 GMT -8
jfree,
Your report sounds very erudite but every bit of it is conjecture. I wouldn't waste my time on "should haves, probablys, and maybes". Do you realize that everything you have said is nonsense. What you have written is from the imagination of your own mind. You have presented no facts at all. Everything you have written is conjecture. Why bother?
Your expert professor is not much different. Maybe he should have read John PaulII more often thah his sociology books. If there were more than one brand of Christianity only one of them could be correct
As John Paul II has said: Truth cannot contradict truth. This statement is just as true 2000 years ago as it is now. The gnostics were heretics then just as they would be heretics now.
I enjoy discussing religion with Protestants or Jews or those of any other religion, however, Your explanations are a bit odd. You do realize that there was only one brandof Christianity for 1600 years. Then, unfortunately, the reformers came into the picture. Since then we have approximately 30,000 Protestant Churches in the USA alone. And on top of that we have wild Protestant females with vivid imaginations wanting to start Protestant sects of their own. Good Grief!
Cataracts
|
|
|
|
Post by 101ABN on Nov 8, 2006 20:21:48 GMT -8
"Then, unfortunately, the reformers came into the picture."
Do you think there might have been a reason for that?
|
|
|
|
Post by twilly on Nov 8, 2006 22:56:51 GMT -8
Cateracts stated..........
Then, unfortunately, the reformers came into the picture.
101 ABN replied.......
Political ambitions on the part of the so-called "reformers", 101, plain and simple. It's all over the pages of 16th Century European history.
|
|
|
|
Post by twilly on Nov 9, 2006 3:36:30 GMT -8
Thanks, Tittus. Post as you can. No hurry. I had a history professor who often stated, "There nothing new under the Sun", and the novelist, Willa Cather, wrote on the frontpiece of one of her novels, paraphrased, "There are only three basic 'themes' in the lives of individuals, and they repeat over and over, generation after generation, as if these 'themes' had never happened to anyone else." Given just these two facts alone, to some degree, history is bound to repeat itself, BUT, the fact that history repeats with groups of people who are different than past groups and in eras that are different than past eras, the outcome of THEIR history will be different from the those before them, one way or another. The Northern Tribes, the Ten Tribes, were exiled to Halah and Habor by the river Gozan, in the cities of the Medes, in the heart of Northern Mesopotamia and in Western Persia, which had been subject to Assyria. In other words, they were not exiled to Babylonia. The Northern Tribes were assigned to the region around Nisibis [mentioned in Josephus]. They remained in those areas and multiplied, never returning to Palestine. It is thought that the Hebrew population that had been in Southern Russia was composed of the descendants of the Northern Kingdom who were expatriated to Northern Assyria and the regions of the Caspian. However, no particulars of the fate of the Northern Tribes are actually known to us. The Northern Tribes were exiled a good two centuries, I believe, before the Southern Tribes and, therefore, the Northern Tribes had been settled into their regions of exile for a longer period of time. For this reason, when the opportunity for them to return was presented, they didn't feel the need to go back.
At the same time, a small remnant of the Northern Tribe which HAD remained in the North, mixed with "foreigners" and these people became the Samaritans.
I wish I knew which Chapter and verse(s) you're referring to. Just the same, the only verses I've found regarding this, so far, are in Erza Chapter 4.
Certificates of identity were necessary...it was the Levitical Law, and it had been the Levitical Law since the time of Moses. However, as I stated, the only verses I've been able to find, so far, which make reference to Zorobabel rejecting anyone once they were back in Jerusalem are in Ezra Chapter 4: 1-2, as follows:
"Now the ENEMIES of Juda and Benjamin....came to Zorobabel and the chief of the fathers, and said to them, Let us build with you for we seek your God as ye do: behold we have sacrificed to Him since the days of Asor Hadden, king of Assyria, who BROUGHT US HERE."
Point of history:
Since a Assyrian king BROUGHT THEM THERE, then they weren't of full blood with the tribes. Their ancestors had been foreigners who mixed with the remnant of the Northern Tribe and they were, then, actually Samaritans.
If you had quoted the Chapter and verse(s) which clearly states "Levites" I might have been able to find it, but so far, I haven't been able to. However, Ezra Chapter 1, is about Cyrus, king of Persia, releasing the Southern Tribes from Babylonia, and from captivity, with LICENSE to return AND to build the temple of Jerusalem.....they had a LICENSE to build the temple and they were the only ones who had a license to do this. This is a secular legal matter. Also, Zorobabel states, in verse 3 of Chapter 4 what his reasoning is for rejecting the "enemies", or historically, the Samaritans, and I will quote verse 3 after the following........
Regarding the Levites...in verse 5 of Ezra Chapter 1 it says, "They rose up, the chief of the fathers of Juda and Benjamin, and the priests, and LEVITES, and every one whose spirit God had raised up, to go to build the temple of the Lord, which was in Jerusalem."
Therefore, the LEVITES were with those who built the temple.
Further, in Chapter 1, it says the total number of those who returned to Jerusalem were 42,000, and in verse 40 it says, regarding the number of LEVITES, "The LEVITES: the children of Josue, and of Cedmihel, the children of Odovia, seventy-four."
Back to verse 3 of Chapter 4, it says regarding the reasoning for rejecting the Samaritans, "But Zorobabel, and Josue, and the rest of the chief fathers....said to them [the Samaritans]: You have nothing to do with us to build a house to our God, but we ourselves alone will build to the Lord our God, as Cyrus king of Persia has COMMANDED us."
The deal was, the Southern Tribes of Juda, Benjamin, Levi, and various others who had been the ones in captivity in Babylonia gave their word to the one who restored them to Jerusalem that they would be the ones to build the temple. What's more, the political powers, e.g., Persian king and the Assyrian king, were at odds, as all political powers were. These are two further reasons why the Southern Tribes decided to reject the Samaritans AND, as stated, the Samaritians were biologically mixed with foreign lines, the foreigners had been idol worshippers, which must have influenced the Samaritans, and the Southern Tribes couldn't take a chance on THAT situation because too much was at risk.
I haven't been able to find the word "Melchizedek" in Hebrews and I don't know what verses you're referring to. However, Melchizedek means "Most High Priest" and Christ has been the Most High Priest since before He Incarnated but, you're correct to state that God's Plan was that Christ be/is the Most High Priest.
Christ came for several reasons, as we know, and one reason was to FULFILL the Law. Since He came to do this, it's assumed that there was more to the Law that He wanted us to know about, He told us what the Fulfillment of the Law is, and, therefore, the Law was "wanting". Of course, people are "wanting", too.
The Law of Moses was NOT "flawed". Who are the bird-brains who claim the Ten Commandments are "flawed"?
In Matthew 5:17 Christ says, "Do not think I am come to destroy the Law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to FULFILL." In other words, there is more to the Law than just what it had been and the word "fulfil" does not mean "destroy".
At the same time, the Jews HAD developed hundreds of "laws" over centuries and only certain laws applied to each group, e.g., there had been some laws that applied to only those who served in one capacity and there had been some laws that applied only to those who served in another capacity. THESE are the "laws" that weren't necessary after Christ, BUT, the Law of Moses STILL applies and it's THAT Law which Christ Fulfilled.
It must be pointed out, though, that the Jews HAD become somewhat "obsessed" with a build up of "laws" and Christ pointed out that THOSE "laws" weren't necessary, e.g., picking a few pieces of grains of wheat for a snack on the Sabbath shouldn't be "against" any law. And, of course when He healed the sick and it just happen to be the Sabbath, THAT shouldn't be "against the law".
Here again, the Law of Moses wasn't flawed and, again, you're correct about humans, BUT, humans are made in God's Image and, therefore, humans aren't "flawed"....it's their BEHAVIOR which is flawed.
Not apparently, at all. Christ says, "Render to Ceasar what is Ceasar's AND to God what is God's." Therefore, Christ expects us to obey the laws of the land we live in. At the same time, if a law is FORCED upon us which goes against Christ's teachings, it's time to move to another jurisdiction that doesn't force any such laws.
Again, as stated, Christ didn't advocate breaking the secular law; however, I know exactly what you're talking about since Christian persecution has been on the rise in this country for over a decade.
Here is an interesting website regarding Christian persecution:
harpazo.net/America.htmlCertain laws come to mind immediately. However, these laws that go against Christ's teachings are not FORCED upon us. They are "legal", but we don't have to "make use of them", we don't have to "participate" in them. If there comes a day when anti-Christian laws ARE made mandatory, I'm moving to French Canada. What secular laws in effect are FORCING you to go aganist your religion? Paying taxes can't be it. If anyone is a "conscieneous objector", he/she doesn't HAVE to serve in the military, so that can't be it. Churches aren't being forced by the government, or by anyone, to shut down, so that can't be it. There is no law that states Christians can't celebrate Christmas or the Resurrection so, that can't be it. Helping others out with food, shelter, clothing, etc., hasn't been mandatorily stopped so, that can't be it. And so, again what secular laws in effect are forcing you to go against your religion? Regarding "the Isaiah destruction": Gloom and doom philosophies and "end-times" panic and obsessions cause their own destruction within the individuals who hold them, but also within groups of people, such as cults. For individuals, stress levels rise and strokes, heart attacks, and other diseases and disorders develop....and THIS is the gloom and doom and the "end times" for any such individuals. What's more, those Protestant non-mainline denominations which hold to the misinterpretation that the Jews NEED to be "converted" cause serious problems for the Jews in the region of Israel/Mid-East AND in the U.S. because these groups are bothering the Jews. And those other Protestant groups who worship Armaggendon are hell bent on "believing" they are called, in the Name of Christ, "to help God end the world", they're as bad as the fanatic Muslims, and they're totally organized and in the process of causing the worst problems for the world...they want to blow all of us up! |
|
|
|
Post by cataracts on Nov 9, 2006 9:16:59 GMT -8
"Then, unfortunately, the reformers came into the picture." Do you think there might have been a reason for that? 101, I know all the reasons that are given for the reformers coming into the picture. None of them are good enough to split Christondom. Christianity is the greatest thing toever happen to our Earth. The reformers tore it apart. Cataracts |
|
|
|
Post by cataracts on Nov 9, 2006 9:25:31 GMT -8
jfree,
I would like to apologize to you. I am passionate about Catholicism. The passion starts at my feet and moves upthrough my legs, into my belly, up the esophagus, through several passages into my brain and then comes out of my mouth. Every bit of it is temperature sensitive.
I'm not saying that I wrote anything incorrectly, just at an elevated temperature.
Cataracts
|
|
|
|
Post by jfree on Nov 9, 2006 10:06:18 GMT -8
No need to apologize, you are firm in your beliefs and I in mine. I was simply saying that many may get insulted by the fact one does not think they are correct or by the light of history that disclaims their own beliefs. I have seen the evidence given for the Apostalic succession, simple statements about passing on the word of God are twisted into something they are not. I have asked for real evidence and there is none, no more than there is evidence that Peter was Pope. If you have some let me know, if I am wrong I would like to know. The post from PBS is not conjecture, but writings from three Professors whose job it is to study the evolution of theology. I had this discussion on THC, by the time of the Nicene Council there were an estimated 90 different sects of Christianity. Christianity was not one religion, one sect w/a ruling heirarchy, the Nicene Council was brought about by the Pontificus Maximus/Pope of Rome and Emporer Constantine, it is his title now attributed to People who were listed as Pope prior to his council and prior to there even being a Pope in christianity, prior to the existence of Catholicism. These are the reasons I do not believe in the RCC. As we all well know if you questioned dogma, you would likely be called heretic and soon find your body detached from your head or the like, so yes there was one major sect for a long time, not out of devotion or truthfulness, but out of fear of death, though not for 1600yrs lest we forget the Orthodox churches, or the Egytian Copts who seperated very early in history. The reformation was brought about because of the abuses, the selling of indulgences and all the rest of the reasons nailed to that door in Germany, the church of England is seperate from the reformation, I see it referenced often when people speak of reformation, but other than to encourage others to have the guts to leave it had little bearing on the reformation. Here is a very good site, www.religioustolerance.org 313 CE: The years of Christian persecution came to an end. Emperor Constantine (289-337 CE) issued the Edict of Milan which formally established freedom and toleration for all religions, including Christianity. Contrary to many people's beliefs, Christianity was not made the official religion of the Roman Empire at this time. That happened later in that century. 5 325 CE: The period of time from 325 to about 590 CE is often referred to as the "post-Nicene" era. This interval takes its name from the church Council of Nicea which was held in 325 CE. There was no single individual who spoke for the entire church; no one person had the authority to decide matters of belief and practice. Such matters could only be determined by councils at which all available bishops would debate and attempt to resolve their differences. The first such meeting was the Council of Nicea in Asia Minor (now Turkey). 318 bishops out of the approximately 1,800 Christian bishops then in existence attended. Most came from the eastern half of the Empire. 5 Bishops attempted to resolve a major uncertainty facing the early church: the relationship between Jesus and God. The church recognized the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) which described God in strictly monotheistic terms. But there were references in the Gospels (particularly John) which implied that Jesus was divine. Two conflicting theories about the deity of Jesus were argued at the time: Arius (250 - 336 CE) proposed that Jesus and God were very separate and different entities: Jesus was closer to God than any other human being, but he was born a man, had no prior existence, and was not a god. On the other hand, God has been in existence forever. Arius felt that any attempt to recognize the deity of Christ would blur the lines between Christianity and the Pagan religions. If Christianity recognized two separate gods, the Father and Jesus, it would become a polytheistic religion. Athanasius (296 - 373 CE) argued that Jesus must be divine, because otherwise, he could not be the Savior. The atonement would not have been possible. Both Arius and Athanasius had large, evenly matched followings among the bishops. Emotions ran high. The council, under intense pressure from Emperor Constantine, resolved its deadlock by a close vote in favor of Athanasius. The dissenting bishops were offered two options: to sign the settlement at Nicea or be exiled. The bishops produced the Nicene Creed, which declared that Jesus Christ was "of one substance with the Father." This did not immediately settle the question of the divinity of Christ; many bishops and churches refused to believe in the council's decision for decades. "The bishops granted to the bishop of Alexandria [in Egypt] papal authority over the eastern half of the empire, and to the bishop of Rome they granted papal authority over the western portion of the empire." 5 330 CE: Emperor Constantine decided to build a "New Rome" on the site of the Greek city of Byzantium (now at Istanbul, Turkey). It was called Constantinople. It became the center of the largely Christian empire. 5 By this time, the church had evolved from a small, scattering of congregations to a geographically widespread church under the authority of many bishops. 341 CE: Many now believe that Christianity became the dominant religion of the Empire through the evangelical efforts of the early church during the fourth century CE. The evidence seems to show that this is not true; "The Greek-Roman world was not...converted to a new religion, but compelled to embrace it." The Emperor Theodosian issued a series of decrees or rescripts in the years 341, 345, 356, 381, 383, 386 and 391 CE. They effect of these orders was to "suppress all rival religions, order the closing of the temples, and impose fines, confiscation, imprisonment or death upon any who cling to the older [Pagan] religions." 2 The period of relative religious tolerance in the Roman Empire ended as Pagan temples were seized and converted to Christian use or destroyed. Priests and Priestesses were exiled or killed. Christianity and Judaism became the only permitted religions. In Spain, bishop Priscillian, who taught some Gnostic beliefs was the first person to be condemned as a heretic and executed by his fellow Christians for religious reasons. The church used the power of the state to begin programs to oppress, exile or exterminate both Pagans and Gnostic Christians. By the end of the century, Pagan temples had been either destroyed or recycled for Christian use. Pagan worship became punishable by death. But government toleration was not without its cost. The Emperor Constantine and later political rulers demanded a major say in the running of the church and in decisions on its beliefs. Church authority had became concentrated in the five bishops or patriarchs located in Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, Jerusalem and Rome. Although they were officially given equal status, the Bishop of Rome was considered by many to be the first among equals. 4 381 CE: At the Council of Constantinople, the earlier council's decision on the deity of Jesus was confirmed and Arianism was formally declared a heresy. They also voted that Holy Spirit was the third Person of the Trinity. Almost all of the churches abandoned Arianism after this council. Near the end of the century, the Roman Emperor "Theodosius decreed that the doctrine of the Trinity was to be the official state religion and that all his subjects should adhere to it." 5 Siricius, who reigned from 384 to 399 CE, became the first bishop of Rome to be called Pope (father). The fifth century CE: 431 CE: The Council of Ephasus was called to debate the precise nature of Jesus. Again, there were two main competing belief systems: From the city of Alexandria, scholars developed the Alexandrian school of thought which: Promoted the allegorical interpretation of the Bible -- that it contained hidden meanings. Emphasized the divinity of Christ. Recognized that Jesus had both a human and divine nature, tightly united. Within the city of Antioch, Nestorius and other scholars developed the Aniochene school which: Rejected an allegorical interpretation of the Bible. Emphasized the humanity of Jesus. Saw the two natures of Jesus as being loosely connected The council excommunicated Nestorian and declared his beliefs (Nestorianism) to be heresy. The Virgin Mary's status was elevated from the mother of Jesus to "theotokos", the mother of God. 440 CE: Pope Leo I became the Bishop of Rome -- a post that he held for 21 years. He maintained that the pope was highest ranking of the Christian bishops. 451 CE: Emperor Marcian called the Council of Chalcedon to resolve still another debate about Jesus. The traditional belief that Jesus had both a divine and human nature was being challenged by Monophysitism, an outgrowth of the Alexandrian school. Their followers believed that Christ had only a single divine nature. The council rejected that belief. In their Chalcedonian Definition, they affirmed that Christ had two natures, human and divine. These were without confusion, without change, without division, without separation." This formulation has survived as the traditional belief to the present day among almost all branches of Christendom. The East Syrian (Nestorian) church and the Oriental Orthodox Christian church disagreed with the council's decision, and split off from the rest of Christianity in the first major schism from Pauline Christianity. A minor, little known, statement of the Council was Canon #15: "No woman under 40 years of age is to be ordained a deacon, and then only after close scrutiny." 1 This is believed to be the last time in church history that the ordination of women was mentioned as a routine practice, until modern times. During the 5th century CE, various Germanic tribes invaded Rome and destroyed much of the Roman Empire. Meanwhile, the church centered in Rome successfully converted the invaders to Christianity. Authority within the church was coalescing around the Bishop of Rome in the west and the Patriarch of Constantinople in the east. Divisions between the two power centers in the Christian church gradually intensified. Gnostic Christianity's membership went into a steep decline. The sixth century: 553 CE: Emperor Justinian called The Second Council of Constantinople. He invited equal numbers of bishops from each of the five patriarchal sees. The Bishop of Rome, Pope Vigilius saw that many more bishops from the east than from the west would be present. He refused to attend. The council concentrated on the writings of three Christian leaders: Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret and Ibas. All three were condemned by the council as heretics: "We observed that the pupils of Nestorius were trying to bring their heresy into the church of God by means of the heretical Theodore, bishop of Mopsuestia and his books as also by the writings of the heretical Theodoret and the disgraceful letter which is alleged to have been sent by Ibas to Mari the Persian. Our observations prompted us to correct what was happening. We assembled in this imperial city, summoned here by the will of God and the command of the most religious emperor." 6 Gnostic Christianity ceased being a significant force by the 6th century. The only group to have continuously survived into modern times is the Mandaean sect of Iraq and Iran. This group currently numbers fewer than 15,000. Gnostic Christianity has been revitalized in the West and is now growing rapidly. The eastern and western branches of Christianity continued their process of separation. This was caused by a variety of factors: The Slav invasions in the Balkans. The religious language in the west was Latin, while the eastern church used Greek. Bilingual theologians became increasingly rare. "While the intellectual thought of Eastern Christianity was driven by Greek teachers, Western Christianity came to be dominated by the teachings of Augustine of Hippo." (354 - 386 CE) 4 "Although the two regions belonged to the same church, they became increasingly remote from each other." 4 A formal split did not occur until 1054 CE when the Roman Catholic church and Eastern Orthodox churches formally separated. Although discussions are currently underway to bring the two churches into some form of unity, little progress is being made. |
|
|
|
Post by cataracts on Nov 9, 2006 15:03:49 GMT -8
jfree,
We were discussing the canon of the Bible and from this you have given me a history of Christianity strictly from the Protestant side. Not only that, but you have proved nothing, shown nothing. All that writing and all it really says is "The Protestant side is the right side". Sorry, I accept nothing of what you have writen. It sounds like a nice fairy tale. Let me know when you want to get down to brass tacks.
Cataracts
|
|
