Consensus on the phony books of the Bible?

[Soulgazer]

No, but I agree with the review. The conveyance of theological principle through quasi-prophesy.

 

[served]

Not to get too off topic but considering most are not smart enough (including myself) to decide what should be thrown out or added in are we safe to say its ok to read what we already have? I am smart to know that some translations are better than others but when it comes to sorting out what books may or may not be accurate - this is way over my head. Thanks,
Dan

 

[Canterbury Trail]

Hi Dan, the issue isn't really being smart enough to decide for yourself what is canonical rather the Christian faith is a recieved system hence we recite the Nicene or Apostles Creed each week to remember the faith we were baptised into. So focus on reading the sixty-six books and perhaps buy yourself a copy of the Apocrypha too just for fun.

 

[strangertoo]

simply stop sinning [water baptism] as is required for salvation [2 Timothy 2:19] and Jesus promises that he will send the Holy Spirit of Truth to guide you into all Truth [John 15:13] in THIS life before death, long enough before that one's Love can then be trialled to the death [baptism of fire] ...

God doesn't choose the clever ones mostly, but the meek, poor, simply honest folk to carry the burden of His Truth that most must die terribly in the end of this earth for continued sin because they will not listen to God alone who can save men from that, few wil [Matt 7:13-14] ... the good news no -one oin religion of sinners acknowledges , is that countless many though are saved later [Rev 7:9-10], obviously they were destroyed in this earth after Jesus left with the saints, but afterward saved once the saints set up the kingdom come...

so it is not hard to what is Truth of God and what is lies of the masses of sinners and their sinner priests of mass religion of traditions of men , ONCE one stops sinning , but few are ready to stop, even to take water baptism seriously then...

Luke 3:16 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:

How many have read the bible, and yet know NOTHING of the third baptism of fire, the precious trial of faith in Love, faith in God, which perfects Love in this life of all the few saints who alone escape destruction now ... ?


NOTE then that Jesus himself says it's NOT about CONSENSUS [see OP] the MANY will be wrong and they will die as wages of their sin... destroyed in the wrath of God against all sinners Matt 7:13 ... no use relying on the MANY cos' they are sinners ... rely of God instead

 

[Soulgazer]

Hi Dan, the issue isn't really being smart enough to decide for yourself what is canonical rather the Christian faith is a recieved system hence we recite the Nicene or Apostles Creed each week to remember the faith we were baptised into. So focus on reading the sixty-six books and perhaps buy yourself a copy of the Apocrypha too just for fun.

Well, the catholic portion of it anyway

We(Gnostic) believe that you are either full of Love(Christ) or full of death. So we use any writing that promotes love(Christ). The rest we basically ignore as part of our praxis.

We believe that God is love, and that in Him there is no darkness at all. So we reject any writing that portrays God as anything but Love, or implies that He has darkness in Him.

That's just us. You have to decide for yourself. I just wanted you to be aware that there are differing versions of Christianity.

 

[Canterbury Trail]

Well, the catholic portion of it anyway

I just wanted you to be aware that there are differing versions of Christianity.

I think you are being overly simplistic here, to say that there are differing versions of Christianity ignores the development of doctrine. I would really recommend reading Catholicity and Heresy in the Early Church by Dr. Edwards.

 

[Soulgazer]

I think you are being overly simplistic here, to say that there are differing versions of Christianity ignores the development of doctrine. I would really recommend reading Catholicity and Heresy in the Early Church by Dr. Edwards.

Really that is what we believe. I can quote verse after verse of Gnostic writing to prove it, or you can simply believe that a Gnostic Pastor has no reason to lie about what he believes.

Our forebears were warned against coming heresies in one of our prophesies also:


"And still others of them who suffer think that they will perfect the wisdom of the brotherhood which really exists, which is the spiritual fellowship of those united in communion, through which the wedding of incorruptibility shall be revealed. The kindred race of the sisterhood will appear as an imitation. These(brothers and sisters) are the ones who oppress their brothers, saying to them, "Through this our God has pity, since salvation comes to us through this," not knowing the punishment of those who are made glad by those who have done this thing to the little ones whom they saw, (and) whom they took prisoner." ~ Gnostic Peter

I just want to illustrate the sharp divisions in the branches of early Christianity. Not everything went through Rome:

"And there shall be others of those who are outside our number who name themselves bishop and also deacons, as if they have received their authority from God. They bend themselves under the judgment of the leaders. Those people are dry canals."

I doubt the then future bishop of Rome appreciated being called a "dry canal"

Oh; for instructional purposes, we teach, "don't be one of these guys that oppress others because their beliefs differ". We believe there is one body, and a foot can't tell a hand "I don't need you'.

 

[served]

I am certain I'm on the right track since I have rejected most doctrine of mainstream Christianity for the last few years. I guess you can call me a universalist if you want a label. I have been mostly focused on translation issues of the bible but this thread kind of made me feel even more uninformed and ignorant...but reguardless I think I'm on the right path

Strangertoo - I thought...
Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,

3 baptisms? Is water baptism really necessary? I thought we were baptized in spirit - into Jesus. I realize that to stop sinning would open up many more doors but getting there is a challenge.

 

[Albion]

Not to get too off topic but considering most are not smart enough (including myself) to decide what should be thrown out or added in are we safe to say its ok to read what we already have? I am smart to know that some translations are better than others but when it comes to sorting out what books may or may not be accurate - this is way over my head. Thanks,
Dan

As was already said, stick with the standard 66 books. For one thing, almost every Christian church you've ever heard of accepts all 66 of them, and it doesn't matter if we are talking about Protestants or Catholics.

Secondly, they have been accepted since the church decided which books to use. Others have been added, still others removed, and so on, but not these 66.

In addition, they (the Bible that is) have been doubted by the skeptics since there were skeptics, and yet they've stood up to all the allegations about inconsistency, conflict with geography or history, linguistic problems, etc. and anything else that could be thrown at the Bible. That's a really good track record you can feel safe with.

 

[2KnowHim]

I am certain I'm on the right track since I have rejected most doctrine of mainstream Christianity for the last few years. I guess you can call me a universalist if you want a label. I have been mostly focused on translation issues of the bible but this thread kind of made me feel even more uninformed and ignorant...but reguardless I think I'm on the right path

Strangertoo - I thought...
Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,

3 baptisms? Is water baptism really necessary? I thought we were baptized in spirit - into Jesus. I realize that to stop sinning would open up many more doors but getting there is a challenge.

Water-----The Word---Christ
Eph 5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,


Spirit----The Word----Christ

2Co 3:3 Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.
Co 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

Fire-----The Word----Christ

Heb 1:7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.
Co 3:15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
Isa 33:14 The sinners in Zion are afraid; fearfulness hath surprised the hypocrites. Who among us shall dwell with the devouring fire? who among us shall dwell with everlasting burnings?


Water, Spirit, Fire, All which is Christ Himself, The Living Word.

 

[Albion]

Strangertoo - I thought...
Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,

3 baptisms? Is water baptism really necessary? I thought we were baptized in spirit - into Jesus. I realize that to stop sinning would open up many more doors but getting there is a challenge.

No, there's one baptism, just as scripture teaches. It uses water, but metaphorically we may speak of other baptisms, as Christ spoke of us being baptised into his death. To be sure, he was not suggesting that we all must be literally crucified.

 

[timbo3]

The apostle Paul wrote that "all Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work."(2 Tim 3:16, 17) This includes the book of Mark as one of the 27 inspired books of the Christian Greek Scriptures.

Mark (or John Mark, Acts 12:12), wrote the book bearing his name, but he received the information apparently from the apostle Peter. According to the earliest tradition of Papias, Origen, and Tertullian, this source was Peter, with whom Mark was closely associated. Did not Peter call him “my son”? (1 Pet. 5:13)

Peter was an eyewitness of practically all that Mark recorded, so Mark could have learned from Peter many descriptive points that are lacking in the other Gospels. For example, Mark speaks of “the hired men” that worked for Zebedee, the leper entreating Jesus “on bended knee,” the demonized man “slashing himself with stones,” and Jesus’ giving his prophecy about the ‘coming of the Son of man with great power and glory’ while he was sitting on the Mount of Olives “with the temple in view.”(Mark 1:20, 40; 5:5; 13:3, 26)

Although Mark had access to the Gospel of Matthew and his record contains only 7 percent that is not contained in the other Gospels, it would be a mistake to believe that Mark simply condensed Matthew’s Gospel and added a few special details.

Whereas Matthew had portrayed Jesus as the promised Messiah and King, Mark now considers his life and works from another angle. He portrays Jesus as the miracle-working Son of God, the conquering Savior. Mark puts stress on the activities of Christ rather than on his sermons and teachings.

Only a small proportion of the parables and one of Jesus’ longer discourses are reported, and the Sermon on the Mount is omitted. It is for this reason that Mark’s Gospel is shorter, though it contains just as much action as the others. At least 19 miracles are specifically referred to.

While Matthew wrote his Gospel for the Jews originally in Hebrew, Mark evidently wrote primarily for the Romans. How do we know this? The Law of Moses is mentioned only when reporting conversation that referred to it, and the genealogy of Jesus is left out.

The gospel of Christ is represented as of universal importance. He makes explanatory comments on Jewish customs and teachings with which non-Jewish readers might be unfamiliar. (Mark 2:18; 7:3, 4; 14:12; 15:42) Aramaic expressions are translated. (Mark 3:17; 5:41; 7:11, 34; 14:36; 15:22, 34) He qualifies Palestinian geographic names and plant life with explanations. (Mark 1:5, 13; 11:13; 13:3)

The value of Jewish coins is given in Roman money. (Mark 12:42, where he uses the Roman money lepton) He uses more Latin words than the other Gospel writers, examples being speculator (body guardsman), praetorium (governor’s palace), and centurio (army officer).(Mark 6:27; 15:16, 39)

 

[Soulgazer]

That certainly is the apologetic view, but not from the historical view.

Every religion, and some subsections of each religion have what is called confessional history. No religion is really as old as it's confessional history.

I.e. Islam claim that Mohammed received his teachings from the angel Gabriel while sitting in a cave, and the Q'uran and the Haddith's ascribe many miracles to him.

However, a good scholar may be a fantastic Christian, but in the scholastic world, if he is a good scholar, he folds his beliefs up and puts them in his pocket.

Scholarship discounts all miracles unless they can be proven--- The Christmas truce of 1914 comes to mind.

So, when dealing with mohammed in the cave, scholarship at this point, and really scholarship on the islamic religion has just started, believes that Islam was started by dechristianized Sethians, who wrote a dead Warlord into a story. I'm sure this offends Islamics as much as it does Christians when they say that the Timothies and Titus are not genuine Paul but rather late forgeries written against the marcionite Christians whose praxis included just about everything written against.

At this point they are leaning toward Mark being a Gnostic text.

 

[strangertoo]

No, there's one baptism, just as scripture teaches. It uses water, but metaphorically we may speak of other baptisms, as Christ spoke of us being baptised into his death. To be sure, he was not suggesting that we all must be literally crucified.

Read the scripture :-

Luke 3:16 John answered, saying unto them all:
I indeed baptize you with water;
but one mightier than I cometh,
the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose:
he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:

 

[strangertoo]

That certainly is the apologetic view, but not from the historical view.

Every religion, and some subsections of each religion have what is called confessional history. No religion is really as old as it's confessional history.

I.e. Islam claim that Mohammed received his teachings from the angel Gabriel while sitting in a cave, and the Q'uran and the Haddith's ascribe many miracles to him.

However, a good scholar may be a fantastic Christian, but in the scholastic world, if he is a good scholar, he folds his beliefs up and puts them in his pocket.

Scholarship discounts all miracles unless they can be proven--- The Christmas truce of 1914 comes to mind.

So, when dealing with mohammed in the cave, scholarship at this point, and really scholarship on the islamic religion has just started, believes that Islam was started by dechristianized Sethians, who wrote a dead Warlord into a story. I'm sure this offends Islamics as much as it does Christians when they say that the Timothies and Titus are not genuine Paul but rather late forgeries written against the marcionite Christians whose praxis included just about everything written against.

At this point they are leaning toward Mark being a Gnostic text.

What use is praxis ???

Get spirit baptism from God, KNOW from the only pure source of Truth , it's FREE and ABSOLUTE ... nothing else even close [and it validates scripture, shows Gods interpretation is so very different than ALL the attempts by men as sinners to know] ... John 16:13

Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

 

[Soulgazer]

Praxis is your belief in action. Your praxis and mine are the same. Love. Fill yourself with it.

The Limitless Light experiencing itself means that everyone is everyone else..

 

[Canterbury Trail]

Lee Martin McDonald is always worth a read! Both Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission, and Authority and Forgotten Scriptures: The Selection and Rejection of Early Religious Writings.

 

[strangertoo]

Praxis is your belief in action. Your praxis and mine are the same. Love. Fill yourself with it.

The Limitless Light experiencing itself means that everyone is everyone else..

The problem with that I that any sin destroys Love , and until spirit baptism men have covert sin because we are capable of denial of our own sin and so almost all men do deny their own sin even to themselves for their whole life....
for that the MANY die and FEW find the way [Matt 7:13-14] to baptism of the spirit and on to baptism of 'fire' [usually to the death for the Truth of Love, God's 'oneness' of all being through the 'spirit' , not what we 'see' with our eyes , what we see with out conscience, heart of Love, mind, spirit]

praxis of the many is sin because no matter what they SAY, they are still believing inside taht sin is better than Love... they are about to find out their mistake, but the 'mystery of iniquity' ensures it will be too late - because God assesses that the many are not ready to Love until they have been humbled of their faith in sin, sad, but deep Truth about men, that most will NOT listen to their own conscience, heart of Love, mind, spirit , but DENY being whole all their lives, live in CONFLICT with pats of themselves through DENIAL of the urges to Love, teh witnesses of Love in life...

so men will say that their 'praxis' is Love whilst they continue to sin proving it is not... that is always the danger of talk , the tongue betrays men even to themselves all their lives in THIS world ... in the next is the kingdom come and many find Love at last and save themselves [e.g.Rev 7:9-10] by DOING it , not just saying it :-

James 3:5 Even so the tongue is a little member, and boasteth great things. Behold, how great a matter a little fire kindleth!

The problem for us all is that we can, and thus do, deceive ourselves because of the inhibition in the brain necessary to stabilise our brain under massive input it accepts from diverse inputs [far more than the 'five senses' of naive science] ... it is thought that denies our sins to ourselves, whichwe can only defeat in deepest meditation ... few pursue God this deeply yet, most live by the empty values of the world, the illusion of 'not-God' , of no spirit, no need to heed conscience, sin...

 

[strangertoo]

Lee Martin McDonald is always worth a read! Both Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission, and Authority and Forgotten Scriptures: The Selection and Rejection of Early Religious Writings.

God is more worthy of attention, for His Truth is absolute, guaranteed PURE , unlike that of sinners , which almost all men are ...

and God's Truth is free to anyone who will listen, who stops listening to Satan's persuasions and sinning against God and men [and themselves]

1 John 3:6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.
...
1 John 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil

1 John 5:18 We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.

 

[Canterbury Trail]

God is more worthy of attention, for His Truth is absolute, guaranteed PURE , unlike that of sinners , which almost all men are ...

Again, what relevance is this to what I wrote? Plus, the syntax is pretty poor, it is difficult to know what you are actually trying to say.

and God's Truth is free to anyone who will listen, who stops listening to Satan's persuasions and sinning against God and men [and themselves]

Again, what is this in aid of?

1 John 3:6 Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.
...
1 John 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil

1 John 5:18 We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.

And here are some random quotes, great stuff!