Christianity

[Veteran1990]

Christianity

If you are lazy this post is not for you

Isince i have been here apparently aggravated certain people despite God himself seeming completely fine with someone Evaluating The Scriptures:

1.) and examined the Scriptures(U) every day to see if what Paul said was true.

I would assume that if the pattern of those who came into Contact with the apostles were not rebuked or met with such aggravation from the apostles, where God has no problem with Testing Scripture that it is paradoxically uncalled for, when Scripture is Tested for christians to respond aggressively or insinuate things about my person.

Based on what it does say in The Bible, The Bible is open to Scrutiny to which God Himself has no problem.

MY EVALUATION OF SCRIPTURE:

From Everything I have heard, Studied on my own in the form of an anthropology of The Bible, Examining its compilation, and based on verses I have Still decided to Truth God while allowing for myself to question and Examine everything said or stated by every Biblical author to ensure and determine they even knew anything about God.

In my Studies I have found large internal inconsistencies and literary problems that I can not ignore and can not do anything but question because of such problems.

1.) Overview of The Bibles Compilation and Historical Analysis:

Based on analysis and research

OLD TESTAMENT

The Old Testament is the first section of the Bible, covering the creation of Earth through Noah and the flood, Moses and more, finishing with the Jews being expelled to Babylon.
The Bible | HISTORY

HEZIKIAH

It was during the reign of Hezekiah of Judah in the 8th century B.C. that historians believe what would become the Old Testament began to take form, the result of royal scribes recording royal history and heroic legends.

During the reign of Josiah in the 6th century B.C., the books of Deuteronomy and Judges were compiled and added. The final form of the Hebrew Bible developed over the next 200 years when Judah was swallowed up by the expanding Persian Empire.

SEPTUIGENT

Following conquest by Alexander the Great, the Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek in the 3rd century B.C.

Known as the Septuagint, this Greek translation was initiated at the request of King Ptolemy of Egypt to be included in the library of Alexandria. The Septuagint was the version of the Bible used by early Christians in Rome.

The Book of Daniel was written during this period and included in the Septuagint at the last moment, though the text itself claims to have been written sometime around 586 B.C.

NEW TESTAMENT

The New Testament tells the story of the life of Jesus and the early days of Christianity, most notably Paul’s efforts to spread Jesus’ teaching. It collects 27 books, all originally written in Greek.

The sections of the New Testament concerning Jesus are called the Gospels and were written about 40 years after the earliest written Christian materials, the letters of Paul, known as the Epistles.

Paul’s letters were distributed by churches sometime around 50 A.D., possibly just before Paul’s death. Scribes copied the letters and kept them in circulation. As circulation continued, the letters were collected into books.

Some in the church, inspired by Paul, began to write and circulate their own letters, and so historians believe that some books of the New Testament attributed to Paul were in fact written by disciples and imitators.

As Paul’s words were circulated, an oral tradition began in churches telling stories about Jesus, including teachings and accounts of post-resurrection appearances. Sections of the New Testament attributed to Paul talk about Jesus with a firsthand feeling, but Paul never knew Jesus except in visions he had, and the Gospels were not yet written at the time of Paul’s letters.

GOD GOSPEL

The oral traditions within the church formed the substance of the Gospels, the earliest book of which is Mark, written around 70 A.D., 40 years after the death of Jesus.

It is theorized there may have been an original document of sayings by Jesus known as the Q source, which was adapted into the narratives of the Gospels. All four Gospels were published anonymously, but historians believe that the books were given the name of Jesus’ disciples to provide direct links to Jesus to lend them greater authority.

Matthew and Luke were next in the chronology. Both used Mark as a reference, but Matthew is considered to have another separate source, known as the M source, as it contains some different material from Mark. Both books also stress the proof of Jesus’ divinity more than Mark did.

The Book of John, written around 100 A.D., was the final of the four and has a reputation for hostility to Jesus’ Jewish contemporaries.

All four books cover the life of Jesus with many similarities, but sometimes contradictions in their portrayals. Each is considered to have its own political and religious agenda linked to authorship.

For instance, the books of Matthew and Luke present different accounts of Jesus’ birth, and all contradict each other about the resurrection.

BIBLICAL CANON

Surviving documents from the 4th century show that different councils within the church released lists to guide how various Christian texts should be treated.

The earliest known attempt to create a canon in the same respect as the New Testament was in 2nd century Rome by Marcion, a Turkish businessman and church leader.

Marcion’s work focused on the Gospel of Luke and the letters of Paul. Disapproving of the effort, the Roman church expelled Marcion.

Second-century Syrian writer Tatian attempted to create a canon by weaving the four gospels together as the Diatessaron.

The Muratorian Canon, which is believed to date to 200 A.D., is the earliest compilation of canonical texts resembling the New Testament.

It was not until the 5th century that all the different Christian churches came to a basic agreement on Biblical canon. The books that eventually were considered canon reflect the times they were embraced as much the times of the events they portray.

During the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century, books not originally written in Hebrew but Greek, such as Judith and Maccabees, were excluded from the Old Testament. These are known the Apocrypha and are still included in the Catholic Bible.

Gnostic gospel

Additional Biblical texts have been discovered, such as the Gospel of Mary, which was part of the larger Berlin Gnostic Codex found in Egypt in 1896.

Fifty further unused Biblical texts were discovered in Nag Hammadi in Egypt in 1945, known as the Gnostic Gospels.

Among the Gnostic Gospels were the Gospel of Thomas—which purports to be previously hidden sayings by Jesus presented in collaboration with his twin brother—and The Gospel of Philip, which implies a marriage between Jesus and Mary Magdalene. The original texts are believed to date back to around 120 A.D.

The Book of Judas was found in Egypt in the 1970s. Dated to around 280 A.D., it is believed by some to contain secret conversations between Jesus and his betrayer Judas.

These have never become part of the official Biblical canon, but stem from the same traditions and can be read as alternative views of the same stories and lessons. These texts are taken as indications of the diversity of early Christianity.

KING JAMES BIBLE

The King James Bible is possibly the most widely-known edition of the Bible, though in England it is known as the “Authorized Version.”

First printed in 1611, this edition of the Bible was commissioned in 1604 by King James I after feeling political pressure from Puritans and Calvinists demanding church reform and calling for a complete restructuring of church hierarchy.

In response, James called for a conference at Hampton Court Palace, during which it was suggested to him that there should be a new translation of the Bible since versions commissioned by earlier monarchs were felt to be corrupt.

King James eventually agreed and decreed the new translation should speak in contemporary language, using common, recognizable terms. James’ purpose was to unite the warring religious factions through a uniform holy text.

This version of the Bible was not altered for 250 years and is credited as one of the biggest influences on the English language, alongside the works of Shakespeare. The King James Bible introduced a multitude of words and phrases now common in the English language, including “eye for an eye,” “bottomless pit,” “two-edged sword,” “God forbid,” “scapegoat” and “turned the world upside down,” among many others.

MY PROBLEM WITH CANON

The books that make up the Bible were written by various people over a period of more than 1,000 years, between 1200 B.C.E. and the first century C.E. The Bible contains a variety of literary genres, including poetry, history, songs, stories, letters and prophetic writings. These were originally written on scrolls of parchment, as opposed to being encapsulated in "books" as we think of them today. (Remember, the printing press wasn't invented until 1440.)

Over time, the books that were deemed authentic and authoritative by the communities who used them were included in the canon and the rest were discarded. Although the bulk of that editing work ended in the late 300s, the debate over which books were theologically legit continued until at least the 16th century when church reformer Martin Luther published his German translation of the Bible.

Who Decided Which Books to Include in the Bible?

Research from the web

In truth, there was no single church authority or council that convened to rubber stamp the biblical canon (official list of books in the Bible), not at Nicea or anywhere else in antiquity, explains Jason Combs, an assistant professor at Brigham Young University specializing in ancient Christianity.

"Dan Brown did us all a disservice," says Combs. "We don't have evidence that any group of Christians got together and said, 'Let's hash this out once and for all.'" (The Council of Nicea was convened to resolve a religious matter unrelated to the books of the Bible.)

What evidence scholars do have — in the form of theological treatises, letters and church histories that have survived for millennia — points to a much longer process of canonization. From the first through the fourth centuries and beyond, different church leaders and theologians made arguments about which books belonged in the canon, often casting their opponents as heretics.

The books that make up the Bible were written by various people over a period of more than 1,000 years, between 1200 B.C.E. and the first century C.E. The Bible contains a variety of literary genres, including poetry, history, songs, stories, letters and prophetic writings. These were originally written on scrolls of parchment, as opposed to being encapsulated in "books" as we think of them today. (Remember, the printing press wasn't invented until 1440.)

 

[Veteran1990]

Rare and ancient biblical manuscripts are displayed at the "Book of Books" exhibition in the Bible Lands Museum in Jerusalem, Israel. Note they are all on scrolls.
Over time, the books that were deemed authentic and authoritative by the communities who used them were included in the canon and the rest were discarded. Although the bulk of that editing work ended in the late 300s, the debate over which books were theologically legit continued until at least the 16th century when church reformer Martin Luther published his German translation of the Bible.

Disputed, Spurious and Downright Heretical

Luther had issues with the book of James, which emphasized the role of "works" alongside faith, so he stuck James and Hebrews in the back of the Bible alongside Jude and Revelation, which he also thought were questionable. Combs says that in Luther's original Bible, those four books don't even appear in the table of contents.

Eusebius was a Christian historian writing in the early 300s who provided one of the early lists of which books were considered legit and which were borderline bogus.

Eusebius broke his list down into different categories: recognized, disputed, spurious and heretical. Among the "recognized" were the four gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John), Acts and Paul's epistles. Under "disputed," Eusebius included James and Jude — the same books Luther didn't like — plus a few others that are now considered canon, like 2 Peter, 2 John and 3 John.

When Eusebius turns to the "spurious" and "heretical" categories, we get a glimpse into just how many other texts were in circulation in the second and third century C.E. Have you ever heard of the Apocalypse of Peter, the Epistle of Barnabas or the Gospel of Thomas? Combs says that there were hundreds of texts similar to those found in the New Testament and Old Testament that didn't make it into the canon.

Making the Cut

Why did some books make the cut and not others? Combs cites three criteria used by early church leaders. The first was authorship, whether it was believed to have been written by an apostle, by Paul or by someone close to them. Mark, for example, wasn't an apostle, but was an interpreter for Peter. The second criterium was antiquity, with older texts taking priority over newer ones. And the third was orthodoxy, or how well the text conformed with current Christian teaching.

That last reason is so interesting, of course, because 'current Christian teaching' changed over hundreds of years," says Combs.

While it's not true to say that a single church council ruled on which books to include in the canon, it's fair to say that over those first few centuries of theological debate, the winners got to decide which books would stay and which had to go.

It's important to mention that not all Christian denominations consider the same books to be canon. Most Protestant Bibles have 66 books, 39 in the Old Testament and 27 in the New Testament. The Roman Catholic Bible has 73 books including the seven known as the Apocrypha. And the Ethiopian Orthodox Church includes 81 total books in its Bible, including pseudepigrapha like 1 Enoch and Jubilees.

What are the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha?

The word "apocrypha" comes from the Greek for "hidden" or "secret." It's a little confusing, because the word apocrypha is used in a couple of different ways when talking about books outside of the standard biblical canon.

First, there's the category of "New Testament Apocrypha" which includes a long list of non-canonical texts written mostly in the second century C.E. and beyond that pertain to Jesus and his apostles. As Combs says, there are hundreds of these texts and we don't have written specimens for all of them.

Then there's a subset of Old Testament books that are included in the Roman Catholic Bible. These seven books, including Tobit, Judith and 1 & 2 Maccabees, are published between the Old and New Testaments in the Catholic Bible and called "the Apocrypha" or sometimes the "Deuterocanon" which means "second canon."

And then there's a third category called "pseudepigrapha" from the Greek for "false author." This list includes more than 50 texts written between 200 B.C.E. and 200 C.E. by both Jewish and Christian writers expanding on stories and characters from the Old Testament. Notable Old Testament pseudepigrapha include 1 Enoch, Jubilees and the Treatise of Shem.

Denominations

I have rationalized that denominations are therefore the result of what they consider to be a Bible, including or excluding texts that are not considered associated with the denomination as they are not considered a part of an authoritative source that can speak about God.

Evaluation of Martin luther

In 1543, he published “The Jews and Their Lies,” which today is shocking in its venom, and even for its time stood out as particularly cruel and intolerant. In the 65,000-word treatise, he calls for a litany of horrors, including the destruction of synagogues, Jewish schools and homes; for rabbis to be forbidden to preach; for the stripping of legal protection of Jews on highways; for the confiscation of their money. The Jews are, wrote Luther, a “base, whoring people, that is, no people of God, and their boast of lineage, circumcision, and law must be accounted as filth.”

In Context The spirit of the anti-christ has always been the result of anti-semerism and hatred. Luther primarily focused on grace and seemingly hated jews for their obedience to the law.

Eusebius of Caesarea was an early historian of the Church. In his Ecclesiastical History (written about A.D. 324) he discusses questions of canonicity in several places. His view of the Old Testament canon is described thus by Westcott:

Eusebius has left no express judgment on the contents of the Old Testament. In three places he quotes from Josephus, Melito and Origen, lists of the books (slightly differing) according to the Hebrew Canon. These he calls in the first place 'the Canonical Scriptures of the Old Testament, undisputed among the Hebrews;' and again,'the acknowledged Scriptures of the Old Testament;' and, lastly, 'the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament.' In his Chronicle he distinctly separates the Books of Maccabees from the 'Divine Scriptures;' and elsewhere mentions Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom as 'controverted' books. On the other hand, like the older Fathers, he quotes in the same manner as the contents of the Hebrew Canon passages from Baruch and Wisdom. On the whole, it may be concluded that he regarded the Apocrypha of the Old Testament in the same light as the books in the New Testament, which were 'controverted and yet familiarly used by many.' The books of the Hebrew Canon alone were in his technical language 'acknowledged.' (Brooke Foss Westcott, The Bible in the Church: A Popular Account of the Collection and Reception of the Holy Scriptures in the Christian Churches [London: MacMillan and Co., 1896], p. 153.)

Ecclesiastical History, Book 3, Chapter 3.—The Epistles of the Apostles.

1. One epistle of Peter, that called the first, is acknowledged as genuine. 1 And this the ancient elders 2 used freely in their own writings as an undisputed work. 3 But we have learned that his extant second Epistle does not belong to the canon; 4 yet, as it has appeared profitable to many, it has been used with the other Scriptures. 5

2. The so-called Acts of Peter, 6 however, and the Gospel 7 which bears his name, and the Preaching 8 and the Apocalypse, 9 as they are called, we know have not been universally accepted, 10 because no ecclesiastical writer, ancient or modern, has made use of testimonies drawn from them. 11

3. But in the course of my history I shall be careful to show, in addition to the official succession, what ecclesiastical writers have from time to time made use of any of the disputed works, 12 and what they have said in regard to the canonical and accepted writings, 13 as well as in regard to those which are not of this class.

4. Such are the writings that bear the name of Peter, only one of which I know to be genuine 14 and acknowledged by the ancient elders. 15

5. Paul’s fourteen epistles are well known and undisputed. 16 It is not indeed right to overlook the fact that some have rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews, 17 saying that it is disputed 18 by the church of Rome, on the ground that it was not written by Paul. But what has been said concerning this epistle by those who lived before our time I shall quote in the proper place. 19 In regard to the so-called Acts of Paul, 20 I have not found them among the undisputed writings. 21

6. But as the same apostle, in the salutations at the end of the Epistle to the Romans, 22 has made mention among others of Hermas, to whom the book called The Shepherd 23 is ascribed, it should be observed that this too has been disputed by some, and on their account cannot be placed among the acknowledged books; while by others it is considered quite indispensable, especially to those who need instruction in the elements of the faith. Hence, as we know, it has been publicly read in churches, and I have found that some of the most ancient writers used it.

7. This will serve to show the divine writings that are undisputed as well as those that are not universally acknowledged.

Ecclesiastical History, Book 3, Chapter 24.—The Order of the Gospels.

1. This extract from Clement I have inserted here for the sake of the history and for the benefit of my readers. Let us now point out the undisputed writings of this apostle.

2. And in the first place his Gospel, which is known to all the churches under heaven, must be acknowledged as genuine. 1 That it has with good reason been put by the ancients in the fourth place, after the other three Gospels, may be made evident in the following way.

3. Those great and truly divine men, I mean the apostles of Christ, were purified in their life, and were adorned with every virtue of the soul, but were uncultivated in speech. They were confident indeed in their trust in the divine and wonder-working power which was granted unto them by the Saviour, but they did not know how, nor did they attempt to proclaim the doctrines of their teacher in studied and artistic language, but employing only the demonstration of the divine Spirit, which worked with them, and the wonder-working power of Christ, which was displayed through them, they published the knowledge of the kingdom of heaven throughout the whole world, paying little attention to the composition of written works.

4. And this they did because they were assisted in their ministry by one greater than man. Paul, for instance, who surpassed them all in vigor of expression and in richness of thought, committed to writing no more than the briefest epistles, 2 although he had innumerable mysterious matters to communicate, for he had attained even unto the sights of the third heaven, had been carried to the very paradise of God, and had been deemed worthy to hear unspeakable utterances there. 3

 

[Veteran1990]

5. And the rest of the followers of our Saviour, the twelve apostles, the seventy disciples, and countless others besides, were not ignorant of these things. Nevertheless, of all the disciples 4 of the Lord, only Matthew and John have left us written memorials, and they, tradition says, were led to write only under the pressure of necessity.

6. For Matthew, who had at first preached to the Hebrews, when he was about to go to other peoples, committed his Gospel to writing in his native tongue, 5 and thus compensated those whom he was obliged to leave for the loss of his presence.

7. And when Mark and Luke had already published their Gospels, 6 they say that John, who had employed all his time in proclaiming the Gospel orally, finally proceeded to write for the following reason. The three Gospels already mentioned having come into the hands of all and into his own too, they say that he accepted them and bore witness to their truthfulness; but that there was lacking in them an account of the deeds done by Christ at the beginning of his ministry. 7

8. And this indeed is true. For it is evident that the three evangelists recorded only the deeds done by the Saviour for one year after the imprisonment of John the Baptist, 8 and indicated this in the beginning of their account.

9. For Matthew, after the forty days’ fast and the temptation which followed it, indicates the chronology of his work when he says: “Now when he heard that John was delivered up he withdrew from Judea into Galilee.” 9

10. Mark likewise says: “Now after that John was delivered up Jesus came into Galilee.” 10 And Luke, before commencing his account of the deeds of Jesus, similarly marks the time, when he says that Herod, “adding to all the evil deeds which he had done, shut up John in prison.” 11

11. They say, therefore, that the apostle John, being asked to do it for this reason, gave in his Gospel an account of the period which had been omitted by the earlier evangelists, and of the deeds done by the Saviour during that period; that is, of those which were done before the imprisonment of the Baptist. And this is indicated by him, they say, in the following words: “This beginning of miracles did Jesus”; 12 and again when he refers to the Baptist, in the midst of the deeds of Jesus, as still baptizing in Ænon near Salim; 13 where he states the matter clearly in the words: “For John was not yet cast into prison.” 14

12. John accordingly, in his Gospel, records the deeds of Christ which were performed before the Baptist was cast into prison, but the other three evangelists mention the events which happened after that time.

13. One who understands this can no longer think that the Gospels are at variance with one another, inasmuch as the Gospel according to John contains the first acts of Christ, while the others give an account of the latter part of his life. And the genealogy of our Saviour according to the flesh John quite naturally omitted, because it had been already given by Matthew and Luke, and began with the doctrine of his divinity, which had, as it were, been reserved for him, as their superior, by the divine Spirit. 15

14. These things may suffice, which we have said concerning the Gospel of John. The cause which led to the composition of the Gospel of Mark has been already stated by us. 16

15. But as for Luke, in the beginning of his Gospel, he states himself the reasons which led him to write it. He states that since many others had more rashly undertaken to compose a narrative of the events of which he had acquired perfect knowledge, he himself, feeling the necessity of freeing us from their uncertain opinions, delivered in his own Gospel an accurate account of those events in regard to which he had learned the full truth, being aided by his intimacy and his stay with Paul and by his acquaintance with the rest of the apostles. 17

16. So much for our own account of these things. But in a more fitting place we shall attempt to show by quotations from the ancients, what others have said concerning them.

17. But of the writings of John, not only his Gospel, but also the former of his epistles, has been accepted without dispute both now and in ancient times. 18 But the other two are disputed. 19

18. In regard to the Apocalypse, the opinions of most men are still divided. 20 But at the proper time this question likewise shall be decided from the testimony of the ancients. 21

Ecclesiastical History, Book 3, Chapter 25.—The Divine Scriptures that are accepted and those that are not. 1

The testimony of tradition is unanimous for the authenticity of the first Epistle of Peter. It was known to Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Papias, Hermas, &c. (the Muratorian Fragment, however, omits it), and was cited under the name of Peter by Irenæus, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria, from whose time its canonicity and Petrine authorship were established, so that Eusebius rightly puts it among the homologoumena. Semler, in 1784, was the first to deny its direct Petrine authorship, and Cludius, in 1808, pronounced it absolutely ungenuine. The Tübingen School followed, and at the present time the genuineness is denied by all the negative critics, chiefly on account of the strong Pauline character of the epistle (cf. Holtzmann, Einleitung, p. 487 sqq., also Weiss, Einleitung, p. 428 sqq., who confines the resemblances to the Epistles to the Romans and to the Ephesians, and denies the general Pauline character of the epistle). The great majority of scholars, however, maintain the Petrine authorship. A new opinion, expressed by Harnack, upon the assumption of the distinctively Pauline character of the epistle, is that it was written during the apostolic age by some follower of Paul, and that the name of Peter was afterward attached to it, so that it represents no fraud on the part of the writer, but an effort of a later age to find an author for the anonymous epistle. In support of this is urged the fact that though the epistle is so frequently quoted in the second century, it is never connected with Peter’s name until the time of Irenæus. (Cf. Harnack’s Lehre der Zwölf Apostel, p. 106, note, and his Dogmengeschichte, I. p. 278, note 2.) This theory has found few supporters.

2. οἱ πάλαι πρεσβύτεροι. On the use of the term “elders” among the Fathers, see below, chap. 39, note 6.

3. ὡς ἀναμφιλέκτῳ

4. οὐκ ἐνδιάθηκον μὲν εἶναι παρειλήφαμεν. The authorship of the second Epistle of Peter has always been widely disputed. The external testimony for it is very weak, as no knowledge of it can be proved to have existed before the third century. Numerous explanations have been offered by apologists to account for this curious fact; but it still remains almost inexplicable, if the epistle be accepted as the work of the apostle. The first clear references to it are made by Firmilian, Bishop of Cæsarea in Cappadocia (third century), in his Epistle to Cyprian, §6 (Ep. 74, in the collection of Cyprian’s Epistles, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Am. ed

 

[Veteran1990]

p. 391), and by Origen (quoted by Eusebius, VI. 25, below), who mentions the second Epistle as disputed. Clement of Alexandria, however, seems at least to have known and used it (according to Euseb. VI. 14). The epistle was not admitted into the Canon until the Council of Hippo, in 393, when all doubts and discussion ceased until the Reformation. It is at present disputed by all negative critics, and even by many otherwise conservative scholars. Those who defend its genuineness date it shortly before the death of Peter, while the majority of those who reject it throw it into the second century,—some as late as the time of Clement of Alexandria (e.g. Harnack, in his Lehre der Zwölf Apostel, p. 15 and 159, who assigns its composition to Egypt). Cf. Holtzmann, Einleitung, p. 495 sqq., and Weiss (who leaves its genuineness an open question), Einleitung, p. 436 sqq. For a defense of the genuineness, see especially Warfield, in the Southern Pres. Rev., 1883, p. 390 sqq., and Salmon’s Introduction to the N. T., p. 512 sqq.

5. Although disputed by many, as already remarked, and consequently not looked upon as certainly canonical until the end of the fourth century, the epistle was yet used, as Eusebius says, quite widely from the time of Origen on, e.g. by Origen, Firmilian, Cyprian, Hippolytus, Methodius, etc. The same is true, however, of other writings, which the Church afterward placed among the Apocrypha.

6. These πράξεις (or περίοδοι, as they are often called) Πέτρου were of heretical origin, according to Lipsius, and belonged, like the heretical Acta Pauli (referred to in note 20, below), to the collection of περίοδοι τῶν ἀποστόλων, which were ascribed to Lucius Charinus, and, like them, formed also, from the end of the fourth century, a part of the Manichean Canon of the New Testament. The work, as a whole, is no longer extant, but a part of it is preserved, according to Lipsius, in a late Catholic redaction, under the title Passio Petri. Upon these Acts of Peter, their original form, and their relation to other works of the same class, see Lipsius, Apocryphen Apostelgeschichten, II. I, p. 78 sq. Like the heretical Acta Pauli already referred to, this work, too, was used in the composition of the Catholic Acts of Paul and Peter, which are still extant, and which assumed their present form in the fifth century, according to Lipsius. These Catholic Acts of Peter and Paul have been published by Thilo (Acta Petri et Pauli, Halle, 1837), and by Tischendorf, in his Acta Apost. Apocr., p. 1–39. English translation in the Ante-Nicene Fathers (Am. ed.), VIII. p. 477.

7. This Gospel is mentioned by Serapion as in use in the church of Rhossus (quoted by Eusebius, Bk. VI. chap. 12, below), but was rejected by him because of the heretical doctrines which it contained. It is mentioned again by Eusebius, III. 25, only to be rejected as heretical; also by Origen (in Matt. Vol. X. 17) and by Jerome (de vir. ill. 1), who follows Eusebius in pronouncing it an heretical work employed by no early teachers of the Christian Church. Lipsius regards it as probably a Gnostic recast of one of the Canonical Gospels. From Serapion’s account of this Gospel (see below, Bk. VI. chap. 12), we see that it differs from the Canonical Gospels, not in denying their truth, or in giving a contradictory account of Christ’s life, but rather in adding to the account given by them. This, of course, favors Lipsius’ hypothesis; and in any case he is certainly quite right in denying that the Gospel was an original work made use of by Justin Martyr, and that it in any way lay at the base of our present Gospel of Mark. The Gospel (as we learn from the same chapter) was used by the Docetæ, but that does not imply that it contained what we call Docetic ideas of Christ’s body (cf. note 8 on that chapter). The Gospel is no longer extant. See Lipsius, in Smith and Wace’s Dict. of Christ. Biog. II. p. 712.

8. This Preaching of Peter (Κήρυγμα Πέτρου, Prædicatio Petri), which is no longer extant, probably formed a part of a lost Preaching of Peter and Paul (cf. Clement of Alexandria, Strom. VI. 5, and Lactantius, Inst. IV. 21). It was mentioned frequently by the early Fathers, and a number of fragments of it have been preserved by Clement of Alexandria, who quotes it frequently as a genuine record of Peter’s teaching. (The fragments are collected by Grabe in his Spic. Patr. I. 55–71, and by Hilgenfeld in his N. T. extra Can. rec., 2d ed., IV. p. 51 sqq.). It is mentioned twice by Origen (in Johan. XIII. 17, and De Princ. Præf. 8), and in the latter place is expressly classed among spurious works. It was probably, according to Lipsius, closely connected with the Acts of Peter and Paul mentioned in note 6, above. Lipsius, however, regards those Acts as a Catholic adaptation of a work originally Ebionitic, though he says expressly that the Preaching is not at all of that character, but is a Petro-Pauline production, and is to be distinguished from the Ebionitic κηρύγματα. It would seem therefore that he must put the Preaching later than the original of the Acts, into a time when the Ebionitic character of the latter had been done away with. Salmon meanwhile holds that the Preaching is as old as the middle of the second century and the most ancient of the works recording Peter’s preaching, and hence (if this view be accepted) the Ebionitic character which Lipsius ascribes to the Acts did not (if it existed at all) belong to the original form of the record of Peter’s preaching embodied in the Acts and in the Preaching. The latter (if it included also the Preaching of Paul, as seems almost certain) appears to have contained an account of some of the events of the life of Christ, and it may have been used by Justin. Compare the remarks of Lipsius in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. I. p. 28 (Cath. Adaptations of Ebionitic Acts), and Salmon’s article on the Preaching of Peter, ibid. IV. 329.

9. The Apocalypse of Peter enjoyed considerable favor in the early Church and was accepted by some Fathers as a genuine work of the apostle. It is mentioned in the Muratorian Fragment in connection with the Apocalypse of John, as a part of the Roman Canon, and is accepted by the author of the fragment himself; although he says that some at that time rejected it. Clement of Alexandria, in his Hypotyposes (according to Eusebius, IV. 14, below), commented upon it, thus showing that it belonged at that time to the Alexandrian Canon. In the third century it was still received in the North African Church (so Harnack, who refers to the stichometry of the Codex Claramontanus). The Eclogæ or Prophetical Selections of Clement of Alexandria give it as a genuine work of Peter (§§41, 48, 49, p. 1000 sq., Potter’s ed.), and so Methodius of Tyre (Sympos. XI. 6, p. 16, ed. Jahn, according to Lipsius). After Eusebius’ time the work seems to have been universally regarded as spurious, and thus, as its canonicity depended upon its apostolic origin (see chap. 24, note 19), it gradually fell out of the Canon. It nevertheless held its place for centuries among the semi-scriptural books, and was read in many churches. According to Sozomen, H. E. VII. 19, it was read at Easter, which shows that it was treated with especial respect. Nicephorus in his Stichometry puts it among the Antilegomena, in immediate connection with the Apocalypse of John. As Lipsius remarks, its “lay-recognition in orthodox circles proves that it could not have had a Gnostic origin, nor otherwise have contained what was offensive to Catholic Christians” (see Lipsius, Dict. of Christ. Biog. I. p. 130 sqq.). Only a few fragments of the work are extant, and these are given by Hilgenfeld, in his Nov. Test. extra Can. receptum, IV. 74 sq., and by Grabe, Spic. Patr. I. 71 sqq.

 

[Veteran1990]

10. οὐδ᾽ ὅλως ἐν καθολικαῖς ἴσμεν παραδεδομένα

11. Eusebius exaggerates in this statement. The Apocalypse of Peter was in quite general use in the second century, as we learn from the Muratorian Fragment; and Clement (as Eusebius himself says in VI. 14) wrote a commentary upon it in connection with the other Antilegomena.

12. τῶν ἀντιλεγομένων

13. περὶ τῶν ἐνδιαθήκων καὶ ὁμολογουμένων

14. ὡν μόνην μίαν γνησίαν εγνων.

15. As above; see note 2.

16. The thirteen Pauline Epistles of our present Canon, and the Epistle to the Hebrews. These formed for Eusebius an absolutely undisputed part of the Canon (cf. chap. 25, below, where he speaks of them with the same complete assurance), and were universally accepted until the present century. The external testimony for all of them is ample, going back (the Pastoral Epistles excepted) to the early part of the second century. The Epistles to the Romans, Corinthians, and Galatians have never been disputed (except by an individual here and there, especially during the last few years in Holland), even the Tübingen School accepting them as genuine works of Paul. The other epistles have not fared so well. The genuineness of Ephesians was first questioned by Usteri in 1824 and De Wette in 1826, and the Tübingen School rejected it. Scholars are at present greatly divided; the majority of negative critics reject it, while many liberal and all conservative scholars defend it. Colossians was first attacked by Mayerhoff in 1838, followed by the whole Tübingen School. It fares to-day somewhat better than Ephesians. It is still, however, rejected by many extreme critics, while others leave the matter in suspense (e.g. Weizsäcker in his Apostolisches Zeitalter). Since 1872, when the theory was proposed by Holtzmann, some scholars have held that our present Epistle contains a genuine Epistle of Paul to the Colossians, of which it is a later revision and expansion. Baur and the Tübingen School were the first to attack Philippians as a whole, and it too is still rejected by many critics, but at the same time it is more widely accepted than either Ephesians or Colossians (e.g. Weizsäcker and even Hilgenfeld defend its genuineness). Second Thessalonians was first attacked by Schmidt in 1801, followed by a number of scholars, until Baur extended the attack to the first Epistle also. Second Thessalonians is still almost unanimously rejected by negative critics, and even by some moderates, while First Thessalonians has regained the support of many of the former (e.g. Hilgenfeld, Weizsäcker, and even Holtzmann), and is entirely rejected by comparatively few critics. Philemon—which was first attacked by Baur—is quite generally accepted, but the Pastoral Epistles are almost as generally rejected, except by the regular conservative school (upon the Pastorals, see Bk. II. chap. 22, note 8, above). For a concise account of the state of criticism upon each epistle, see Holtzmann’s Einleitung. For a defense of them all, see the Einleitung of Weiss.

17. τινες ἠθετήκασι. That the Epistle to the Hebrews was not written by Paul is now commonly acknowledged, and may be regarded as absolutely certain. It does not itself lay any claim to Pauline authorship; its theology and style are both non-Pauline; and finally, external testimony is strongly against its direct connection with Paul. The first persons to assign the epistle to Paul are Pantænus and Clement of Alexandria (see below, Bk. VI. chap. 14), and they evidently find it necessary to defend its Pauline authorship in the face of the objections of others. Clement, indeed, assumes a Hebrew original, which was translated into Greek by Luke. Origen (see below, Bk. VI. chap. 25) leaves its authorship undecided, but thinks it probable that the thoughts are Paul’s, but the diction that of some one else, who has recorded what he heard from the apostle. He then remarks that one tradition assigned it to Clement of Rome, another to Luke. Eusebius himself, in agreement with the Alexandrians (who, with the exception of Origen, unanimously accept the Pauline authorship), looks upon it as a work of Paul, but accepts Clement of Alexandria’s theory that it was written in Hebrew, and thinks it probable that Clement of Rome was its translator (see chap. 38, below). In the Western Church, where the epistle was known very early (e.g. Clement of Rome uses it freely), it is not connected with Paul until the fourth century. Indeed, Tertullian (de pudicit. 20) states that it bore the name of Barnabas, and evidently had never heard that it had been ascribed to any one else. The influence of the Alexandrians, however, finally prevailed, and from the fifth century on we find it universally accepted, both East and West, as an epistle of Paul, and not until the Reformation was its origin again questioned. Since that time its authorship has been commonly regarded as an insoluble mystery. Numerous guesses have been made (e.g. Luther guessed Apollos, and he has been followed by many), but it is impossible to prove that any of them are correct. For Barnabas, however, more can be said than for any of the others. Tertullian expressly connects the epistle with him; and its contents are just what we should expect from the pen of a Levite who had been for a time under Paul’s influence, and yet had not received his Christianity from him; its standpoint, in fact, is Levitic, and decidedly non-Pauline, and yet reveals in many places the influence of Pauline ideas. Still further, it is noticeable that in the place where the Epistle to the Hebrews is first ascribed to Paul, there first appears an epistle which is ascribed (quite wrongly; see below, chap. 25, note 20) to Barnabas. May it not be (as has been suggested by Weiss and others) that the anonymous Epistle to the Hebrews was originally accepted in Alexandria as the work of Barnabas, but that later it was ascribed to Paul; and that the tradition that Barnabas had written an epistle, which must still have remained in the Church, led to the ascription of another anonymous epistle to him? We seem thus most easily to explain the false ascription of the one epistle to Paul, and the false ascription of the other to Barnabas. It may be said that the claims of both Barnabas and Apollos have many supporters, while still more attempt no decision. In regard to the canonicity of the epistle there seems never to have been any serious dispute, and it is this fact doubtless which did most to foster the belief in its Pauline authorship from the third century on. For the criterion of canonicity more and more came to be looked upon as apostolicity, direct or indirect. The early Church had cared little for such a criterion. In only one place does Eusebius seem to imply that doubts existed as to its canonicity,—in Bk. VI. chap. 13, where he classes it with the Book of Wisdom, and the Epistles of Barnabas, Clement, and Jude, among the Antilegomena. But in view of his treatment of it elsewhere it must be concluded that he is thinking in that passage not at all of its canonicity, but of its Pauline authorship, which he knows is disputed by some, and in reference to which he uses the same word, ἀντιλέγεσθαι, in the present sentence. Upon the canonicity of the epistle, see still further chap. 25, note 1. For a discussion of the epistle, see especially the N. T. Introductions of Weiss and Holtzmann.

18. ἀντιλέγεσθαι

19. See Bk. VI. chaps. 14, 20, 25.

20. These πράξεις are mentioned also in chap. 25, below, where they are classed among the νόθοι, implying that they had been originally accepted as canonical, but were not at the time Eusebius wrote widely accepted as such. This implies that they were not, like the works which he mentions later in the chapter, of an heretical character. They were already known to Origen, who (De Prin. I. 2, 3) refers to them in such a way as to show that they were in good repute in the Catholic Church. They are to be distinguished from the Gnostic περίοδοι or πράξεις Παύλου, which from the end of the fourth century formed a part of the Manichean canon of the New Testament, and of which some fragments are still extant under various forms. The failure to keep these Catholic and heretical Acta Pauli always distinct has caused considerable confusion. Both of these Acts, the Catholic and the heretical, formed, according to Lipsius (Apokr. Apostelgeschichten, II. 1, p. 305 sq.) one of the sources of the Catholic Acts of Peter and Paul, which in their extant form belong to the fifth century. For a discussion of these Catholic Acts of Paul referred to by Eusebius, see Lipsius, ibid., p. 70 sq.

21. οὐδὲ μὴν τὰς λεγομένας αὐτοῦ πράξεις ἐν ἀναμφιλέκτοις παρείληφα

22. Rom. xvi. 14. The greater part of this last chapter of Romans is considered by many a separate epistle addressed to Ephesus. This has been quite a common opinion since 1829, when it was first broached by David Schulz (Studien und Kritiken, p. 629 sq.), and is accepted even by many conservative scholars (e.g. Weiss), while on the other hand it is opposed by many of the opposite school. While Aquila and Priscilla, of Rom. 16.3, and Epænetus, of Rom. 16.5, seem to point to Ephesus, and the fact that so many personal friends are greeted, leads us to look naturally to the East as Paul’s field of labor, where he had formed so many acquaintances, rather than to Rome, where he had not been; yet on the other hand such names as Junias, Narcissus, Rufus, Hermas, Nereus, Aristobulus, and Herodion point strongly to Rome. We must, however, be content to leave the matter undecided, but may be confident that the evidence for the Ephesian hypothesis is certainly, in the face of the Roman names mentioned, and of universal tradition (for which as for Eusebius the epistle is a unit), not strong enough to establish it.

23. The Shepherd of Hermas was in circulation in the latter half of the second century, and is quoted by Irenæus (Adv. Hær. IV. 20. 2) as Scripture, although he omits it in his discussion of Scripture testimonies in Bk. III. chap. 9 sqq., which shows that he considered it not quite on a level with regular Scripture. Clement of Alexandria and Origen often quote it as an inspired book, though the latter expressly distinguishes it from the canonical books, admitting that it is disputed by many (cf. De Prin. IV. 11). Eusebius in chap. 25 places it among the νόθοι or spurious writings in connection with the Acts of Paul and the Apocalypse of Peter. According to the Muratorian Fragment it was “written very recently in our times in the city of Rome by Hermas, while his brother, Bishop Pius, sat in the chair of the Church of Rome. And therefore it also ought to be read; but it cannot be made public in the Church to the people, nor placed among the prophets, as their number is complete, nor among the apostles to the end of time.” This shows the very high esteem in which the work was held in that age. It was very widely employed in private and in public, both in the East and the West, until about the fourth century, when it gradually passed out of use. Jerome (de vir. ill. 10) says that it was almost unknown among the Latins of his time. As to the date and authorship of the Shepherd opinions vary widely. The only direct testimony of antiquity is that of the Muratorian Fragment, which says that it was written by Hermas, the brother of Pius, during the episcopacy of the latter (139–154 A.D.). This testimony is accepted by the majority of scholars, most of whom date the book near the middle of the second century, or at least as late as the reign of Hadrian. This opinion received not long ago what was supposed to be a strong confirmation from the discovery of the fact that Hermas in all probability quoted from Theodotion’s version of Daniel (see Hort’s article in the Johns Hopkins University Circular, December, 1884), which has been commonly ascribed to the second century. But it must now be admitted that no one knows the terminus a quo for the composition of Theodotian’s version, and therefore the discovery leaves the date of Hermas entirely undetermined (see Schürer, Gesch. des jüdischen Volkes, II. p. 709). Meanwhile Eusebius in this connection records the tradition, which he had read, that the book was written by the Hermas mentioned in Romans xvi. This tradition, however, appears to be no older than Origen, with whom it is no more than a mere guess. While in our absence of any knowledge as to this Hermas we cannot absolutely disprove his claim (unless we prove decisively the late date of the book), there is yet no ground for accepting it other than a mere coincidence in a very common name. In Vis. II. 4. 3 Hermas is told to give one copy of his book to Clement. From this it is concluded by many that the author must have been contemporary with the well-known Roman Clement, the author of the Epistle to the Corinthians. While this appears very likely, it cannot be called certain in the face of evidence for a considerably later date. Internal testimony helps us little, as there is nothing in the book which may not have been written at the very beginning of the second century, or, on the other hand, as late as the middle of it. Zahn dates it between 97 and 100, and assigns it to an unknown Hermas, a contemporary of the Roman Clement, in which he is followed by Salmon in a very clear and keen article in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. Critics are unanimously agreed that the book was written in Rome. It consists of three parts, Visions, Mandates, and Similitudes, and is of the nature of an apocalypse, written for the purpose of reforming the life of the Church, which seemed to the author to have become very corrupt. The work (especially the last part) is in the form of an allegory, and has been compared to the Pilgrim’s Progress. Opinions are divided as to whether it is actually founded upon visions and dreams of the author, or is wholly a fiction. The former opinion seems to be the more probable.

 

[Veteran1990]

Until recent years only a Latin translation of Hermas was known. In 1856 the first Greek edition was issued by Anger and Dindorf, being based upon a Mt. Athos MS. discovered shortly before by Simonides. Of the ten leaves of the MS. the last was lost; three were sold by Simonides to the University of Leipsic, and the other six were transcribed by him in a very faulty manner. The Sinaitic Codex has enabled us to control the text of Simonides in part, but unfortunately it contains only the Visions and a small part of the Mandates. All recent editions have been obliged to take the faulty transcription of Simonides as their foundation. In 1880 the six leaves of the Athos Codex, which had been supposed to be lost, and which were known only through Simonides’ transcription, were discovered by Lambros at Mt. Athos, and in 1888 A Collation of the Athos Codex of the Shepherd of Hermas by Dr. Spyr Lambros was issued in English translation by J. A. Robinson, at Cambridge, England. We thus have now a reliable Greek text of nine-tenths of the Shepherd of Hermas. Hilgenfeld, in his last edition (1887) of his Novum Test. Extra Can. Rec., published also a Greek text of the lost part of the work, basing it upon a pretended transcription by Simonides from the lost Athos MS. But this has been conclusively shown to be a mere fraud on the part of Simonides, and we are therefore still without any MS. authority for the Greek text of the close of the work. Cf. Robinson’s introduction to the Collation of Lambros mentioned above, and Harnack’s articles in the Theol. Literaturzeitung (1887). The most useful edition of the original is that of Gebhardt and Harnack, Patrum Apost. Opera, Fasc. III. (Lips. 1877). The work is translated in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. II. The literature upon the subject is very extensive, but the reader should examine especially the Prolegomena of Harnack in his edition. Cf. Zahn’s Hirt des Hermas (1868), and the article by Salmon in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. II. p. 912 sqq. Cf. also chap. 24, note 20, in regard to the reasons for the non-canonicity of the Shepherd.

Conceptual Evaluations of Scripture:

The term ‘canon’ is usually defined as ‘rule’ or ‘norm’. The Greek word, which has a broad range of meanings,6 was applied to the list of books regarded as authoritative for the churches

Current dilapidated with what is considered denominational beliefs:

First and foremost I have developed a scrutiny of the concept of a Biblical Trinity for the following reasons:

1.) The author of Heb 7:3 affirms of Melchizedek: "He is without father or mother or genealogy; he has neither beginning of days nor end of life . . . he continues a priest forever."
2.) God in reference to melchezidek, and Jesus:And he says in another place, “You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek” (Hebrews 5:6) obviously, if God is the one making reference to melchezidek in a priestly order God has Established God and melchezidek are not the same person. If God is distinguishing Jesus is a Priest in The Order of melchezidek, Melchezidek is not Jesus, or God The Father.
3.) Because melchezidek is not with geology, or the beggining of days or the end of days, he was not Created, Therefore Melchezidek must be a part of The Elohim.
In Context, Unless Melchezidek is The Holy Spirit, he is a fourth addition to what is reffered to as, and called God or gods.

The Hebrew word Elohim:

The Hebrew: God, is a plurality of rulers, titled, God in the context the being God is essentially meant to be understood as multiple persons based on its grammatical structure, reffered to either collectively or individually as God.

The seven Spirits of God (Greek: τα επτα πνευματα του θεου, ta hepta pneumata tou theou) are mentioned four times in the Book of Revelation, and in the Book of Isaiah it names each Spirit.[1][2]

Revelation 1:4: John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne;Revelation 3:1: And unto the angel of the church in Sardis write; These things saith he that hath the seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars; I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead.Revelation 4:5: And out of the throne proceeded lightnings and thunderings and voices: and there were seven lamps the of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God.Revelation 5:6: And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.

If Contextually then, the seven spirits of God are possibly, The Secen angels of God, God is 7 beings reffered to as elohim, or seven rulers without origins.

Based on Revelation Revelation 5:6: And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.

My Curiosity is if The Holy Spirit is a Single Individual or seven Spirits reffered to as The Holy Spirit?

My Curiosity is that The Holy Spirit is said to have seven attributes:

There are seven distinct expressions of the one Holy Spirit: 1) Spirit of the Lord, 2) Spirit of Wisdom, 3) Spirit of Understanding, 4) Spirit of Counsel, 5) Spirit of Strength, 6) Spirit of Knowledge and 7) the Spirit of the Fear of the Lord.

So are these themselves the attributes of a single person or multiple people?

Either way, unless melchezidek is:

Fictional or
The Holy Spirit, it is certain God , unless

 

[Veteran1990]

Beings without origin are not a God or gods in and of themselves would cause a dire evaluation of what makes someone God other then power and Authority.

It has been argued that, Elohim is actually a plural noun (indicated by the /im/ as in cherubim and seraphim) or when there are consonant structures that use the word el as part of their syntax. Sometimes the referent is plural. At other times the referent is singular ( I have grabbed this from another site.) Like most words in English, Elohim can mean several things. Sometimes Elohim refers to plural "gods," as in "You shall have no other gods before me" (Deuteronomy 5:7). At other times it refers to the singular "God," as in "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"

My Provlem is that in terms of language, language is meant to distinctly indicate a meaning and it would not serve a purpouse, much less make sense to use the same word for God's and God is the context associates different meanings in its structure to be used for God and for beings that are not God. That Conceptually makes absolutely zero sense unless there is a reason.

My Conflated problem is that The Hebrew word translated "lord" in this case is plural, even though it refers to the singular David or singular anybody. This Therefore Insinuates a conceptual usage that elohim are gods in the effective order of a God or Elohim.

I'm assuming that because man was given dominion over the fish of the sea, etc, that angel's could have possible been given dominion over man. This may however be wrong.

Elohim

’Elohim, in the first verse of Genesis, does not show the existence of a plurality of persons in the God of Israel. Concerning human authority, it may indicate a plurality of persons. We read in Exodus 22:8: “Both parties shall come before the ’elohim [“judges”], and whom the ’elohim [“judges”] shall condemn, he shall pay double to his neighbor.” However, Jacob wrestles with one being, yet that being is referred to as ’elohim (Genesis 32:31); and the angel that appears to Manoah, the father of Samson, is also referred to as ’elohim (Judges 13:22). Note the words used by the woman in speaking to Saul when, upon seeing Samuel, she exclaims: “I see’elohim coming up out of the earth” (1 Samuel 28:13). Here, ’elohim is followed by the verb in the plural. Yet only a single individual is referred to, as is seen from verse 14: “And he said to her: ‘What is his appearance?’ And she said: ‘An old man is coming up; and he is wrapped in a robe.’” Thus, even joined to a plural verb the noun may still refer to a single individual.

’Elohim means “gods” only when the Bible applies this plural word to pagan deities

Judges 16:23-24, 1 Samuel 5:7). The Moabites, likewise, used the word ’elohim to describe their god Chemosh (Judges 11:24). If trinitarian Christians are correct in their argument that the use of ’Elohim with a singular verb means there are three coeternal, coequal persons in one god, then the same thing must be true for the Philistine god Dagon and the Moabite god Chemosh. They must be respectively a plurality of persons in one god. How else could trinitarians explain the Philistines saying of Dagon: “Our god [’eloheinu] has delivered” (Judges 16:24)? Here, the verb is singular, yet the subject is, literally, “our gods” in the plural. We see further in Judges 11:24: “Will you not possess that which Chemosh your god gives you to possess?” Chemosh is in the singular number, and in apposition with it is ’elohecha (literally “your gods”), which is in the plural number (see also Judges 6:31: “If he [Ba‘al] is a god [’elohim]”).

were not the name of one idol only, but were the names of innumerable idols throughout the respective kingdoms where they were worshiped. Hence, Dagon, Chemosh, and Baal though in the singular form, are collective nouns, which embraced every idol of the realm

However, in every instance:

1.) The jews do not state that they believe in anything but a single God, despite in genesis 26 where it states God said let us Create Man , and single person, in our image.

conceptually, because jews state,

idols are reffered to as elohim, were not the name of one idol only, but were the names of innumerable idols throughout the respective kingdoms where they were worshiped. Hence, Dagon, Chemosh, and Baal though in the singular form, are collective nouns, which embraced every idol of the realm

It Conceptually makes no sense unless melchezidek is both not a part of the Elohim and a part of The Elohim that he would be reffered to without beggining or end of days. He is effectively an untreated immortal. My Problem with this is Jesus Comes after or is Established in The order of melchezidek. So Obviously Melchezidek is essentially a part of an Order Jesus is Established with.

Consistency of thought, The Truth, and The Consistency of the Knowledge of what is True

trustworthy revelation

According to the Hebrew Bible, the Tabernacle (Hebrew: מִשְׁכַּן‎, mishkān, meaning "residence" or "dwelling place"), also known as the Tent of the Congregation (אֹ֣הֶל מוֹעֵד֩ ’ōhel mō‘êḏ, also Tent of Meeting, etc.), was the portable earthly dwelling place of Yahweh (the God of Israel) used by the Israelites from the Exodus until the conquest of Canaan.

48 “However, the Most High does not live in houses made by human hands. As the prophet says:



49 “‘Heaven is my throne,
and the earth is my footstool.
What kind of house will you build for me?
says the Lord.
Or where will my resting place be?
50 Has not my hand made all these things?’[l]




10 David was conscience-stricken(A) after he had counted the fighting men, and he said to the Lord, “I have sinned(B) greatly in what I have done. Now, Lord, I beg you, take away the guilt of your servant. I have done a very foolish thing.(C)”

Kings 15:5

New International Version

5 For David had done what was right in the eyes of the Lord and had not failed to keep(A) any of the Lord’s commands all the days of his life—except in the case of Uriah(B) the Hittite.

And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel [that is, The face of God]: “For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.”


New Living Translation
No one has ever seen God. But the unique One, who is himself God, is near to the Father’s heart. He has revealed God to us.
My Problrm with this verse:
If Jesus is God, then how can this verse Insinuate no one has ever seen God when they have seen Jesus who is God who makes God known to them, this literally is Confusing!

Conceptual problems:

There was a post on the forums that had stated that the genealogy of Adam, and the meanings of names meant something along the lines of : God shall Provide a saviour.In terms of the Evaluation it seemed that this was deliberate and I considered whether or not as a result, if this account was either True or fictional as:

1.) It would require Adam to have Knowledge of Jesus Christ and God's Plan.
2.) It would required for God to have Caused this to happen which is retrospectively in terms of a way of Emphasizing The Plan, Conceptually imperceivable.
3.) That this was a Prophecy, that only Moses was Made Aware of amongst other things.

From My Collectice analysis, I have stated this on the forums to which no answer was provided:

That if God Created the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, that evil was associated with an action.
From my analysis God also Created something evil, or created the potential for evil.

I talked with someone today, and they stated eve was deceived by the serpent. My problem with this is eve differentiated what she knew was wrong. Deceit is based on what people do not know.

If eve knew that is was wrong to disobey God and was Created good, why didn't she ignore the serpent?

My other Conceptual problems arise as a result of actual contradictions in The Bible.

Such as, ages, and dissimilar accounts in which God was the cause and satan was a cause.

Rules for dicussion:
1.) Because The Bible says that a person can test The Word of God, then do not respond with statements that reflect dishonesty like God is hardening my heart.
2.) Do not base your responses on dishonesty, or imagination. If you are not using some sort of Scripture to base your response, do not come up with a reason why which is not implied through Scripture.
3.) Do not try to base a response of some type of reasoning that makes no sense.

I have stated I'M going to Trust The Bible however, I'm going to examine why these contradictions and problems exist in the first place.

When responding you must consider everything stated to base your response, not avoid, or deny anything or try to rationalize away, or proceed before an actual question , contradiction or otherwise conceptual problem is addressed.

 

[Clare73]

And in all that cutting and pasting, you left out the most important witness of all--the Holy Spirit, who testifies to the heart of the believer that the Scriptures are the
God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16) word of God.

The rest is just window dressing.

 

[GallagherM]

Eusebius @Veteran1990 he was someone very early who believed that the revelation had happened in 70ad. Where can I learn more about him?

 

[Veteran1990]

Eusebius @Veteran1990 he was someone very early who believed that the revelation had happened in 70ad. Where can I learn more about him?

apparently you did not read, that he was involved in compiling The Biblical canon. It might be good to note that.
Apparently you did not read the final section where it states do not respond if:

What you said applies.Only serious discussion is allowed in this.

 

[GallagherM]

Was reading just curious of where can learn more, that is all I’m done reading now though my eyes are tired. Maybe I’ll make to the final section tomorrow you have a good deal here which you have taken time to write up… which is most likely not cut and paste but from notes you have taken down over time.

 

[Veteran1990]

apparently you did not read, that he was involved in compiling The Biblical canon. It might be good to note that.

Was reading just curious of where can learn more, that is all I’m done reading now though my eyes are tired. Maybe I’ll make to the final section tomorrow you have a good deal here which you have taken time to write up… which is most likely not cut and paste but from notes you have taken down over time.

You do realize that i stated that the text was copied from certain sources, and the text that states my conceptual problems were stated in the text

 

[GallagherM]

Now i do thank you for clarification friend.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Beings without origin are not a God or gods in and of themselves would cause a dire evaluation of what makes someone God other then power and Authority.

It has been argued that, Elohim is actually a plural noun (indicated by the /im/ as in cherubim and seraphim) or when there are consonant structures that use the word el as part of their syntax. Sometimes the referent is plural. At other times the referent is singular ( I have grabbed this from another site.) Like most words in English, Elohim can mean several things. Sometimes Elohim refers to plural "gods," as in "You shall have no other gods before me" (Deuteronomy 5:7). At other times it refers to the singular "God," as in "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"

My Provlem is that in terms of language, language is meant to distinctly indicate a meaning and it would not serve a purpouse, much less make sense to use the same word for God's and God is the context associates different meanings in its structure to be used for God and for beings that are not God. That Conceptually makes absolutely zero sense unless there is a reason.

My Conflated problem is that The Hebrew word translated "lord" in this case is plural, even though it refers to the singular David or singular anybody. This Therefore Insinuates a conceptual usage that elohim are gods in the effective order of a God or Elohim.

I'm assuming that because man was given dominion over the fish of the sea, etc, that angel's could have possible been given dominion over man. This may however be wrong.

Elohim

’Elohim, in the first verse of Genesis, does not show the existence of a plurality of persons in the God of Israel. Concerning human authority, it may indicate a plurality of persons. We read in Exodus 22:8: “Both parties shall come before the ’elohim [“judges”], and whom the ’elohim [“judges”] shall condemn, he shall pay double to his neighbor.” However, Jacob wrestles with one being, yet that being is referred to as ’elohim (Genesis 32:31); and the angel that appears to Manoah, the father of Samson, is also referred to as ’elohim (Judges 13:22). Note the words used by the woman in speaking to Saul when, upon seeing Samuel, she exclaims: “I see’elohim coming up out of the earth” (1 Samuel 28:13). Here, ’elohim is followed by the verb in the plural. Yet only a single individual is referred to, as is seen from verse 14: “And he said to her: ‘What is his appearance?’ And she said: ‘An old man is coming up; and he is wrapped in a robe.’” Thus, even joined to a plural verb the noun may still refer to a single individual.

’Elohim means “gods” only when the Bible applies this plural word to pagan deities

Judges 16:23-24, 1 Samuel 5:7). The Moabites, likewise, used the word ’elohim to describe their god Chemosh (Judges 11:24). If trinitarian Christians are correct in their argument that the use of ’Elohim with a singular verb means there are three coeternal, coequal persons in one god, then the same thing must be true for the Philistine god Dagon and the Moabite god Chemosh. They must be respectively a plurality of persons in one god. How else could trinitarians explain the Philistines saying of Dagon: “Our god [’eloheinu] has delivered” (Judges 16:24)? Here, the verb is singular, yet the subject is, literally, “our gods” in the plural. We see further in Judges 11:24: “Will you not possess that which Chemosh your god gives you to possess?” Chemosh is in the singular number, and in apposition with it is ’elohecha (literally “your gods”), which is in the plural number (see also Judges 6:31: “If he [Ba‘al] is a god [’elohim]”).

were not the name of one idol only, but were the names of innumerable idols throughout the respective kingdoms where they were worshiped. Hence, Dagon, Chemosh, and Baal though in the singular form, are collective nouns, which embraced every idol of the realm

However, in every instance:

1.) The jews do not state that they believe in anything but a single God, despite in genesis 26 where it states God said let us Create Man , and single person, in our image.

conceptually, because jews state,

idols are reffered to as elohim, were not the name of one idol only, but were the names of innumerable idols throughout the respective kingdoms where they were worshiped. Hence, Dagon, Chemosh, and Baal though in the singular form, are collective nouns, which embraced every idol of the realm

It Conceptually makes no sense unless melchezidek is both not a part of the Elohim and a part of The Elohim that he would be reffered to without beggining or end of days. He is effectively an untreated immortal. My Problem with this is Jesus Comes after or is Established in The order of melchezidek. So Obviously Melchezidek is essentially a part of an Order Jesus is Established with.

Consistency of thought, The Truth, and The Consistency of the Knowledge of what is True

trustworthy revelation

According to the Hebrew Bible, the Tabernacle (Hebrew: מִשְׁכַּן‎, mishkān, meaning "residence" or "dwelling place"), also known as the Tent of the Congregation (אֹ֣הֶל מוֹעֵד֩ ’ōhel mō‘êḏ, also Tent of Meeting, etc.), was the portable earthly dwelling place of Yahweh (the God of Israel) used by the Israelites from the Exodus until the conquest of Canaan.

48 “However, the Most High does not live in houses made by human hands. As the prophet says:



49 “‘Heaven is my throne,
and the earth is my footstool.
What kind of house will you build for me?
says the Lord.
Or where will my resting place be?
50 Has not my hand made all these things?’[l]




10 David was conscience-stricken(A) after he had counted the fighting men, and he said to the Lord, “I have sinned(B) greatly in what I have done. Now, Lord, I beg you, take away the guilt of your servant. I have done a very foolish thing.(C)”

Kings 15:5

New International Version

5 For David had done what was right in the eyes of the Lord and had not failed to keep(A) any of the Lord’s commands all the days of his life—except in the case of Uriah(B) the Hittite.

And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel [that is, The face of God]: “For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.”


New Living Translation
No one has ever seen God. But the unique One, who is himself God, is near to the Father’s heart. He has revealed God to us.
My Problrm with this verse:
If Jesus is God, then how can this verse Insinuate no one has ever seen God when they have seen Jesus who is God who makes God known to them, this literally is Confusing!

Conceptual problems:

There was a post on the forums that had stated that the genealogy of Adam, and the meanings of names meant something along the lines of : God shall Provide a saviour.In terms of the Evaluation it seemed that this was deliberate and I considered whether or not as a result, if this account was either True or fictional as:

1.) It would require Adam to have Knowledge of Jesus Christ and God's Plan.
2.) It would required for God to have Caused this to happen which is retrospectively in terms of a way of Emphasizing The Plan, Conceptually imperceivable.
3.) That this was a Prophecy, that only Moses was Made Aware of amongst other things.

From My Collectice analysis, I have stated this on the forums to which no answer was provided:

That if God Created the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, that evil was associated with an action.
From my analysis God also Created something evil, or created the potential for evil.

I talked with someone today, and they stated eve was deceived by the serpent. My problem with this is eve differentiated what she knew was wrong. Deceit is based on what people do not know.

If eve knew that is was wrong to disobey God and was Created good, why didn't she ignore the serpent?

My other Conceptual problems arise as a result of actual contradictions in The Bible.

Such as, ages, and dissimilar accounts in which God was the cause and satan was a cause.

Rules for dicussion:
1.) Because The Bible says that a person can test The Word of God, then do not respond with statements that reflect dishonesty like God is hardening my heart.
2.) Do not base your responses on dishonesty, or imagination. If you are not using some sort of Scripture to base your response, do not come up with a reason why which is not implied through Scripture.
3.) Do not try to base a response of some type of reasoning that makes no sense.

I have stated I'M going to Trust The Bible however, I'm going to examine why these contradictions and problems exist in the first place.

When responding you must consider everything stated to base your response, not avoid, or deny anything or try to rationalize away, or proceed before an actual question , contradiction or otherwise conceptual problem is addressed.

Read most and already know about 80% of this.
My question is: What is the reason you posted this?
Does it create a problem for you?

 

[Veteran1990]

Read most and already know about 80% of this.
My question is: What is the reason you posted this?
Does it create a problem for you?

I say you did not read it if you are asking the question.

First, because Jacob, assumed he saw God face to Face while, God Jesus Christ stated that no one has seen God or the apostle stated such, do the Biblical authors of persons even know what they are talking about or are they making assumption.
It Creates a Problrm because the Biblical author's seem ignorant, while in certain Instance's Fully aware of God plan. I am at odds with this because if they were aware of God's particular plans in all areas of The Bible how on earth could they be unaware of who God is in certain instances having met certain beings which parts of The Bible contradict.Because certain part of canon were not in The Bible because they were contradictory or for a myriad of other reasons, then why is there Scripture in canon that makes it seem people were ignorant of who God was. Who Exactly was Jacob's God then?

 

[Veteran1990]

Read most and already know about 80% of this.
My question is: What is the reason you posted this?
Does it create a problem for you?

Read most and already know about 80% of this.
My question is: What is the reason you posted this?
Does it create a problem for you?

I want you to understand this.Jacob: I have met God face to Face. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Jesus: no one has ever seen Yahweh god.

 

[Veteran1990]

I want you to understand this.Jacob: I have met God face to Face. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Jesus: no one has ever seen Yahweh god.

28 And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed.
And This is a massive problem because whoever Wrote no one has seen God is WRONG!

 

[Veteran1990]

28 And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed.
And This is a massive problem because whoever Wrote no one has seen God is WRONG!

Well, it has been Revealed to me that I was wrong.
Either way, my curiosity is to determine some things about the Bible to ensure it hasn't been tampered with and to prove God's Existence if you people did not know.

 

[Veteran1990]

I want you to understand this.Jacob: I have met God face to Face. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Jesus: no one has ever seen Yahweh god.

Explanation:

Jacob assumed he had wrestled with God and He Did,The Angel also responded it was God. The Emphasis is placed on that God has not been seen by men, in terms of God The Father. The Bible is making a distinction between God in context of God the father and of God the son, and God the son as having been the only one who has seen God the father therefore, Jacob could effectively see God ( anyone by distinction who was not Yahweh The Father, while making the distinction that Jacob could see God in any other context that was not The Father Whome Jesus had seen, in The Context of a John

 

[Veteran1990]

I realize this Holy Bible take an act of God to comprehend, thank you God Father.