• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Maria Billingsley

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oct 7, 2018
11,251
9,308
65
Martinez
✟1,156,113.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Is all this from Bart Ehrman ?
 
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Site Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,686
7,908
...
✟1,323,209.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married

I don't agree with everything Alan Ballou says. Either way, I would encourage you to watch the whole video because he shows lots of verses that pertain to your situation.
 
Upvote 0

Jipsah

Blood Drinker
Aug 17, 2005
13,863
4,508
72
Franklin, Tennessee
✟295,358.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
29,442
7,593
North Carolina
✟348,625.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Eusebius @Veteran1990 he was someone very early who believed that the revelation had happened in 70ad. Where can I learn more about him?
Eusibius believed that Matthew 24:15-22 happened in 70 AD.
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
29,442
7,593
North Carolina
✟348,625.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
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!
Jacob did not see God face to face, just as Moses did not.
Jacob "wrestled with a man who could not over power him" (Genesis 32:24-30),
he saw God in the form of an angel (or the pre-Incarnate Christ), and Moses saw his glory/goodness (Exodus 33:19-20).
Neither saw God himself ("face to face").
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

eleos1954

God is Love
Site Supporter
Nov 14, 2017
11,027
6,442
Utah
✟855,543.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
He is not a Type, God himself differentiate's that his is not Yahweh and not christ. Either way if I Continue arguing with you all I'll lose my Faith.

There are types and anti-types all throughout His Word.

A type is a symbol appointed by God to adumbrate something higher in the future, which is called the antitype
 
Upvote 0

Bruce Leiter

A sinner saved by God's astounding grace and love
Jun 16, 2018
782
551
82
West Michigan
Visit site
✟64,365.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married

Your whole summary is interesting (I read all of it), but I want to ask you, (1) Which "historians" and "scholars" did you rely on to arrive at your conclusions? You quote one from BYU; that probably means that he is a Mormon with a view that would be on different assumptions than biblical ones.

(2) How much did you read of other historians and scholars who disagree with those people with whom you agree, and why did they disagree? (If you don't agree with them, why not?)

My point is that the so-called experts also have hidden agendas and assumptions that color their approach to the Scriptures. For example, you say at the beginning that your approach is anthropological. Other approaches of the Bible look at it on the basis of the Bible's own assumptions, because they believe that the Holy Spirit guided the gathering of the canon.

I'll give you an example. I was reading a commentary of the Gospel of John by a scholar who didn't believe in God's inspiration of that and all the other books. His conclusion was that though he didn't agree with John, John definitely believed that God is a Trinity.

You see, when you approach the Bible thinking that the books are not inspired by God, the way Paul says they are in 2 Timothy 3:16-18 and Peter says they are in 2 Peter 1:16-21, you will come to the conclusions that those historians and scholars have.

On the other hand, if God has given you faith to believe in him and the Bible's revealing of him, especially in Jesus Christ, you approach the so-called problems as mysteries not revealed by God through his inspired writers.

One last point is that God is revealed in the Bible as one God in three Persons (the Gospel of John and other passages) and Jesus as both fully God and fully human (shown in the Gospel of Mark, for example). No one including the writers of the Bible could have come up with those ideas; they are beyond human thought. That observation demonstrates to me that God had to have inspired those writers to write their histories and ideas, since humans couldn't have imagined such a mysterious God and Jesus.

I have one suggestion. Instead of reading people's wrting about the Bible, try reading the Bible itself in a modern translation like the NIV that comes directly from the Greek and Hebrew. Let it convince you that God did or didn't reveal himself in that whole Book. (I suggest that when you come to the lists and geneologies, you get the idea and move so as not to get bogged down.) Enjoy!
 
Last edited:
Reactions: Clare73
Upvote 0

Veteran1990

Active Member
Jul 6, 2021
159
54
55
texas
✟25,385.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Ad hominem duly noted.

And pot calling the kettle- You are the one with the "attitude" insulting posters who have responded not us.
The fact you are offended is the problem.

second, melchizidek is not a type of Christ. Christ is himself differentiated, next...
 
Upvote 0

Veteran1990

Active Member
Jul 6, 2021
159
54
55
texas
✟25,385.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Citations, por favor.

Dang.

Psalm 110:4 -The LORD has sworn and will not change his mind, “You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.”

It is obvious that if God is referring to Jesus Christ,God the son that because God is differentiating he is not Melchezidek, and not Christ, He is not a type of Christ it can not be understood in any other way. If melchizidek is not God, in the sense he is the maximum authority of Creator, than it is Conceprually challenging to understand The Concept of The Trinity.

My other problem were that if The Bible does not use the term "Lord " in The beggining of Genesis, why not? it does not state that God Created man, but that the elohim created man.either way it obvious if The Binle does not say that Melchizidek is God, and that he is not Christ that MELCHEZIDEK is JESUS or Christ its not that hard to understand and this is not a statement meant to offend you im responding out of aggravation that if The Text, is DIFFERENTIATING the person saying it, to whom he is stating it to it does not say that Jesus is in the Order of Jesus. it says Melchezidek is a Priest Forever, and Jesus is in that Order after Melchezidek.

How could it be insinuated that he is Jesus or that Melchezidek is a Type of Christ? Where does the doctrine of a " type of christ" originate. I have heard many people say melchezidek is Jesus, and that is not make sense anywhere between what is said in the verses.
 
Upvote 0

Veteran1990

Active Member
Jul 6, 2021
159
54
55
texas
✟25,385.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Your whole summary is interesting (I read all of it), but I want to ask you, (1) Which "historians" and "scholars" did you rely on to arrive at your conclusions? You quote one from BYU; that probably means that he is a Mormon with a view that would be on different assumptions than biblical ones.

Whether or not he is a Mormon is essential to the evaluation of his involvement in influencing biblical canon, which is my point. Denominatiins are those who specifically try to change Scripture based on their view of what Scripture is, it is the reason that Bible version are nothing more than a denominational version.

This explains why Scriptures are whollefully taken out of certain Bible version where verses are not in binle versions despite being in others.

If Christians had any concept of how Biblical canon was Compiled, much less how denominational versions are denomination specific they would understand why they disagree with other denominations like the carholic church and the Christian Church.It also provided a basis for why and whether, The Biblical canon was Compiled correctly. In its beggining it is due to note the reasons that certain writing was included or excluded, and for what basis as to why it's IN the Bible. However, these types of Evaluatiobs tread on the oharisee and legal expert who want to make The Bible what they want to make it. If you read what I wrote, you would notice that they also very largely dispute book's that are currently in The Bible which is, questionable as to their motives.


(2) How much did you read of other historians and scholars who disagree with those people with whom you agree, and why did they disagree? (If you don't agree with them, why not?)
It is not based on whether I personally agree or anyone, it is a matter of the criteria:

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.


I had thought after reading that antiquity is relative to determine if it was written by an apostle, not a writing style as how could someone believe it was written by an apostle without knowing it, and basing that as the basis for all other written texts that followed that writing style? Unless you knew it was written by an apostle the criteria is nothing more than based on a belief in which the writing style is the basis for determine an author and his or her writings and whether ot not a text is associated with the same author. Of course, there are going to be different writing styles by different people even if they have God's Holy Spirit.

And the third was orthodoxy, or how well the text conformed with current Christian teaching

This is nothing more than control over what sounds correct, my issue and the result of all arguments here. If it does not conform with " Christian " teaching it is considered heretical. How can it say in God's Word that Melchezidek is not God or Jesus and then there be " christians" who argue melchezidek is a " type " or christ?
Most " Christian's don't even read the Bible, so when you point it out that there is something in the Bible that conflicts with what they've been taught, your evil how then are they not saying God is evil and how much more contradictory in that they consider Yahweh Holy when they are calling you evil for whats in God's own word. And this is why I hate discussing thing's with Christians because they are innumerable contraditive. It suggests they are brainwashed, not led By The Holy Spirit that penned The Bible. For instance when God is talking in job, he state's that he created animals so that they could pray on other animal. You tell a Christian that, and they get questionable in ferm's of what they understand.

Quote:
My point is that the so-called experts also have hidden agendas and assumptions that color their approach to the Scriptures. For example, you say at the beginning that your approach is anthropological. Other approaches of the Bible look at it on the basis of the Bible's own assumptions, because they believe that the Holy Spirit guided the gathering of the canon.

The Holy Spirit taught Paul and the Other's. No one is Disputing that fact, my problem is that there are Bible versions which have been altered, and everyone knows it. If God's Word can be altered who is to say that it hasn't been in antiquity and isn't this important to find out? Even if its for yourself? If something doesn't make sense it should be talked about not disregarded, like many Christians do.
Quote:

I'll give you an example. I was reading a commentary of the Gospel of John by a scholar who didn't believe in God's inspiration of that and all the other books. His conclusion was that though he didn't agree with John, John definitely believed that God is a Trinity.

This would follow suit with Martin Luther who removed parts of the Bible that didn't sit well with his view. Who is to say many others did not remove parts of The Bible that didn't sit well with their view that compiled it. A Christian can not argue that the Bible is free of being corrupted, if that is man's intent. They also can't argue that it is not something that happened and bury their head in the sand as if there is any reason to believe people had honest efforts in compiling the Bible. I'm not suggesting gnostic text should be in The Bible however there should be closer scrutiny into what The Bible is
denominations have for a very long period of time included texts into a Bible version that others exclude so how can Christian's say that the Bible they have is accurate without basing it on a very unbiased evaluation and Extensivr Research? The people involved in it's original Compilation should have cited source and reasons for why they included or excluded books. Now obvious books should be excluded like the book of Enoch for obvious reasons in that it was written 1.A.D, Enoch was in heaven and didn't speak the Ethiopian or Slavonic language. However, what about other books? There should be a concise library of why or why not a book was included, not a crappy list of criteria for what a person believed should be in God's Word? If God is The Author the vetting process shouldn't be so lazy and based on what people believe but can verify!

You see, when you approach the Bible thinking that the books are not inspired by God, the way Paul says they are in 2 Timothy 3:16-18 and Peter says they are in 2 Peter 1:16-21, you will come to the conclusions that those historians and scholars have.

On the other hand, if God has given you faith to believe in him and the Bible's revealing of him, especially in Jesus Christ, you approach the so-called problems as mysteries not revealed by God through his inspired writers.

One last point is that God is revealed in the Bible as one God in three Persons (the Gospel of John and other passages) and Jesus as both fully God and fully human (shown in the Gospel of Mark, for example). No one including the writers of the Bible could have come up with those ideas; they are beyond human thought.
First, they are not beyond human thought. What is in The Bible alludes to Jesus Christ throughout its entirety in Genesis, it is nowhere outside of Human thought when it is provided in The Text it is associated with. It is differentiated in that a person who can perform those miracles if of God who is then Chosen by God and directly Dtated to be that person when the time comes to pass the person if the one performing those miracles.

All throughout The Bible it can not be argued a pre-incarnate Jesus is present throughout Scripture and then say it is beyond human thought.



That observation demonstrates to me that God had to have inspired those writers to write their histories and ideas, since humans couldn't have imagined such a mysterious God and Jesus.

No one, has imagined anything. The Bible itself differentiates between good and evil spirits. Other peoples religions are not false, in that they communicate with spirit's, however they are obviously not good if they lie. My Problem is when I read in ahab that God sent a lying spirit to deceive those who were false prophet's how much of religion is God himself involved in? And this is based on if people want to believe a lie.

I have one suggestion. Instead of reading people's wrting about the Bible, try reading the Bible itself in a modern translation like the NIV that comes directly from the Greek and Hebrew. Let it convince you that God did or didn't reveal himself in that whole Book. (I suggest that when you come to the lists and geneologies, you get the idea and move so as not to get bogged down.) Enjoy![/QUOTE]
THE niv is the worst Bible possibly in that it states that christ is not God in every verse!
 
Upvote 0

GallagherM

Well-Known Member
Jun 13, 2021
818
349
34
Fyffe
✟13,469.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Eusibius believed that Matthew 24:15-22 happened in 70 AD.

Thank you for the correction. I agree with him. I believe that everything that Jesus Christ told his disciples came about in 70ad which makes me someone whom is crazy and heretical for the most part according to others anyway. (You or anyone else may disagree wont fight on that subject anyway).
 
Upvote 0