Birth of the New Testament Church
- Thread starter Wansvic
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Why did the catholic church do such a poor job of changing the text? WHy didnt they change the book of Acts baptismal formulas? Just doesnt seem plausible.
Not to mention, you cant make ANY claim about "The word says" or "The bible says" because you dont even believe in it. You believe there are corruptions in the text. So how can you know the verses you quoted. Colossians 2:9 isnt "changed by the catholics"?
This is dangerous ground to say the least. (And poor research, since the council of Nicea had NOTHING to do with Matthew 28:19.... no scripture was changed. NO EVIDENCE of that whatsoever)
Not to mention, you cant make ANY claim about "The word says" or "The bible says" because you dont even believe in it. You believe there are corruptions in the text. So how can you know the verses you quoted. Colossians 2:9 isnt "changed by the catholics"?
This is dangerous ground to say the least. (And poor research, since the council of Nicea had NOTHING to do with Matthew 28:19.... no scripture was changed. NO EVIDENCE of that whatsoever)
-
1
-
1
- Show all
But what if Jesus meant His flesh body, like our flesh bodies when we accept God become the SONS of God?
Something is definitely missing here since we know the first church "did not" baptize like we read in Matthew 28:19. We have examples of Peter, Timothy, and Paul all baptizing in Name of Jesus (not by Matthew 28:18). And since I have had access to the Catholic Schism for 40+ years and was in my family before that, it's well known the Catholics more than likely did change Jesus' actual words. I cannot fathom Peter baptizing any other way than he was taught by Christ to do!!
-
1
- Show all
I think I already answered that. Only a few people in the 4th century and during the nicene creed era could actually read. They only needed to change what God supposedly said because who could read the Book of Acts back then and challenge them? It basically looks like the Nicene Council was not as inspired by God as people have been led to believe. Might be why we have Books like Jasher and Enoch missing when Joshua and David quoted from Jasher, and Yeshua and Jude quoted from Enoch. The council clearly had a devious purpose and fulfilled it. I mean look at this confusion in this thread alone. They clearly did their jobs..
-
2
-
1
- Show all
I understand the argument. But again: HOW can you be sure Acts wasnt corrupted? That John's epistles werent changed? Paul's epistles?
When you open the door for ANY verse being changed, the whole thing comes crashing down.
Its an all or nothing deal. (For me atleast).
We got just the right books in the Bible. If you've read Enoch, you know it contains a BUNCH of errors of all kinds. Paul also quoted pagan poets, so something being quoted isnt necessarily proof it HAS to be within the canon.
I believe in God's providence.
When you open the door for ANY verse being changed, the whole thing comes crashing down.
Its an all or nothing deal. (For me atleast).
We got just the right books in the Bible. If you've read Enoch, you know it contains a BUNCH of errors of all kinds. Paul also quoted pagan poets, so something being quoted isnt necessarily proof it HAS to be within the canon.
I believe in God's providence.
-
1
- Show all
You know that in the Old Testament God never spoke of a devil's hell. Hell has always been known as the grave we are buried in. Jesus even mentions this by claiming the area outside the city where they burned bodies to keep disease down liken to hell (grave). All Hebrews and Jews do not believe in a sinners hell. So clearly, there is no sinners hell, only the Lake of Fire.
So, if we know how the Hebrew/Jews feel about a sinners hell, and we know Christ as God taught them there is no sinners hell.. HOW DID THE STORY OF LAZARUS/RICH MAN get included into the Bible? Obviously, Jesus never spoke of such a story and situation, it was added in.
Another prime example:
Isaiah existed 700 years before the langage known as Latin Vulgate existed. But in the Book of Isaiah (written in Hebrew/Aramaic), there is a Latin Vulgate word that once again did not exist for another 700 years. That word is Lucifer. So, how did that Latin Vulgate word get into the Book of Isaiah when the language did not even exist at the time Isaiah wrote it?
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Well, you just removed a bunch of stuff from the Bible. Not good at all.
Is this some recent conspirasy theory? Hebrews DID and DO believe in hell. The pharisees certainly believed in hell, and they also beleived in the resurrection and ETERNITY. The sadducees didnt.
I come from a judaizer background and there are a variety of views even today. Usually we just sweep the issue under the rug lol.
Hell is NOT the grave, because of Matthew 10:28 and Matthew 25:46, 2 Thess 1:6-8 and OTHER VERSES. Many verses make no sense if its just annihilation. "Dont be afraid of someone who can take your life, but be afraid of someone who can take your life".... uhh, ok?
The story of Lazarus and the rich man is in ALL the manuscripts we have. Ancient ones too. You have absolutely no evidence for this. Im just urging people reading this to check it out, check the manuscript evidence, check the scholars, check the history books and you will see what he is saying IS NOT true.
No story was added to the Bible. You can trust your Bible!
And one last thing to dismantle: There is no latin in isaiah.. I really hope you are just repeating what someone told you and doing this out of ignorance.... Did you check Isaiah 14:12? in the KJV it says lucifer, yes. But in the MASORETIC HEBREW it does not, here:
הֵילֵ֣ל <-This word is translated as LUCIFER, but in hebrew its helel.... meaning a bright star or a shining star etc.
Is this some recent conspirasy theory? Hebrews DID and DO believe in hell. The pharisees certainly believed in hell, and they also beleived in the resurrection and ETERNITY. The sadducees didnt.
I come from a judaizer background and there are a variety of views even today. Usually we just sweep the issue under the rug lol.
Hell is NOT the grave, because of Matthew 10:28 and Matthew 25:46, 2 Thess 1:6-8 and OTHER VERSES. Many verses make no sense if its just annihilation. "Dont be afraid of someone who can take your life, but be afraid of someone who can take your life".... uhh, ok?
The story of Lazarus and the rich man is in ALL the manuscripts we have. Ancient ones too. You have absolutely no evidence for this. Im just urging people reading this to check it out, check the manuscript evidence, check the scholars, check the history books and you will see what he is saying IS NOT true.
No story was added to the Bible. You can trust your Bible!
And one last thing to dismantle: There is no latin in isaiah.. I really hope you are just repeating what someone told you and doing this out of ignorance.... Did you check Isaiah 14:12? in the KJV it says lucifer, yes. But in the MASORETIC HEBREW it does not, here:
הֵילֵ֣ל <-This word is translated as LUCIFER, but in hebrew its helel.... meaning a bright star or a shining star etc.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Perhaps. The language "go down in the pit" in the OT may offer some clues. I don't believe the doctrine of hell was made up in NT times or thereabouts.
Well, you're assuming you're correct in the above first sentence, then going off of that as if men make things true by their beliefs.
Also, Christ did not teach "there is no sinners hell."
Because the version you are referring to wasn't originally authored by Isaiah. You're talking about a copy. Why would he have originally authored his book with the word "Lucifer?"
Well, you're assuming you're correct in the above first sentence, then going off of that as if men make things true by their beliefs.
Also, Christ did not teach "there is no sinners hell."
Because the version you are referring to wasn't originally authored by Isaiah. You're talking about a copy. Why would he have originally authored his book with the word "Lucifer?"
Ditto. There is nothing better than open eyes. Thank you so much for your comment. Great to see others planting and watering! 
If just one person receives the increase from God it will all be worth it. Continue to be blessed!
If just one person receives the increase from God it will all be worth it. Continue to be blessed!
-
1
- Show all
Isn't this just a 2.0 version of your other thread teaching that water baptism is required for salvation, and IT HAS TO BE in the name of Christ, AND not as Christ Himself said in Matthew
28:19) Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
If so, please explain how the very words CHRIST HIMSELF have less credibility than those spoken by Paul or another Apostle.
28:19) Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
If so, please explain how the very words CHRIST HIMSELF have less credibility than those spoken by Paul or another Apostle.
-
2
- Show all
From the Word if we say Jesus or Holy Gost or Father we are saying the name of the child bron to the Virgin…….Isaiah 9:6...…….there are many other references to God as the King, the Husband, the Redeemer in the OT..…...God is One,. all has mystery to be revealed but in the meantime we believe God..by the faith He has given us.
The birth of the N.T. church began the moment JESUS called OUT the first two disciples that had been prepared by John the Baptist....two to three times during the ministry of Jesus the church Christ started is called The church in the present tense...do not conflate the empowering of the Church with the beginning of the church.......two all together different "animals"......!
Jesus said: "...All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen." Matt 28:18-20
According to the catholic teaching in the booklet they admit they changed the formula used in baptizing, not that they changed the biblical record.
When focusing on exactly what Jesus said in Matthew "baptizing in the name of..." it is clear He is referring to His own name. For it is written "...in Him (Jesus) dwells all of the fullness of the Godhead bodily." Col 2:9
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen." Matt 28:18-20
According to the catholic teaching in the booklet they admit they changed the formula used in baptizing, not that they changed the biblical record.
When focusing on exactly what Jesus said in Matthew "baptizing in the name of..." it is clear He is referring to His own name. For it is written "...in Him (Jesus) dwells all of the fullness of the Godhead bodily." Col 2:9
-
1
- Show all
Seems like the messenger is wanted shot. The real question is: how much has each believer investigated deeply the issue?
To start:
http://www.godglorified.com/collection_of_evidence.htm
Then the superior research skills of well intentioned grace saved believers could be put to good use to get the facts and have the presuppositions changed if the evidence points to a difference from accepted dogma.
The point some are trying to make in this thread is that you cannot face Jesus as say: the pastor / pope, team leader, etc. told me so and I did not check.
The Bible is clear: check all and retain what is good, be like noble Synagogue Bereans and check with Scripture to see if things are so.
Kind Regards.
To start:
http://www.godglorified.com/collection_of_evidence.htm
Then the superior research skills of well intentioned grace saved believers could be put to good use to get the facts and have the presuppositions changed if the evidence points to a difference from accepted dogma.
The point some are trying to make in this thread is that you cannot face Jesus as say: the pastor / pope, team leader, etc. told me so and I did not check.
The Bible is clear: check all and retain what is good, be like noble Synagogue Bereans and check with Scripture to see if things are so.
Kind Regards.
-
1
- Show all
I understand what you say, but I am not sure about a devious purpose. You know the adage the way to hell is paved with good intentions.
To me their intention was not that bad: fight the Arianism heresy. Now the means was incorrect. If they changed Scripture, that is a no no.
My concern is when modern scholars, theologians, academicians, etc. are aware of the problem with the present formula in Mt. 28:19, and do not do anything about it.
Now we can think that there is a devious purpose, or they are afraid of what others may think.
Why can't they just put "in my name", as the most likely rendering taking into consideration internal and external evidence, and put a note to it for a footnote saying: "after the 4th century the long formula appeared and was used, there are various views on the reason for it, but the long formula by internal evidence does not seem original, but added later"
I would be happy, many persons would be happy, and you would not give the devil another reason to attack christianity, saying that the Scripture is corrupted.
Simple, elegant, transparent, and with probity.
We must remember that Athanasius was not an Apostle, but an office holder way before. He sincerely was defending the divinity of our Savior.
kind regards.
To me their intention was not that bad: fight the Arianism heresy. Now the means was incorrect. If they changed Scripture, that is a no no.
My concern is when modern scholars, theologians, academicians, etc. are aware of the problem with the present formula in Mt. 28:19, and do not do anything about it.
Now we can think that there is a devious purpose, or they are afraid of what others may think.
Why can't they just put "in my name", as the most likely rendering taking into consideration internal and external evidence, and put a note to it for a footnote saying: "after the 4th century the long formula appeared and was used, there are various views on the reason for it, but the long formula by internal evidence does not seem original, but added later"
I would be happy, many persons would be happy, and you would not give the devil another reason to attack christianity, saying that the Scripture is corrupted.
Simple, elegant, transparent, and with probity.
We must remember that Athanasius was not an Apostle, but an office holder way before. He sincerely was defending the divinity of our Savior.
kind regards.
This was explained in another post in this thread:
"In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" is considered a speech used in a very specialized style called liturgical jargon or language. Jesus never spoke like that, and that is part of the Internal evidence experts use to tell what may be spurious.
You can do Google search about internal evidence use in textual criticism, there are articles in Christian encyclopedias explaining this problem.
Resources exist, just a researching attitude, and willingness to spend some time can shed light on this problem.
See Liberal atheists are sometimes expert critical thinkers, and they thrive checking details like this, and since most of christiandom refuses to see the problem, atheist use stuff like this to discredit the faith.
Paul wants us to beat them at their own game. Learn about all of this, and show them that God gave you rationality, and that the Holy Spirit guides you to real truth so you can be a life line for them.
"In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" is considered a speech used in a very specialized style called liturgical jargon or language. Jesus never spoke like that, and that is part of the Internal evidence experts use to tell what may be spurious.
You can do Google search about internal evidence use in textual criticism, there are articles in Christian encyclopedias explaining this problem.
Resources exist, just a researching attitude, and willingness to spend some time can shed light on this problem.
See Liberal atheists are sometimes expert critical thinkers, and they thrive checking details like this, and since most of christiandom refuses to see the problem, atheist use stuff like this to discredit the faith.
Paul wants us to beat them at their own game. Learn about all of this, and show them that God gave you rationality, and that the Holy Spirit guides you to real truth so you can be a life line for them.