Melchisedec

[jaybird88]

It was an ancient library. Does this mean you think every book in a library ought to be preapproved by the government?

i distrust most all governments as they always prove to be untrustworthy and corrupt. some good examples would be the governments of herod and his roman contemporaries.
your right it was a library, a library built way out on the outskirts away from roman and herods influence. kept by people that wanted nothing to do with the corruption, that went to great lengths to preserve these text. this community would have been in operation in the days of Jesus, He gives no warnings to stay clear of these people.

And, did you miss what "inspired" means when we're talking about the Bible? Because that didn't make sense.

maybe this will make sense, you have 2 books, both are said to be inspired of the Lord, a council comes in and decides one book is inspired, the other is not.
now do you get it?

 

[oldhermit]

i believe our Lord is powerful enough to do anything. i also believe satan can corrupt and i believe mankind can corrupt.

did our Lord inspire the roman councils when they decided which books were acceptable and which were not?
are these the same councils that gave us the crusades, the inquisitions, that put to death anyone that question official doctrines?
if there is more out there i want to know and i think a lot can be learned from text such as the dead sea scrolls. i think its insane to ignore text such as this because a council tells you to. where does Jesus tell us to put such faith in these councils?

I think God used these men in the same way he used the godless Chaldeans and the Assyrians. These were wicked nations and God used them to accomplish his will. The fact that you do not believe God has preserved his word precisely as he has desired does not make it any less true. What we have as the biblical text today was accepted as scripture for more than 200 years before the Bible was recognized in its entirety by these councils.

 

[oldhermit]

now do you get it?

I am afraid you are the one who does not Get it. You completely dismiss the will and power of God to preserve that which he has chosen to preserve as scripture. The human factor is completely irrelavent.

 

[jaybird88]

I think God used these men in the same way he used the godless Chaldeans and the Assyrians. These were wicked nations and God used them to accomplish his will. The fact that you do not believe God has preserved his word precisely as he has desired does not make it any less true. What we have as the biblical text today was accepted as scripture for more than 200 years before the Bible was recognized in its entirety by these councils.

and how do you know our Lord did not use the qumran community to preserve important teachings?

 

[oldhermit]

and how do you know our Lord did not use the qumran community to preserve important teachings?

He did. Just look at the catalogue of inspired texts that were preserved in this collection. But, this does not mean that everything found in the Dead Sea collection is inspired. I will even provide you with a website to help you out. The Dead Sea Scrolls - Featured Scrolls

 

[oldhermit]

i believe our Lord is powerful enough to do anything. i also believe satan can corrupt and i believe mankind can corrupt.

Are you suggesting in this that Satan and man have more power to corrupt and destroy God's word than God has to preserve it?

 

[jaybird88]

Are you suggesting in this that Satan and man have more power to corrupt and destroy God's word than God has to preserve it?

is this a serious question? your asking if i believe that satan, with the help of man, can over power the All High?

no hermit i do not think satan has more power than the Father.

 

[oldhermit]

is this a serious question? your asking if i believe that satan, with the help of man, can over power the All High?

no hermit i do not think satan has more power than the Father.

Let me rephrase the question. What you have stated in you words is that Satan and man have DEMONSTRATED more power to corrupt and destroy the word of God than God has demonstrated in preserving it. This may not be what you meant to say but I cannot respond to what you may have meant. I can only respond to what you have said. The claim in your statement is that the Word of God has been allowed to be corrupted and destroyed by Satan and by man to the point that we can no longer depend upon the revealed test as the word of God. These are the consequences of your words. At any rate, I have very little patience with this type of nonsense. The discussion of this thread is about Melchizedek, not a defense of the Biblical text. Perhaps you need to take this foolishness to another thread and let the rest of us continue our discussion.

 

[miknik5]

What did you go out to see?

 

[jaybird88]

Let me rephrase the question. What you have stated in you words is that Satan and man have DEMONSTRATED more power to corrupt and destroy the word of God than God has demonstrated in preserving it. This may not be what you meant to say but I cannot respond to what you may have meant. I can only respond to what you have said. The claim in your statement is that the Word of God had been allowed to be corrupted and destroyed by Satan and by man to the point that we can no longer depend upon the revealed test as the word of God. These are the consequences of your words. At any rate, I have very little patience with this type of nonsense. The discussion of this thread is about Melchizedek, not a defense of the Biblical text. Perhaps you need to take this foolishness to another thread and let the rest of us continue our discussion.

no i never said that.
the books of the bible we have are good. they are not false. this i believe.

the problem i have are the books we dont have. at one time there were other books. the early church fathers mentioned these. Gospel of Thomas and Gospel of the Nazarenes are 2 that i remember and there were many more.

 

[oldhermit]

no i never said that.
the books of the bible we have are good. they are not false. this i believe.

the problem i have are the books we dont have. at one time there were other books. the early church fathers mentioned these. Gospel of Thomas and Gospel of the Nazarenes are 2 that i remember and there were many more.

Have you ever read the gospel of Thomas?

 

[jaybird88]

Have you ever read the gospel of Thomas?

i have read both of those books. i have not studied them thoroughly, i am not an expert on them. from what i read on Thomas i liked it, the gospel of the Nazarenes im not so sure about, the language seems different and it feels different than the other books.

 

[miknik5]

i have read both of those books. i have not studied them thoroughly, i am not an expert on them. from what i read on Thomas i liked it, the gospel of the Nazarenes im not so sure about, the language seems different and it feels different than the other books.

Did you ever concentrate on the very beginning words of the gospel of Thomas?

 

[oldhermit]

i have read both of those books. i have not studied them thoroughly, i am not an expert on them. from what i read on Thomas i liked it, the gospel of the Nazarenes im not so sure about, the language seems different and it feels different than the other books.

I once taught a class some 20 years ago or so on the so-called gospel of Thomas comparing it to the four gospels. How anyone can read that piece of literary foolishness and not see the difference between it and the four inspired gospels in beyond my comprehension. It is like all the other pseudo-documents. There is nothing about these works that even resemble scripture. The same is true of the OT pseudo-documents, none of which Jesus ever referred to as scripture. They are works written solely through the imagination of man and are completely devoid of any divine authenticity or spiritual significance. At any rate, unless you have any observation from SCRIPTURE regarding Melchizedek, I am finished with this discussion.

 

[miknik5]

The words of thomas begin like this:

The true sayings of the RISEN JESUS...
If anyone were to interpret these sayings, he will certainly not taste death.


The very words of thomas are misleading to any one who does not first come to know THE LORD...for it implies that a man can somehow attain to a level of communication with THE FATHER apart from THE SON

And no man can...

 

[jaybird88]

Did you ever concentrate on the very beginning words of the gospel of Thomas?

the first saying or the introduction?

 

[miknik5]

the first saying or the introduction?

The introduction...

Do you see how misleading these words are?
It treats the RISEN JESUS(and I stress this because it is the RISEN JESUS who is mentioned and is already an indicator for any man to understand that HE is not just some "wisdom teacher" with "wise sayings"..HE is not to be treated and lumped in with other "philosophers" or "wise teachers")...but that is what is implied in Thomas' "gospel"...that any man who were to interpret these sayings will certainly not taste death.


This is the issue...certain sayings which have nothing to do, nor mention the GOSPEL and the teachings of the Apostle, in the hands of babies, implies that babies can attain to communication with GOD by clinging and dissecting words on paper...

And that, I believe, the church elders were more concerned about.

Baby christians not even beginning IN CHRIST...who would take the sayings and words, cling to these sayings, putting their faith in their own ability to interpret sayings rather than simply clinging to THE ONE whom they should cling to.

CHRIST.

 

[jaybird88]

I once taught a class some 20 years ago or so on the so-called gospel of Thomas comparing it to the four gospels. How anyone can read that piece of literary foolishness and not see the difference between it and the four inspired gospels in beyond my comprehension. It is like all the other pseudo-documents. There is nothing about these works that even resemble scripture. The same is true of the OT pseudo-documents, none of which Jesus ever referred to as scripture. They are works written solely through the imagination of man and are completely devoid of any divine authenticity or spiritual significance. At any rate, unless you have any observation from SCRIPTURE regarding Melchizedek, I am finished with this discussion.

so we are back to square one, unless the book is approved by a roman council you would never consider it. i would rather read it and make up my own mind, i dont need a council to tell me what to think.

 

[miknik5]

They are the TRUE SAYINGS of the RISEN JESUS...they do not contradict the WORD of GOD...there are many sayings that are already present in the WORD of GOD...but the way CHRIST is presented in this "gospel" (which is NO GOSPEL) to one who is ignorant to the TRUTH of THE GOSPEL does NOTHING for a man...and will NOT save a man...

In fact, it rather...hinders and keeps from the man the understanding that he must come to THE SON first and foremost...and cling to HIM first and foremost...

 

[jaybird88]

The words of thomas begin like this:

The true sayings of the RISEN JESUS...
If anyone were to interpret these sayings, he will certainly not taste death.


The very words of thomas are misleading to any one who does not first come to know THE LORD...for it implies that a man can somehow attain to a level of communication with THE FATHER apart from THE SON

And no man can...

you left off part of the introduction which was - and Didymos Judas Thomas recorded.

the introduction only claims the sayings were recorded by Thomas.

and the introductions i read say living Jesus