Who is the shepherd of God's people
- Thread starter S-word
- 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.
Is this your way of saying that the Roman church of Emperor Constantine is the one who claims to be the shepherd of God's people?
As far as going to a catholic forum, been there, done that, got banned. You don't claim that Mary was not a virgin after the act by which she conceived the son of Joseph ben Heli and expect not to be banned.
Everyone here seems to believe only in the canon that was established in the 4th century by Constanines church.
As far as going to a catholic forum, been there, done that, got banned. You don't claim that Mary was not a virgin after the act by which she conceived the son of Joseph ben Heli and expect not to be banned.
Everyone here seems to believe only in the canon that was established in the 4th century by Constanines church.
Last edited:
Now the books that made up scripture, ie the new testament where written close to 30Ad to 100Ad.
Is there a reason why you would accept other books in the new testament than this?
The theology expressed in the books of the cannon are consistent and inter-linked.
And this is really the historical, theological point. If you want other books to be included
you have to ask why, because this argument was settled in 400AD.
I do not think any theologian is no willing to look at something new, but you need to declare
it and show its argument else it is just being critical for no particular reason.
Is there a reason why you would accept other books in the new testament than this?
The theology expressed in the books of the cannon are consistent and inter-linked.
And this is really the historical, theological point. If you want other books to be included
you have to ask why, because this argument was settled in 400AD.
I do not think any theologian is no willing to look at something new, but you need to declare
it and show its argument else it is just being critical for no particular reason.
From your canon which was compiled from a few of the books from which Jesus and his apostles quoted Genesis 11: 12; when Arpachshad was 35, he had a son named Shelah.
Chronicles 1: 18. Again it is said; "Arpachshad was the father of Shelah."
Nowhere else in your OT will you find any mention of the father of Shelah. And yet in Luke 3: 35-37; Luke says that Arpachshad is the father of Cainam/Kainam, who is the father of Shelah.
Is Luke lying? Or did Luke quote from a book that your canon compilers has rejected?
From the book of Jubilees--[Chapter 8] 1 In the twenty-ninth jubilee, in the first week, [1373 A.M.] in the beginning thereof Arpachshad took to himself a wife and her name was Rasu’eja, the daughter of Susan, the daughter of Elam, and she 2 bare him a son in the third year in this week, [1375 A.M.] and he called his name Kainam. And the son grew, and his father taught him writing, and he went to seek for himself a place where he might seize for 3 himself a city. And he found a writing which former (generations) had carved on the rock, and he read what was thereon, and he transcribed it and sinned owing to it; for it contained the teaching of the Watchers in accordance with which they used to observe the omens of the sun and moon and 4 stars in all the signs of heaven. And he wrote it down and said nothing regarding it; for he was 5 afraid to speak to Noah about it lest he should be angry with him on account of it. And in the thirtieth jubilee, [1429 A.M.] in the second week, in the first year thereof, he took to himself a wife, and her name was Melka, the daughter of Madai, the son of Japheth, and in the fourth year [1432 A.M.] he begat a son, and 6 called his name Shelah; for he said: ’Truly I have been sent.’
But I believe that Luke had been taught from the Septuagint, which was a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, by Hebrews in Alexandria some 200 years before Jesus, where we read in Genesis 11: 12; And Arpachshad lived 135 years [ Not 35 years as your corrupted cannon states] and begat Cainan/Kainam.
Chronicles 1: 18. Again it is said; "Arpachshad was the father of Shelah."
Nowhere else in your OT will you find any mention of the father of Shelah. And yet in Luke 3: 35-37; Luke says that Arpachshad is the father of Cainam/Kainam, who is the father of Shelah.
Is Luke lying? Or did Luke quote from a book that your canon compilers has rejected?
From the book of Jubilees--[Chapter 8] 1 In the twenty-ninth jubilee, in the first week, [1373 A.M.] in the beginning thereof Arpachshad took to himself a wife and her name was Rasu’eja, the daughter of Susan, the daughter of Elam, and she 2 bare him a son in the third year in this week, [1375 A.M.] and he called his name Kainam. And the son grew, and his father taught him writing, and he went to seek for himself a place where he might seize for 3 himself a city. And he found a writing which former (generations) had carved on the rock, and he read what was thereon, and he transcribed it and sinned owing to it; for it contained the teaching of the Watchers in accordance with which they used to observe the omens of the sun and moon and 4 stars in all the signs of heaven. And he wrote it down and said nothing regarding it; for he was 5 afraid to speak to Noah about it lest he should be angry with him on account of it. And in the thirtieth jubilee, [1429 A.M.] in the second week, in the first year thereof, he took to himself a wife, and her name was Melka, the daughter of Madai, the son of Japheth, and in the fourth year [1432 A.M.] he begat a son, and 6 called his name Shelah; for he said: ’Truly I have been sent.’
But I believe that Luke had been taught from the Septuagint, which was a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, by Hebrews in Alexandria some 200 years before Jesus, where we read in Genesis 11: 12; And Arpachshad lived 135 years [ Not 35 years as your corrupted cannon states] and begat Cainan/Kainam.
in the Hebrew way of thinking, and writing, 'A begat B' can mean A is the father of B, the grandfather of B, or in any other way the predecessor/ancestor of B.
there are numerous examples of this.
[HR][/HR][HR][/HR]
if you are going to spend all your time here mining anti-Bible websites and copy/pasting their attacks onto the forum, i wonder if it would save us all some time if i just give you a link to an apologetics website so you can have that whole useless conversation of attack/rebuttal in your own head, without troubling yourself to add it to this thread?
here, next time you want to post, maybe go to this site or another one like it first, and search for the particular attack on scripture you found, and familiarize yourself with the historical response:
https://carm.org/
just trying to help & streamline things.
[HR][/HR][HR][/HR]
there are numerous examples of this.
[HR][/HR][HR][/HR]
if you are going to spend all your time here mining anti-Bible websites and copy/pasting their attacks onto the forum, i wonder if it would save us all some time if i just give you a link to an apologetics website so you can have that whole useless conversation of attack/rebuttal in your own head, without troubling yourself to add it to this thread?
here, next time you want to post, maybe go to this site or another one like it first, and search for the particular attack on scripture you found, and familiarize yourself with the historical response:
https://carm.org/
just trying to help & streamline things.
[HR][/HR][HR][/HR]
in the Hebrew way of thinking, and writing, 'A begat B' can mean A is the father of B, the grandfather of B, or in any other way the predecessor/ancestor of B.
there are numerous examples of this.
[HR][/HR][HR][/HR]
if you are going to spend all your time here mining anti-Bible websites and copy/pasting their attacks onto the forum, i wonder if it would save us all some time if i just give you a link to an apologetics website so you can have that whole useless conversation of attack/rebuttal in your own head, without troubling yourself to add it to this thread?
here, next time you want to post, maybe go to this site or another one like it first, and search for the particular attack on scripture you found, and familiarize yourself with the historical response:
https://carm.org/
just trying to help & streamline things.
[HR][/HR][HR][/HR]
View attachment 171720
there are numerous examples of this.
[HR][/HR][HR][/HR]
if you are going to spend all your time here mining anti-Bible websites and copy/pasting their attacks onto the forum, i wonder if it would save us all some time if i just give you a link to an apologetics website so you can have that whole useless conversation of attack/rebuttal in your own head, without troubling yourself to add it to this thread?
here, next time you want to post, maybe go to this site or another one like it first, and search for the particular attack on scripture you found, and familiarize yourself with the historical response:
https://carm.org/
just trying to help & streamline things.
[HR][/HR][HR][/HR]
View attachment 171720
Genesis 11: 12; "And Arphaxad lived a hundred and thirty-five years, and begot Cainan/Kainam. 13And Arphaxad lived after he had begotten Cainan, four hundred years, and begot sons and daughters, and died. And Cainan/Kainam lived a hundred and thirty years and begot Sala; and Canaan lived after he had begotten Sala, three hundred and thirty years, and begot sons and daughters, and died.
How could Arpachshad, according to your corrupted version of the Hebrew bible, which was not the bible from which Jesus and his apostles quoted, have been only 35 years old when he became the grand father of Shelah?
Last edited:
The bible which Jesus said proclaimed his coming, which was not the OT of your canon, says that Arpachshad was 135, when he sired Cainan/Kainam, who was 130 when he sired Shelah, which means that Arpachshad was 265 when his grand son Shelah was born, and you want me to believe the canon of the Roman church of Emperor Constantine, which was compiled in the 4th century, which canon says that Arpachshad was 35 years old when Shelah was born.
I suppose there are those who are gullible enough to believe that, But not I my friend, not I.
BTW, who do you believe is the christian organisation which claims to be the Shepherd of God's people, which is what this thread is supposed to be about.
I suppose there are those who are gullible enough to believe that, But not I my friend, not I.
BTW, who do you believe is the christian organisation which claims to be the Shepherd of God's people, which is what this thread is supposed to be about.
Read Zechariah 11: 12-17; then ask yourself, which religious organisation today, succeeded the church of Moses after the Jews had valued The lord who had filled his obedient servant Jesus with his spirit, at thirty pieces of silver, which church today claims to be the earthly representation of Jesus, the Good shepherd of God's people, on earth today?
Im not interested in religious organizations sir and you shouldn't spend too much time on watching men either
there is only ONE whom all men should keep their eyes on. And HE alone is THE SHEPHERD over HIS FATHER's flock
If you watch men you will make the same error that all will make who spend too much time looking at men
(All the while thinking themselves in service to GOD...."righting a wrong" they have no right to)
why not fast forward to Zechariah 13 and explain the people's wounds
there is only ONE whom all men should keep their eyes on. And HE alone is THE SHEPHERD over HIS FATHER's flock
If you watch men you will make the same error that all will make who spend too much time looking at men
(All the while thinking themselves in service to GOD...."righting a wrong" they have no right to)
why not fast forward to Zechariah 13 and explain the people's wounds
miknik wrote.............Im not interested in religious organizations sir and you shouldn't spend too much time on watching men either.
S-word.........You must feel free to accept that which is of interest to you and reject that which does not. But please don't advise others as to what they should be interested in.
miknik wrote............there is only ONE whom all men should keep their eyes on. And HE alone is THE SHEPHERD over HIS FATHER's flock.
S-word.......I agree. But He is not the worthless shepherd that the Lord said that he would raise up in the land, to guide his stubborn flock after he had been paid his majestic wage of thirty pieces of silver, is He?.
Do you believe that the Lord does that which he says he will do? Or do you think his words are empty falsehoods?
miknik wrote............If you watch men you will make the same error that all will make who spend too much time looking at men (All the while thinking themselves in service to GOD...."righting a wrong" they have no right to)
S-word..........Well you must do what you want to do my dear friend, but as to myself, I will continue to watch and see the results of the Lords words as spoken through his prophets, come to fruition.
miknik wrote..........why not fast forward to Zechariah 13 and explain the people's wounds.
S-word.........Why not? But that will be covered in my next thread.
S-word.........You must feel free to accept that which is of interest to you and reject that which does not. But please don't advise others as to what they should be interested in.
miknik wrote............there is only ONE whom all men should keep their eyes on. And HE alone is THE SHEPHERD over HIS FATHER's flock.
S-word.......I agree. But He is not the worthless shepherd that the Lord said that he would raise up in the land, to guide his stubborn flock after he had been paid his majestic wage of thirty pieces of silver, is He?.
Do you believe that the Lord does that which he says he will do? Or do you think his words are empty falsehoods?
miknik wrote............If you watch men you will make the same error that all will make who spend too much time looking at men (All the while thinking themselves in service to GOD...."righting a wrong" they have no right to)
S-word..........Well you must do what you want to do my dear friend, but as to myself, I will continue to watch and see the results of the Lords words as spoken through his prophets, come to fruition.
miknik wrote..........why not fast forward to Zechariah 13 and explain the people's wounds.
S-word.........Why not? But that will be covered in my next thread.
Hum I was struck by something in your reply here to brother SovereignGrace . Why is it you posted 4 of the more controversial denominations in Christianity? Out of more than 400 different ones you chose these four that have inflamed so many Christian forums across the net . First blush it looks like you are trying to cause strife .
Blessings
Bill
Blessings
Bill
When Jesus asked Peter three times if he loved Him, after Peter answered, Jesus said "Feed My sheep." The church are His sheep, they hear His voice, and follow Him. Jesus is our one and only Shepherd. He appointed pastors (elders- not ministers) over each flock (congregation- Christ has only one church), as overseers (assistants). They are to see to it that the flock is following Christ's doctrine (the New Testament).
But only Christ is the head (Authority) of His body (the church). He never appointed a man to oversee all of His congregations. For "He is the head of the body- the firstborn from the dead (who would never die again) so that in everything He would have the supremacy." He does not share His supremacy with cardinals and popes. There is no ladder of promotion to climb in Christ's genuine church.
Even the elders (pastors) of a local congregation have no authority of their own. They are there to make sure that congregation stays on track obeying Christ. They are not our Shepherd because the doctrine does not come from them- it comes from Christ. Some might say it comes from the apostles then- this is not true either. Christ told them to teach us what He commanded them to. So they wrote it down, and taught us what Christ commanded them to- therefore the doctrine comes from our Shepherd Christ, through the apostles- not from the apostles.
They might have wrote down "If your enemy is hungry feed him." But the order comes from Christ Himself. Therefore the New Testament laws are the doctrine of Christ. When Christ said "Feed My sheep." He didn't mean "Teach them whatever good advice comes into your head." He meant "Teach them My laws." He is our Shepherd. We are His sheep. And we are to be fed His Word- this is the voice we are to follow- not man-made laws/doctrines/practices.
"Some have left the Faith to follow deceiving spirits- whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. They forbid people to marry, and to abstain from certain foods." Sound familiar? Catholics maybe?
Christ said "They like to wear their tassels long, and to sit in the most important seats at events." Christ commanded "Call no one on earth father- for you have one father and He's in heaven. I was told this is not so because of father Abraham. It is so, but before I tell you how, shame on anyone who tells Christ that what He says is not so!
King David was the father of Christ- but not directly- he was Christ's great, great, great, etc grand-father. In the same way, not everyone who can legitimately say that "Abraham is our father" was born directly from Abraham's' body (which would include Gentiles).
Therefore, to say that Abraham is your father, is the same as to say that all the forefathers are your father- David, Isaac, Jacob, Seth, Adam. But there is only one father all the forefathers can be traced back to. If you look at the geneology of Christ, it says "And Seth the son of Adam, and Adam the son of God."
Therefore, if you were born from Cain, or even Abel, but not of Seth, God is not your father- which means the above forefathers and not your father either. In the New Testament it no longer mattered to be physically from Abraham, because through adoption, "Whosoever will" became legitimate children of Abraham- and therefore legitimate children of God (spiritual).
THEREFORE- (since this is not spiritually speaking), anyone who does not legitimately have Abraham as their father (such as the pope or catholic priests) are not to be called 'father' because God is not their father. For in order to be of the seedline, you have to follow the doctrine of Christ (Who came from Abraham and from God)- and Catholics do not. They have made up their own doctrine- which is constantly changing, even up to the present day.
God has said to some "You are of your father Satan- for Satan has been lying since the beginning." Satan didn't have physical children- therefore this shows that a father is a way, a doctrine, a practice. And no Catholic priest who goes against God by saying such things as "Pray through Mary, don't eat meat the Friday before the earthly Easter, don't marry, etc, will never be called 'father' by me!
For I have one Father Who is in heaven, and I have one Shepherd (Teacher) Who is Christ my Lord.
But only Christ is the head (Authority) of His body (the church). He never appointed a man to oversee all of His congregations. For "He is the head of the body- the firstborn from the dead (who would never die again) so that in everything He would have the supremacy." He does not share His supremacy with cardinals and popes. There is no ladder of promotion to climb in Christ's genuine church.
Even the elders (pastors) of a local congregation have no authority of their own. They are there to make sure that congregation stays on track obeying Christ. They are not our Shepherd because the doctrine does not come from them- it comes from Christ. Some might say it comes from the apostles then- this is not true either. Christ told them to teach us what He commanded them to. So they wrote it down, and taught us what Christ commanded them to- therefore the doctrine comes from our Shepherd Christ, through the apostles- not from the apostles.
They might have wrote down "If your enemy is hungry feed him." But the order comes from Christ Himself. Therefore the New Testament laws are the doctrine of Christ. When Christ said "Feed My sheep." He didn't mean "Teach them whatever good advice comes into your head." He meant "Teach them My laws." He is our Shepherd. We are His sheep. And we are to be fed His Word- this is the voice we are to follow- not man-made laws/doctrines/practices.
"Some have left the Faith to follow deceiving spirits- whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. They forbid people to marry, and to abstain from certain foods." Sound familiar? Catholics maybe?
Christ said "They like to wear their tassels long, and to sit in the most important seats at events." Christ commanded "Call no one on earth father- for you have one father and He's in heaven. I was told this is not so because of father Abraham. It is so, but before I tell you how, shame on anyone who tells Christ that what He says is not so!
King David was the father of Christ- but not directly- he was Christ's great, great, great, etc grand-father. In the same way, not everyone who can legitimately say that "Abraham is our father" was born directly from Abraham's' body (which would include Gentiles).
Therefore, to say that Abraham is your father, is the same as to say that all the forefathers are your father- David, Isaac, Jacob, Seth, Adam. But there is only one father all the forefathers can be traced back to. If you look at the geneology of Christ, it says "And Seth the son of Adam, and Adam the son of God."
Therefore, if you were born from Cain, or even Abel, but not of Seth, God is not your father- which means the above forefathers and not your father either. In the New Testament it no longer mattered to be physically from Abraham, because through adoption, "Whosoever will" became legitimate children of Abraham- and therefore legitimate children of God (spiritual).
THEREFORE- (since this is not spiritually speaking), anyone who does not legitimately have Abraham as their father (such as the pope or catholic priests) are not to be called 'father' because God is not their father. For in order to be of the seedline, you have to follow the doctrine of Christ (Who came from Abraham and from God)- and Catholics do not. They have made up their own doctrine- which is constantly changing, even up to the present day.
God has said to some "You are of your father Satan- for Satan has been lying since the beginning." Satan didn't have physical children- therefore this shows that a father is a way, a doctrine, a practice. And no Catholic priest who goes against God by saying such things as "Pray through Mary, don't eat meat the Friday before the earthly Easter, don't marry, etc, will never be called 'father' by me!
For I have one Father Who is in heaven, and I have one Shepherd (Teacher) Who is Christ my Lord.