False teaching by separating Scripture from Scripture

  • 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.
Teachings going back 1200 years are fine, to an extent, except over the past 1200 years, most denominations that even go back that far have changed their teachings. In fact, there are clear changes in Christian teachings going back to at least 325 CE and there is recognized a "quiet" period in the late 1st century to early 2nd and what suggests hints that changes were made in the teachings from before the early 70's, about 40 years after Jesus's death, to what was taught after. This post-70 change is not proven, but it looks plausible.
The changes took place as soon as the gospel of Jesus Christ began to be preached by the apostles.

Those changes are warned against by the apostles, and some of them are recorded and rebukes. A few notables are:
Judaizing outward circumcision
There is no resurrection from the dead
The resurrection is past.
Continued sinning for greater grace.
Works-alone justification.
Faith-alone justification.



There is even very plausible evidence that Mark and John were changed from their original forms at some early date
Changes have been made from the Scriptures into false teachings. The Scriptures of God have not changed, and are perfectly preserved in the original Script, and translated into all languages on earth.

Anyone wanting to believe the original Scripts of God's words by the prophets and apostles, are incomplete or changed, and not preserved and known on earth today, are unbelievers in God's words:

Mat 24:35
Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.


They only disbelieve God's power to do so, as just another way of having their own false teachings.


and Revelation makes the most sense if there were three editions, each new edition largely preserving its predecessor but adding in new material.

Rev 22:18
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Now who dares look at the evidence and determine its validity and who chooses to cower and cling fast to an unproven, because it dare be challenged (what would happen to this faith it if was truly tested), belief that nothing has changed.
Neither God, nor His faithful people care anything for the daring of them that nullify His words on earth, as being changed and/or incomplete. Especially not them that actively seek fault with His written words:

2 Peter 3:16
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
 
My big question is, what do you base your understanding of what qualifies as scripture on?
Knowing that you're an open unbeliever in the Scriptures, then I've already answered you more than enough.

It doesn't matter to an unbeliever in Scriptures, what Scriptures are. All that matters as they don't believe them.

With unbelievers, I only answer supposed arguments of fault and error in the Scriptures. The only problem with that, is the more zealous anti-believers are, the less grammatically honest they are with the words of Scripture, than they are with other books, that they don't have a personal angst with.
 
Actually, the Jewish high priest had authority only over the Jerusalem temple, not over individual synagogues and not in foreign territory.
Already corrected your revisionist history.


Rome did not have authority in Damascus and neither did the High Priest.

I don't argue with unreasonable ignorance. If you were just ignorant, I could give you some cliffnotes history of the Roman Empire 1st Century A.D.

Your accusation against historical Bible error, is as bad as your accusation against historical Rome.
 
All provide evidence that the early church actively distorted the recorded history
Proved your two false accusations wrong.

Got anything else?

to remove as much evidence of conflict between the church and Rome as possible.
Crucifying Jesus Christ and beheading Paul of Tarsus, as well as raging persecution of Christian, pretty much speaks for itself.

The Roman imperial rule definitely 'conflicted' with Christianity, until Constantine. And preaching the gospel in Rome didn't remove the divide.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Journey_man
You pay attention to details you insert, that don't matter. Not to details of the account, which is all that matters.


Looking for something outside the edges, and figuring out how it doesn't fit within the edges. It's because your outside the edges stuff, are not within the edges.


And so, you are just an unbeliever reading the Bible like a book of historical fiction.

Rewriter is just your name for it.
Paul tells us in Galatians that after he was converted, he immediately, without talking to anyone went to Arabia then returned to Damascus where he claims trouble with Arabs, and after three years went to Jerusalem. After that he returned to Syria-Cilicia where he stayed for 14 years. If Jesus was crucified in 30 (unlikely) instead of 33, and Paul was converted within a year of the crucifixion, the earliest he could have set out on a missionary journey is 45 CE, but he supposedly, at least according to Acts, outside of Syria-Cilicia before that as Acts records him visiting Damascus and having trouble with Jews. Reconcile those two timelines as in the 1st century, Damascus was not in Syria-Cilicia.

I don't need to insert details the NT is full of details you wish to ignore or "well maybe/if" (enough maybe's and if's and anything away can be established, a good refuge for the ignorant) or perhaps are simply too ignorant to know.
 
So what do you think was untrue in what I said?
That all Christian’s are united….even under the same Jesus; but I’m not seeing the same gospel.

We are only united when we all do His will; I don’t see this today.
 
Already corrected your revisionist history.




I don't argue with unreasonable ignorance. If you were just ignorant, I could give you some cliffnotes history of the Roman Empire 1st Century A.D.

Your accusation against historical Bible error, is as bad as your accusation against historical Rome.
Correcting my history would be a good trick for you as you do not know your history. Perhaps you think that the hero of Colline Gate died as an honored military leader as he died while a member of the first triumvirate.
 
Maybe for people who add/ take away/ insert their man-made traditions in verses.
No. Professed unbelievers are welcomed to challenge Bible inerrancy. It's a good thing to hear their arguments, and show by disciplined Bible study, that they are wrong.

So maybe you can translate this statement/ accusation of yours?
?? You mean about unbelievers accusing the Bible of error? That's pretty common.

Probably a good majority of believers believe this, but I merely stated that this verse doesn’t fit, given what the other verses stated.
I believe I’m allowed to question this!?
Sure. If you say some Scripture doesn't fit what people are teaching, then just show how. If you mean some Scripture doesn't fit in the Bible, then that's just unbelief, based upon one's own false teaching.




And also, I was stating to the other person that there is NO contradictions in the bible other than, to me, this one verse that seems to stick out.
I see. So, you disbelieve one, you disbelieve all. Rather than changing Scripture, we must change our teaching.

Even as transgression of one commandment is transgression of all, so unbelief in one Scripture is unbelief in all:

Deu 4:2
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Mat 4:4
But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.


Do you wish to continue with your false accusation??
You've already acknowledge your unbelief.

“For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him?
But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her;
for her hair is given to her for a covering. But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.”
‭‭I Corinthians‬ ‭11‬:‭7‬, ‭10‬, ‭13‬-‭16‬ ‭NKJV‬‬


Both clothing and hair is a cultural thing.
Clothing is cultural, other than lascivious dressing. Length of hair is Christ's rule for His church body.

Do you know what constitutes long and short? In every culture it’s different, I’m sure!
In Scripture, long hair covers the head, and short hair does not.

If you're too personally skewed by your own teaching, then just ask any child if someone has woman's hair, or a man's haircut:

Rev 9:7
And...their faces were as the faces of men. And they had hair as the hair of women, and their teeth were as the teeth of lions.

Any question about what teeth of lions look like too?

What about thinning hair, the hair is not so covered?

You mean the head. And so, you do know. But you have a personal issue with Scripture, and so call it out of place, rather than calling it your own personal issue.
Women who have cancer and other hormonal problems should probably cover. There are many people in this country suffering from a loss of hair, for whatever reasons.

In public, especially in church congregations. That's when an artificial covering can be used, whether a wig or scarf or hat.


Don’t be so judgmental and adamant!!
Argue with the Lord Jesus about it. It's his words and rule:

Since you're running to personal accusations, then you have no place on a public forum, where our personal issues can be corrected.

1Co 13:11
When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.




Rev 9:7
And the shapes of the locusts were like unto horses prepared unto battle; and on their heads were as it were crowns like gold, and their faces were as the faces of men. And they had hair as the hair of women, and their teeth were as the teeth of lions.
What is your point here?

That everyone knows the difference between women's and men's hair length. And God doesn't argue with people, that pretend ignorance by personal issues.

1 Tim 6:3… doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
 
Well in at least a couple of these points I think the problem is at least partially that people do not know enough of what was common knowledge in the 1st century. Both the issue of women's hair in Corinth and the strange beasts in Rev. 9:7 would seem to share a link with the miracle at Cana and 2 Timothy 3:16 among other passages including some elsewhere in Paul, in Acts and both Matthew and Luke. But to explain it would require a lot of education for most people because the knowledge is not taught as being at all related to the bible as if it is, we do not understand a lot of what is being said.
Thanks for sparing us the comparison with the Centaur wine frenzy at the marriage of Pirithous.

All ancient fables and myths are corruptions of Scriptural truth. Interesting but plagiarized. Beginning with the diminished flood of Gilgamesh.
 
Thanks for sparing us the comparison with the Centaur wine frenzy at the marriage of Pirithous.

All ancient fables and myths are corruptions of Scriptural truth. Interesting but plagiarized. Beginning with the diminished flood of Gilgamesh.
And your evidence for ancient myths being corruptions of scriptural truth is? Or is it merely an assertion based on your own opinion and thus supported by the sheer force of your imagination, aka nothing.

And a hint, if scripture did not borrow terms from the other ancient sources or sometimes be transferred with just minimal changes (just very select words or specific names) your case would look much more solid. When scripture changes in its known variant forms to match regional accounts, it looks a lot like the scripture writers are the ones copying. And if the plagiarizing just begins with the flood accounts, who plagiarized the earlier accounts, the ancients (oops, that would mean you are in error) or the biblical writers.
 
Paul tells us in Galatians that after he was converted, he immediately, without talking to anyone went to Arabia
So, we see the beginning of more sloppy reading, to build a false narrative.

Paul did not consult with any other apostles about Jesus Christ. He did speak with Ananias in Damascus and fellowshipped with certain disciples in Damascus, before going into Arabia.

You simply have no credibility for disciplined critique. All your bogus stuff begins with small departures from the record, and then misses a mile wide.

1Co 5:4
Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?

If you were in my history or literature class, you'd get a D for at least reading the material.

then returned to Damascus where he claims trouble with Arabs,
Trouble with the Damascus Jews.



and after three years went to Jerusalem.
That's better.

After that he returned to Syria-Cilicia where he stayed for 14 years.

Where he stayed for an undetermined time, before being taken to Antioch by Barnabas. Several or more years perhaps..

The 14 years is only an interpretation of time in Syria-Cilicia, that is based upon an interpretation of Paul speaking of himself.
If Jesus was crucified in 30 (unlikely) instead of 33, and Paul was converted within a year of the crucifixion,
The specific time of Paul's conversion is unknown, but some time following the stoning of Stephen, which also is not known.




the earliest he could have set out on a missionary journey is 45 CE,
Perhaps. But since it's just a guess, then it's not a definitive.

but he supposedly, at least according to Acts, outside of Syria-Cilicia before that as Acts records him visiting Damascus and having trouble with Jews.
Garbled.

Reconcile those two timelines as in the 1st century, Damascus was not in Syria-Cilicia.
Scripture doesn't need to reconcile your timelines.

Show any record of Scripture, where Paul went on his first missionary journey before or during His time in Syria-Cilicia, and Antioch.

Otherwise, your stuff is just stuff.

Your problem is you only snatch things here and there, without verifying the record, and only snatch those things here and there, that you want to contradict the record.

Which is fine, since the snatched things may contradict the record, but not the record contradicting itself.

Bible contradiction is not by contradicting the Bible with unrecorded things.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Journey_man
Correcting my history would be a good trick for you as you do not know your history. Perhaps you think that the hero of Colline Gate died as an honored military leader as he died while a member of the first triumvirate.
Crassus was not a hero of the Colline gate, nor did he die a military hero. Hopefully you're being absurd on purpose.

Afterall, You're the one that doesn't know Rome ruled Damascus, which was of the Syrian province.
 
And your evidence for ancient myths being corruptions of scriptural truth is?
Scriptural truth does not contradict itself. All plagiarized myths do so constantly. The one unblemished record outweighs the many tarnished ones.

But then, that's only with disciplined and honest critiques.



Or is it merely an assertion based on your own opinion and thus supported by the sheer force of your imagination, aka nothing.

2Pe 1:16
For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

Tit 1:14
Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.


No fable denies it is a fable, much less warns against fables. Find an old fable shadowing the Bible, that denies it's a fable. Certainly not Gilgamesh, nor the Centaurs.

At least Aesop is honest about it.
And a hint, if scripture did not borrow terms from the other ancient sources or sometimes be transferred with just minimal changes (just very select words or specific names) your case would look much more solid.
Since there is no proof that Scripture did, then Scripture stands solid.



When scripture changes in its known variant forms to match regional accounts, it looks a lot like the scripture writers are the ones copying.
Since there is no proof that Scripture did, then Scripture stands solid.

And if the plagiarizing just begins with the flood accounts, who plagiarized the earlier accounts,
Gilgamesh is the earliest recorded account. Plagiarized creation accounts come later.

And so, let's have some more unbelievers' examples of supposed errors and contradictions in Scripture, or I'm moving on.
 
So, we see the beginning of more sloppy reading, to build a false narrative.

Paul did not consult with any other apostles about Jesus Christ. He did speak with Ananias in Damascus and fellowshipped with certain disciples in Damascus, before going into Arabia.

You simply have no credibility for disciplined critique. All your bogus stuff begins with small departures from the record, and then misses a mile wide.

1Co 5:4
Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?

If you were in my history or literature class, you'd get a D for at least reading the material.


Trouble with the Damascus Jews.




That's better.



Where he stayed for an undetermined time, before being taken to Antioch by Barnabas. Several or more years perhaps..

The 14 years is only an interpretation of time in Syria-Cilicia, that is based upon an interpretation of Paul speaking of himself.

The specific time of Paul's conversion is unknown, but some time following the stoning of Stephen, which also is not known.





Perhaps. But since it's just a guess, then it's not a definitive.


Garbled.


Scripture doesn't need to reconcile your timelines.

Show any record of Scripture, where Paul went on his first missionary journey before or during His time in Syria-Cilicia, and Antioch.

Otherwise, your stuff is just stuff.

Your problem is you only snatch things here and there, without verifying the record, and only snatch those things here and there, that you want to contradict the record.

Which is fine, since the snatched things may contradict the record, but not the record contradicting itself.

Bible contradiction is not by contradicting the Bible with unrecorded things.
So, you prefer Luke's account of what Paul did in Acts over Paul's statements about what he did. You show your prejudice, not your scholarship.
 
No. Professed unbelievers are welcomed to challenge Bible inerrancy. It's a good thing to hear their arguments, and show by disciplined Bible study, that they are wrong.
Absolutely! Although, beware of the Pharisees traditions of men.

?? You mean about unbelievers accusing the Bible of error? That's pretty common.
Unbelievers can’t accuse the Bible of erring, if they don’t believe in Truth. Oxymoronic!

Sure. If you say some Scripture doesn't fit what people are teaching, then just show how. If you mean some Scripture doesn't fit in the Bible, then that's just unbelief, based upon one's own false teaching.
No this has nothing to do with faith! Lol

I see. So, you disbelieve one, you disbelieve all. Rather than changing Scripture, we must change our teaching.
Presumptuous much!

Even as transgression of one commandment is transgression of all, so unbelief in one Scripture is unbelief in all:

Deu 4:2
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Mat 4:4
But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.



You've already acknowledge your unbelief.
If someone questions a verse, in whatever way, again this has NOTHING to do with faith in His word. If anything, I’m questioning the translator(s) who could have possibly added something.
Do you know of any translators? I do!

While your at it, you might want to curb your own biased teaching by not adding to His word with your grand assumptions of dress and hair cuts, based on your own narrow views of different cultures.

Clothing is cultural, other than lascivious dressing. Length of hair is Christ's rule for His church body.
Scripture please?

In Scripture, long hair covers the head, and short hair does not.
Should I make a picture for you how short hair can actually cover only the head? Would you like the head and the neck, since some of us have long necks?

This is not the argument you use. But again, you are using your own biased opinions based on your local traditions.


If you're too personally skewed by your own teaching, then just ask any child if someone has woman's hair, or a man's haircut:
It sounds like you’re “skewed”. Very Pharisee-icle, which Jesus warned against.

Rev 9:7
And...their faces were as the faces of men. And they had hair as the hair of women, and their teeth were as the teeth of lions.

Any question about what teeth of lions look like too?



You mean the head. And so, you do know. But you have a personal issue with Scripture, and so call it out of place, rather than calling it your own personal issue.
No sir, I do not have a personal issue with Scripture! However, I can see you’re very accusatory and Pharisee-icle when it comes to traditions of culture. Not a good thing!

Argue with the Lord Jesus about it. It's his words and rule:

Since you're running to personal accusations, then you have no place on a public forum, where our personal issues can be corrected.
No personal issues here. Lol

1 Tim 6:3… doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
Everybody on this forum pretty much questions things. Lol

That verse does NOT say “doting about questions”. You just added to His word to make your own illegitimate point.
 
The Scriptures of Christ are all one perfectly unified word, even as the Godhead of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Therefore, every Scripture must be taught in context of all other Scripture, not just from verse to verse within a chapter of Scripture. To rightly teach any Scripture, we must do so in context of all Scripture taken together as one complete word.

If we separate one Scripture from other Scriptures, not just verse to verse within a certain chapter, but also from other chapters and books, then we are falsely teaching Scripture out of context. The end result with be contradicting the unity of Scripture written for doctrine and prophecy of God.

This is commonly done by unbelievers seeking fault with Scripture, to say God's words are not inerrant.

Isa 45:7
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

From this one verse alone, anyone could teach that the God of the Bible is the creator of evil things, and so is an evil creator doing evil things. However taken in context of all Scripture together:

Jas 1:13
Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:


Here we see that God cannot do evil, because He can't even be tempted with evil. Nor does He tempt anyone to do evil. Therefore, Is 45:7 must be read and taught in context of James 1:13, that the God of the Bible cannot be an evil Creator creating and doing evil. Such as the pagan God Moloch.

Such false accusations against the God of the Bible, however is also done by believers, in order to teach their own false doctrine.

Eph{2:8}
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:


By this verse alone, anyone could say that salvation is only by faith through faith, to the exclusion of repentance and works.

By that rule of exclusion from other Scriptures:

Gal 2:16
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ,


By this verse alone, anyone could say that justification is by faith of Jesus Christ alone, to the exclusion of repentance and works and grace.

Titus{3:3}
But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;


And by this verse alone, anyone can say that salvation is by the mercy of God alone, to the exclusion of repentance and works and grace and faith.

However, taken in context of all Scripture together, not only unifies the gospel of Jesus Christ into one principle doctrine, but also does away with the ad absurdum of isolating one Scripture to the exclusion of others:

Mark{1:15}
The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

Heb {6:1}
Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,

Acts 3:19
Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;

2 Cor 7:10
For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of:


Repentance is principally necessary for salvation by grace through faith toward God.

James{2:14}
What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?...Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

James{2:21}
Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?...Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.


And works are necessary to be saved and justified by grace through faith of Jesus Christ.

And so, when we read any Scripture, we must always include all Scripture pertaining to the same thing, in order to know the unified principle gospel and doctrine of Jesus Christ.

Anyone teaching falsely from any certain Scripture, but excluding other Scripture pertaining to it, is advocating for a gospel and doctrine of another Christ, not the Jesus Christ of Scriptures.

Gal 1:6
I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel. Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

Mark 13:22
For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.
Wow
That's a lengthy "sermon"
It seems to me you have a position to defend
I wish I had the time or the mind space
I'm fully taken up with the daily internal struggle of spirit v flesh
Maybe I'm just a "babe in Christ"
But it feels kinda right
 
  • Like
Reactions: rewriter
Wow
That's a lengthy "sermon"
It seems to me you have a position to defend
I wish I had the time or the mind space
I'm fully taken up with the daily internal struggle of spirit v flesh
Maybe I'm just a "babe in Christ"
But it feels kinda right
ATG is both right and wrong. Scripture does interrelate but some connections are really hard to catch unless one has really studied the 1st century culture. Just studying scripture will miss a lot of connections.

But you are also correct with your being taken up with the daily struggle of flesh versus spirit. That should be a daily battle for all Christians.
 
Nope
Not should be
Is
And most "Christians" I come across are completely avoiding the issue by concentrating on the "signs of the end times" or what Donald J Trump is upto
Or in the UK where I live
How can we completely destroy prince Andrew
I'm probably a mere babe in Christ
23 years later
But I'm not atall concerned
But what I do know is this
When I meet Jesus face to face He won't be atall interested in how well I "defended" doctrine
But
How did you wage war on the enemy within
Even the man
Lowered through the roof in a humanly desperate state was initially overlooked by Our Saviour
But he focused in what really matters
And said
Not
Get up and walk
But
Your sins are forgiven
 
  • Like
Reactions: rewriter
Nope
Not should be
Is
And most "Christians" I come across are completely avoiding the issue by concentrating on the "signs of the end times" or what Donald J Trump is upto
Or in the UK where I live
How can we completely destroy prince Andrew
I'm probably a mere babe in Christ
23 years later
But I'm not atall concerned
But what I do know is this
When I meet Jesus face to face He won't be atall interested in how well I "defended" doctrine
But
How did you wage war on the enemy within
Even the man
Lowered through the roof in a humanly desperate state was initially overlooked by Our Saviour
But he focused in what really matters
And said
Not
Get up and walk
But
Your sins are forgiven
I think that we would agree on much.