Can we maintain spiritual unity with doctrinal diversity in the church?

amen. That was wonderful forthtelling, sorely needed. Beloved brother, you captured the Heart of Jesus' High Priestly Prayer in John 17.

I love you in the Lord, neil

To elharris:

I love the way you have presented your argument. How is that? With the support of the Holy Scriptures--- the Doctrine--[b]The truth of Gospel in general-- 9. Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers. (Titus 1:9) “that they may adorn the Doctrine of God our Savior in all things[/b] (Titus 2:9).

Now, compare those that are in opposition to your position, and what do you see? Nothing more than words, and feelings, and thoughts, with very little, if any Bible Scripture to support their position.

And, so it goes. Those that use the Doctrine of the Bible to support their positions, and those who use their own feelings and thoughts to support their position.

We will not all be united as a "Church" body until the New Heaven and the New Earth. Until then, we will have those who agree, and those who disagree with the Doctrine of the Bible.

Sincerely,

Walter

elharris wrote:
Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; [b]and avoid them.[/b]

AVOID: ekklino, to bend out of the regular line, bent outwards or AWAY; to trun away from, SHUN. Bullinger's Critical Lexicon

None of those groups believe the exact same thing. But REGARDLESS, to fellowship together in the manner you suggest, would lead one to directly disobey this commandment.

In effect it wouldn't matter what gospel you believed, or what Church you belonged to, because to fellowship in the manner you suggest would make every one of them guilty of disobeying this COMMAND!

Oh well, it's only a "commandment". Let's forgo it in the name of Eccumenical "unity". After all doesn't the end justify the means. We do after all want to move the "gospel". That one who's commands we are breaking in order to further it.

1 Corinthians 1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

Again to do as you suggest, would be to directly disobey this command, and the actual gospel itself.

1 Corinthians 3:3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?

CARNAL MEN, can easily join in UNITY to a LIE, and not have the truth of the original understanding of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

1 Cor 11:18 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.

1 Cor 11:19 [size=large]For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.[/size]

One is approved by rightly dividing the word of TRUTH 2 Tim 2:15. God allows men to corrupt the truth just to see who really loves him and who does not.

ALL THESE ECCUMENICAL GROUPS, that you suggest we join, corrupt the truth, and are being gathered together for the last days. I would say that if you love the truth and are seeking it, the LAST place you want to be is with them, when the Lord comes.

Paul knew that the prophecies of the OT and those of Jesus Christ, foretold a great apostasy away from the teachings of Christ, to ANOTHER GOSPEL. That is the gospel that these churches today teach and join in unity on. The Eccumenical movement is the heigth of apostasy and SIN.

Those in the first century Paul was writing to were taught THE TRUTH. And there is to be unity in truth. BUT NOT IN ERROR. In fact to fellowship with believers that you think are in error is SIN.

2 John 1 The elder unto the elect lady and her children, whom I love in [b]the truth;[/b] and not I only, but also all they that have known [b]the truth;[/b]

DELETED

Your proposition is well-reasoned and in the Spirit of Jesus' commandment, "love one another." But it does present certain problems for us fundamentalists. The fundamental tenet of fundamentalism is that we are saved by faith alone, and that "faith" means "correct doctrine." Therefore we express our love for the brethren by imposing correct dogma on them, in order to save their souls. When confronted with error or compromise, we have a divine mandate to hurl arrows, firebrands and death until our theological enemies are destroyed and heresy has been expurgated. See the John 3:16 of fundamentalism, 2 Tim. 4:2

Some wield Holy Scripture as they would a sword. If I am to boast, I boast in the Lord, that He has given me a hunger for His Word, and to that end, I am in It, everyday.

The reason I sometimes don't quote Scripture, is because sometimes, I just wish to encourage other brethern, which is what I did with our brother who started this thread.

Now I know, that anyone can take Scripture and use it, twist it to fit whatever direction they wish to go. I have no desire for argument or diviseness, but I've noticed that an ugly and fell spirit has befallen this forum of late.

Besides the Word, I read everything. I read and watch the comings and goings of the physical world, because what we see going on today, though physical, is really part of a much larger battle, that is God's battle against satan. I watch the what the islamic jihadists do, sometimes I even watch translated "sermons" from islamic clerics scattered throughout the Levant, just full of hatred they are.

Now here is what just breaks my heart, when I read certain posters on this forum, in the Spirit, and in my spirit, I feel that both islamic clerics, and certain posters bear very similiar testimonies, and bear very similiar heartspaces, the only difference is that in the US, one cant take a gun, or a bomb and do away with "heretics", or "apostates" without either being killed by a SWAT team, or taken into custody and put behind bars for a very long time. Plus I believe that these jihadist hellhounds got "stones", though they are completely of their father the devil, whereas some posters who eviscerate, devour, backbite others on this forum are basically cowards, theological bullies, armchair hero's, and quite frankly, I want to have nothing to do with them, dusting my feet off.

I love my brother Greg Gordon dearly in the Lord, what a vision he had, and the Lord has blessed it, and via Greg's ministry, I have been blessed. But now I do believe that this forum has become a stench, and my humble advice to him would be to close it, but at the same time, many are truly blessed by this forum, via prayer requests, via announcements so saints can watch revival conferences.

But I can't do this anymore, reading and posting on this forum, [b]for me[/b] is no longer edifying, quite the opposite, its become a stumble.

Elected posted:

[b]Is it Gods perfect will that his children join denominations and live in schisms and divisions ?

I dont think so, but God in his mercy permits such things to happend and overpasses their ignorance and blesses his godly people that are part of diffrent theological camps or evangelical groups.

[b]Walter responds:[/b]

Are the above statements true,[b] or are they FALSE? [/b]Does God want all of us to meld together as one,
before His return? Does He want us to "all to get along"?

Does He want the Christian, who esteems Christ and his Word above all else to be as one with the
Catholic, who holds the Pope in higher esteem than Christ and His Word, who worships on his knees to Icons and Idols, and bows down to Mary, the "Queen of Heaven"?

What does Christ tell us in His own words of this type of "unity"?

Exodus 8:23
23.\tAnd I will put a division between my people and thy people: to morrow shall this sign be.

Luke 12:51-53
51. Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:
52. For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three.
53. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

John 10:18-21
18. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.
19. There was a division therefore again among the Jews for these sayings.
20. And many of them said, He hath a devil, and is mad; why hear ye him?
21. Others said, These are not the words of him that hath a devil. Can a devil open the eyes of the blind?

Romans 16:17-20
17. Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences[u] contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.[/u]
18. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.
19. For your obedience is come abroad unto all men. I am glad therefore on your behalf: but yet I would have you wise unto that which is good, and simple concerning evil.
20. And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen.

We are to divide from among them, and be separate, until His return. Some believe God when He says that He esteems His Word above His Name. What are we to do, but to separate from those who do not believe the Word of God, from those who are not obedient to Him.

Sincererly,

Walter

Brother,

Please pray that we (Greg and the mods) would always operate within that mind.

I always do, this website has been a blessing to me.....and I'm sure countless others.

neil

We are to divide from among them, and be separate, until His return. Some believe God when He says that He esteems His Word above His Name. What are we to do, but to separate from those who do not believe the Word of God, from those who are not obedient to Him.

The Plymouth Brethren movement is instructive. It began when a group of Irishmen discarded the professional clergy and traditional ecclesiology and formed a fellowship "run strictly along New Testament lines." The first schism took place in the mid-19th Century between the Open Brethren, who fellowshipped with all believers, and the Exclusive Brethren, who denied fellowship to anyone who tolerated "compromise," including the Open Brethren. Having disfellowshipped everyone else, the Exclusive Brethren began brawling amongst themselves and by the 20th Century had schismed into no less than 48 separate sects, mostly over modes of baptism: whether it should be in running water or calm, forward or backward, with one plunge or three. One of these, the River Brethren, practiced foot-washing. But then a dispute arose over foot-washing methodology: should one brother wash and another dry, or should both functions be performed by the same brother? They divided into the One-Mode and Two-Mode River Brethren.

If this is what happens when men establish a fellowship "strictly along New Testament lines," it must be what God has in mind for His church: that we keep dividing into smaller and smaller sects until each individual believer has disfellowshipped the entire church and every man is a denomination unto himself. This is already the practice of many in the "Ministry of the Watchman" (heresiologists who are so doctrinally pure that they have dropped out of church altogether and serve God by policing internet forums for error and heresy).

There is a fundamental doctrine of Jesus Christ. There has to be a foundation. It's either built on the sand or on a Rock. Who decides what doctrine is applicable? Hebrews 6 is a good start. I am just speaking about the foundation. Yes all those listed will be there in heaven, but in order for them to get there, they have had to have stepped over unto that foundation that would have made their salvation sure. A Catholic who is putting their trust in the Pope is not on solid footing.

There has to be a line drawn for the basics of this great salvation that we all have been partakers of, THAT must be laid down. Once we ALL understand the fundamental basics and all come into agreement with that, all this other stuff we argue about is hen feathers thrown to the wind, they mean nothing. Those who put those above what is foundational is simply looking to debate, and of such turn away.

To jimp:

The verses you quoted support your position. That position is that we should all love one another, and get along, and let the Gospel be IGNORED.

Paul makes it clear at the beginning of this letter that his reason for writing this epistle is because members of Chloe's household had informed him of divisions in the church. Paul mentions three men by name who had come to him from Corinth (1 Cor. 16:17).

Paul's main purpose in this book is to correct the carnality which had damaged the unity of the believers and to answer specific questions. Verse ten of the first chapter sums up his intent: "Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak [u]the same thing[/u] ([b]THE SAME THING= THE SAME DOCTRINE[/b]), and [that] there be no divisions among you; but [that] ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment."

Paul deals with this disunity in three main areas. First, he counters the division caused over a difference of opinion as to who the people should be following (1 Cor. 1:10-4:21). Some of the church claimed Paul as their spiritual leader, some Apollos, and some Peter (1 Cor. 1:12).

Secondly, Paul reprimands the believers for the immoral conduct of certain individuals (incest-chapter 5; lawsuits-chapter 6; marriage relationships-chapter 7; eating things sacrificed to idols-chapter 8) and the passivity of the others in not dealing with these problems (1 Cor. 5:1-11:16).

Paul even admonishes the man having sexual relations with his fathers wife, and turns him over to Satan! [b]HOW IS THAT FOR SOUND DOCTRINE?????[/b]

[color=990000]4. In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, [b] 5. To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus[/color][/b].

[b]He also continues, and indicates that the Church at Corinth, that allowed something like this to go on (excusing fornication and adultery) was not good and much like leaven, that once introduced, will chase the real believers out and fill the Church at Corinth with sinners (Goats, instead of Sheep)![/b]

6. Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? 7. Purge out therefore the old leaven[b] (make those that do these things leave the Church),[/b] that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:
8.Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

Thirdly, Paul deals with the conduct of these Corinthians in their church services (1 Cor. 11:17-14:40). This section includes instructions for the Lord's Supper (chapter 11) and the operation of the gifts in the church (chapters 12-14).

Paul concludes this letter with the most complete arguments found in the New Testament on the resurrection of our bodies (chapter 15). Chapter 16 gives instructions for the collection for the poor saints in Jerusalem and miscellaneous instructions and salutations.

[color=990000]In chapter 15 of 1 Corintihians, Paul even refers to those in attendance at the Church of Corinth, who did not believe in the resurrection of the dead. What did he call them? [b][u]FOOLS[/u][/b][/color]

33. Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners. 34. Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame. 35. But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?[b] 36. Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:[/b] 37. And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain: 38. But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body. 39. All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds. 40. There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. 41. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory. 42. So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: 43. It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: 44. It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. 45. And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. 46. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. 47. The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. 48. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. 49. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. 50. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. [b] 51. Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52. In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 53. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. 55. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? 56. The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law. 57. But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. 58. Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord.[/b]

[color=990000][b]So, to sum this up, Paul was acting as a typical orator, at the beginning of his speech, and being nice, and inticing everyone to listen to what he had to say. Very similar to what he did on Mars Hill. Once he got their attention, then he gave them the Doctrine that they were missing, and even turned over one man to Satan, and confronted all of their error and false teachings for the remainder of 1st Corinthians![/color][/b]

Today, many, many people have itching ears, and cannot stand even the word--DOCTRINE. (2 timothy 4:3)

Sincerely,

Walter

jimp wrote:
hi, when paul said i know nothing among you save for Jesus Christ and Him crucified he meant that he could fellowship with all who live this truth anf that was his only firm doctrine that qualified one for fellowship... how baptized,osas, sabbath etc.did not disqualify.jimp Jesus said he who is not against us is with us.

The Plymouth Brethren movement is instructive. It began when a group of Irishmen discarded the professional clergy and traditional ecclesiology and formed a fellowship "run strictly along New Testament lines." The first schism took place in the mid-19th Century between the Open Brethren, who fellowshipped with all believers, and the Exclusive Brethren, who denied fellowship to anyone who tolerated "compromise," including the Open Brethren. Having disfellowshipped everyone else, the Exclusive Brethren began brawling amongst themselves and by the 20th Century had schismed into no less than 48 separate sects, mostly over modes of baptism: whether it should be in running water or calm, forward or backward, with one plunge or three. One of these, the River Brethren, practiced foot-washing. But then a dispute arose over foot-washing methodology: should one brother wash and another dry, or should both functions be performed by the same brother? They divided into the One-Mode and Two-Mode River Brethren.

Anarchy, Individualism, Schism, etc.

Isn't this where Sola Scriptura joined with Private Interpretation of the Scriptures always leads?

The statement: fellowship "run strictly along New Testament lines."

Would better have read: "run strictly along New Testament lines as interpreted by us"

You've got to be kidding me.

To orthodox:

No, you have it entirely wrong, brother. Not interpreted by me or you, but taught to us through the Books of the New Testament, as well as the Books of the Old Testament.

In the New Testament, Sound Doctrine is taught to us by the Spirit Breathed Word of God, through the Books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thesallonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, James, 1 & 2nd Peter, 1st, 2nd & 3rd John, Jude, and Revelation.

In the Old Testament, Sound Doctrine is taught to us by Spirit Breathed Word of God,, through the Books of: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1st & 2nd Samuel, 1st & 2nd Kings, 1st & 2nd Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Mahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi

Those that want understanding search the Scriptures daily. [b][color=990000]Solo Scriptura[/b][/color]

12. Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.
13. But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. [b] 14. But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
15. And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17. That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.[/b]
(2 timothy 3:12-17)

Sincerely,

Walter

orthodox wrote:

The Plymouth Brethren movement is instructive. It began when a group of Irishmen discarded the professional clergy and traditional ecclesiology and formed a fellowship "run strictly along New Testament lines." The first schism took place in the mid-19th Century between the Open Brethren, who fellowshipped with all believers, and the Exclusive Brethren, who denied fellowship to anyone who tolerated "compromise," including the Open Brethren. Having disfellowshipped everyone else, the Exclusive Brethren began brawling amongst themselves and by the 20th Century had schismed into no less than 48 separate sects, mostly over modes of baptism: whether it should be in running water or calm, forward or backward, with one plunge or three. One of these, the River Brethren, practiced foot-washing. But then a dispute arose over foot-washing methodology: should one brother wash and another dry, or should both functions be performed by the same brother? They divided into the One-Mode and Two-Mode River Brethren.

Anarchy, Individualism, Schism, etc.

Isn't this where Sola Scriptura joined with Private Interpretation of the Scriptures always leads?

The statement: fellowship "run strictly along New Testament lines."

Would better have read: "run strictly along New Testament lines as interpreted by us"

You've got to be kidding me.

To jimp:

Have you read the text in regards to the incestural relationship?

This is what you posted, jimp:

[b]your behavior like the incestual relationship at corinth can and was restored through Godly love and parental discipline.jimp[/b]

However, this is what the Bible says--- something entirely different!

1. It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife.
2. And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you.
3. For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed,
[color=990000][b] 4. In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,
5. To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.[/color][/b]

[color=0000FF][b]I wonder if we read the same Bible? Paul publicly turned this mans flesh over to satan. It surely had nothing to do with "parental discipline", and everything to do with the supernatural power of God, through the prayer of Paul. Just like Job, God had to allow Satan to have access to his flesh. When Paul prayed, just like you and I pray, he had access to the throne room of heaven, and God granted his prayer, and let Satan have access to his flesh.

Later, we read that this man was eventually restored to the Church.[/color][/b]

Sincerely,

Walter

jimp wrote:
hi, Jesus and Him crucified includes the virgin birth... the sinless life... the death on the cross... the resurrection from the dead...the ascent into heaven,all compose the gospel of salvation by grace through faith in the finished work of Jesus...your behavior like the incestual relationship at corinth can and was restored through Godly love and parental discipline.jimp

No, you have it entirely wrong, brother. Not interpreted by me or you, but taught to us through the Books of the New Testament, as well as the Books of the Old Testament.

Ridiculous. The books of the New Testament are inspired and inerrant, yes. But they are not always clear to the reader who does not possess the inside track and intended meanings. An interpretation of the Bible that is false, cannot be properly called inerrant or for that matter the Word of God. And please understand...the Bible DOES need to be interpreted. You already know that. It is self evident in this forum.

Let's listen to a great father of the Church:

John Chrysostom

"[Paul commands,] ‘Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word or by our letter’ [2 Thess. 2:15]. From this it is clear that they did not hand down everything by letter, but there is much also that was not written. Like that which was written, the unwritten too is worthy of belief. So let us regard the tradition of the Church also as worthy of belief. Is it a tradition? Seek no further" (Homilies on Second Thessalonians [A.D. 402]).

In the New Testament, Sound Doctrine is taught to us by the Spirit Breathed Word of God, through the Books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thesallonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, James, 1 & 2nd Peter, 1st, 2nd & 3rd John, Jude, and Revelation.

Really glad you brought this up. I have a question for you. On what authority do you rely to KNOW that each and every single one of these books belong IN the New Testament Canon? How were they deemed so? Who made the decision?

In the Old Testament, Sound Doctrine is taught to us by Spirit Breathed Word of God,, through the Books of: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1st & 2nd Samuel, 1st & 2nd Kings, 1st & 2nd Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Mahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi

Seems to me like you are missing a few. But then prove to me that this list is correct. Also, before you do, please watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aozoXFdr80

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JInrWhks9c

12. Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. 13. But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. 14. But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 15. And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17. That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. (2 timothy 3:12-17)

This passage doesn’t teach formal sufficiency for the Scriptures. You are extrapolating onto the text what isn’t there. If we look at the overall context of this passage, we can see that Paul makes reference to oral Tradition three times (cf. 2 Tim. 1:13–14; 2:2; 3:14). And to use an analogy, let’s examine a similar passage:

"And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ" (Eph. 4:11–15).

If 2 Timothy 3 proves the sole sufficiency of Scripture, then, by analogy, Ephesians 4 would likewise prove the sufficiency of pastors and teachers for the attainment of Christian perfection. In Ephesians 4, the Christian believer is equipped, built up, brought into unity and mature manhood, and even preserved from doctrinal confusion by means of the teaching function of the Church. This is a far stronger statement of the perfecting of the saints than 2 Timothy 3, yet it does not even mention Scripture.

So if all non-scriptural elements are excluded in 2 Timothy, then, by analogy, Scripture would logically have to be excluded in Ephesians. It is far more reasonable to recognize that the absence of one or more elements in one passage does not mean that they are nonexistent. The Church and Scripture are both equally necessary and important for teaching.

Let's listen to one more eminent church father:

Basil the Great

"Of the dogmas and messages preserved in the Church, some we possess from written teaching and others we receive from the tradition of the apostles, handed on to us in mystery. In respect to piety, both are of the same force. No one will contradict any of these, no one, at any rate, who is even moderately versed in matters ecclesiastical. Indeed, were we to try to reject unwritten customs as having no great authority, we would unwittingly injure the gospel in its vitals; or rather, we would reduce [Christian] message to a mere term" (The Holy Spirit 27:66 [A.D. 375]).

To orthodox:

“Saint John Chrysostom” was nothing more than a Roman Catholic Gnostic, that would not know the truth if he walked into it. The “Bible” that he studied from was created by other Gnostics, and eventually became the "Roman Catholic Bible":

“Of these confessions we are profoundly realized and make public to all beings daily in the Gnostic Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass”

This is the link to the above:
[url=http://www.geocities.com/ega_church/hist1.html]St. John Chrysostom, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass[/url]

[color=990000]Who were these Gnostics, who cut and pasted God's Spirit breathed Word, and created their own Bible? [u]Their Bible that has 7 extra false books, created by them (1 Esdras, 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Additions to Esther, Wisdom of Solomon, Baruch, Additions to Daniel, Prayer of Manasses, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach)[/u]

Noah Websters 1828 Dictionary of the English Language has this to say about them:

GNOS'TIC, n. nostic. [L. gnosticus; Gr. to know.]
The Gnostics were a sect of philosophers that arose in the first ages of christianity,[u] who pretended they were the only men who had a true knowledge of the christian religion. They formed for themselves a system of theology, agreeable to the philosophy of Pythagoras and Plato, to which they accommodated THEIR INTERPRETATIONS OF SCRIPTURE.[/u] They held that all natures, intelligible, intellectual and material, are derived by successive emanations from the infinite fountain of deity. These emanations they called oeons. These doctrines were derived from the oriental philosophy.

GNOS'TIC, a. nostic. Pertaining to the Gnostics or their doctrines.

GNOS'TICISM, n. nos'ticism. The doctrines, principles or systems of philosophy taught by the Gnostics.[/color]

[b]A BRIEF HISTORY OF MODERN TRANSLATIONS:
"Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit: but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit." —Matt. 7:17-18

Note the roots of corruption.

I. Justin Martyr (100 A.D.)

A. He was born a pagan, and died in the robes of a pagan priest.

B. He was the first to mix Gnosticism with Christianity. Gnosticism was a heretical doctrine which taught that Christ was created by God the Father. Funk and Wagnall's Standard Dictionary defines Gnosticism as "A philosophical and religious system (first to sixth century) teaching that knowledge rather than faith was the key to salvation." Many scholars today place their knowledge above faith in God's word.

"So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" —Rom. 10:17

C. Historian Dr. Benjamin G. Wilkinson wrote, "In the teachings of Justin Martyr, we begin to see how muddy the stream of pure Christian doctrine was running among the heretical seats fifty years after the death of the apostle John."

("Which Bible?". ed. Dr. David 0. Fuller, Grand Rapids International Pub., Grand Rapids, Mica., 49501, p. 191)

II. Tatian (150 A.D.)

A.\tHe was a disciple of Justin Martyr.
Like Martyr, he also embraced Gnosticism.

B.\tTatian wrote a harmony of the gospels using the Christian Scriptures and the Gnostic gospels, [u]thus omitting Scripture (such as John 8:1-11; and Mark 16.9-20). His "Harmony of the Gospels" was so corrupt that the Bishop of Syria threw out 200 copies.[/u]

III. Clement of Alexandria (200 A.D.)

A. Clement was a disciple of Tatian (Remember Luke 6:40-"The disciple is not above his master: but everyone that is perfect shall be as his master.")

B.[u] Clement taught that there was no real heaven or hell, no blood atonement of Christ, and no infallible Bible.[/u]

C. He used the Gnostic Scriptures to teach his students.

D. He founded the school of Theology in Alexandria Egypt.

IV. Origen (184-254 A.D.)

A. Origen was a disciple of Clement of Alexandria.

B.He held to the same doctrine as Clement, plus he taught baptism was necessary for babies to gain salvation.

C. Origen stated, "The Scriptures are of little use to those who understand them as they are written." (Ibid. p. 192).

D. Dr. Wilkinson stated, "When we come to Origen, we speak the name of him who did the most of all to create and give direction to the forces of apostasy down through the centuries." (Ibid.).

E. Origen was one of the first textual critics. His textual work in both the N.T. and the O.T. (the "Hexapla") was the basis for two of the most corrupt manuscripts used by the Roman Catholic Church. (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus).

F.Origen developed a method of Biblical interpretation which is called "allegorization". Origen believed the Bible was only a set of stories that illustrate truth, but not literal facts. He believed Christ to be created and subordinate to the Father (the same as Jehovah's Witnesses), the pre-existence of the soul before birth (the same as the Mormons), and the final restoration of all spirits (Universal Salvation). (see Dr. Earle Cairns "Christianity Through The Centuries", Zondervan Publishing House, p. 122).

V. Eusebius (260-340 A.D.)

A. He was trained at Origen's school in Alexandria.

B. Eusebius was the editor of two Greek manuscripts (mss.) named Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. These two mss. were discredited and abandoned by early Christians as being corrupt. ("Which Bible?" p. 139,143).[/b]

[color=990000]These (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus)are Roman Catholic mss. and were not used by Protestant Christians until 1881. These two mss. are the basis for Roman Catholic Bibles and every major English translation of the Bible since 1901. These mss. were not the ones used for the King James Bible.[/color]

[b]C. Eusebius was Roman Catholic in his doctrine (see his book, "Ecclesiastical History", Vols. 1-5).

D.He was commissioned by Emperor Constantine to make 50 copies of Scripture for the Roman church. Eusebius copied the Gnostic Scriptures and Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

VI. Jerome (340-420 A.D.)
A. Like Eusebius, [u]Jerome was Roman Catholic in doctrine.[/u]

B.Jerome translated the Greek mss. of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus into Latin (called Jerome's Latin Vulgate). This was the official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church.

C. The ms. Vaticanus was placed in the Vatican library, while the ms. Sinaiticus was abandoned in a Catholic monastery, and they were not used for the next 1,500 years.

VII. Tischendorf (1869)
A.\tHe was the first Protestant to find and use the mss. of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.
B. Tischendorf was a liberal theologian.

VIII. Westcott and Hort (1881)

A.They used Vaticanus and Sinaiticus (the text created by the Gnostics, above) to produce a new Greek N.T.. This Greek N.T. is not the same as the one used for the KJB nor during the Reformation.

B. Their Greek N.T. was the basis for the Revised Version (RV) of 1881 and the basic Greek text for all modern translations such as the RSV, TEV, NASV, N.TV, etc.

C. The Greek text of Westcott and Hort (W & H) differs from the Greek text of the King James Bible (the Received Text) 5,788 times, or 10% of the text. (For examples, see the section "A Brief Comparison of Bible translations".)

D. Since all modern translations are based on the work of W & H, it would do us well to know the theology of these two men.

WESTCOTT: "I wish I could see to what forgotten truth Mariolatry (Mary-worship) bears witness."

"No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history I could never understand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think they did."

HORT: "Mary-worship and Jesus-worship have very much in common."

"Protestantism is only parenthetical and temporary."

"The pure Romish view (Catholic) seems to be nearer, and more likely to lead to the truth than the Evangelical."

"Evangelicals seem to me perverted rather than untrue."

These men did not hold to sound doctrine; instead they have turned, "...away their ears from the truth, and she be turned unto fables." —2 Tim. 4:4

NOTE: Where the KJB and the Catholic Bible (such as the New American Bible) differ, the NIV and the NASV agree with the Catholic Bible. The Bible says, "For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: —2 Corinthians 2:17a. The prophet Amos wrote, "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord." —Amos 8:11 [/b]

Sincerely,

Walter

orthodox wrote:

No, you have it entirely wrong, brother. Not interpreted by me or you, but taught to us through the Books of the New Testament, as well as the Books of the Old Testament.

Ridiculous. The books of the New Testament are inspired and inerrant, yes. But they are not always clear to the reader who does not possess the inside track and intended meanings. An interpretation of the Bible that is false, cannot be properly called inerrant or for that matter the Word of God. And please understand...the Bible DOES need to be interpreted. You already know that. It is self evident in this forum.

Let's listen to a great father of the Church:

John Chrysostom

"[Paul commands,] ‘Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word or by our letter’ [2 Thess. 2:15]. From this it is clear that they did not hand down everything by letter, but there is much also that was not written. Like that which was written, the unwritten too is worthy of belief. So let us regard the tradition of the Church also as worthy of belief. Is it a tradition? Seek no further" (Homilies on Second Thessalonians [A.D. 402]).

In the New Testament, Sound Doctrine is taught to us by the Spirit Breathed Word of God, through the Books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thesallonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, James, 1 & 2nd Peter, 1st, 2nd & 3rd John, Jude, and Revelation.

Really glad you brought this up. I have a question for you. On what authority do you rely to KNOW that each and every single one of these books belong IN the New Testament Canon? How were they deemed so? Who made the decision?

In the Old Testament, Sound Doctrine is taught to us by Spirit Breathed Word of God,, through the Books of: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1st & 2nd Samuel, 1st & 2nd Kings, 1st & 2nd Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Mahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi

Seems to me like you are missing a few. But then prove to me that this list is correct. Also, before you do, please watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aozoXFdr80

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JInrWhks9c

12. Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. 13. But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. 14. But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 15. And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17. That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. (2 timothy 3:12-17)

This passage doesn’t teach formal sufficiency for the Scriptures. You are extrapolating onto the text what isn’t there. If we look at the overall context of this passage, we can see that Paul makes reference to oral Tradition three times (cf. 2 Tim. 1:13–14; 2:2; 3:14). And to use an analogy, let’s examine a similar passage:

"And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ" (Eph. 4:11–15).

If 2 Timothy 3 proves the sole sufficiency of Scripture, then, by analogy, Ephesians 4 would likewise prove the sufficiency of pastors and teachers for the attainment of Christian perfection. In Ephesians 4, the Christian believer is equipped, built up, brought into unity and mature manhood, and even preserved from doctrinal confusion by means of the teaching function of the Church. This is a far stronger statement of the perfecting of the saints than 2 Timothy 3, yet it does not even mention Scripture.

So if all non-scriptural elements are excluded in 2 Timothy, then, by analogy, Scripture would logically have to be excluded in Ephesians. It is far more reasonable to recognize that the absence of one or more elements in one passage does not mean that they are nonexistent. The Church and Scripture are both equally necessary and important for teaching.

Let's listen to one more eminent church father:

Basil the Great

"Of the dogmas and messages preserved in the Church, some we possess from written teaching and others we receive from the tradition of the apostles, handed on to us in mystery. In respect to piety, both are of the same force. No one will contradict any of these, no one, at any rate, who is even moderately versed in matters ecclesiastical. Indeed, were we to try to reject unwritten customs as having no great authority, we would unwittingly injure the gospel in its vitals; or rather, we would reduce [Christian] message to a mere term" (The Holy Spirit 27:66 [A.D. 375]).

To jimp:

The verses you quoted support your position. That position is that we should all love one another, and get along, and let the Gospel be IGNORED.

Walter is right, as always, jimp. Your method of Bible interpretation is novel, to say the least. You're saying that when Jesus said, "Love one another," what he really meant was "Love one another." This sort of free-wheeling, exotic interpretation of Scripture is bound to incite controversy. Let's stick with the plain meaning of the text: when Jesus said "love one another" he meant "love sound doctrine."

Really glad you brought this up. I have a question for you. On what authority do you rely to KNOW that each and every single one of these books belong IN the New Testament Canon? How were they deemed so? Who made the decision?

Even the mighty Walter preferred to duck that one. Even Luther had a tough time with this one, because the answer, of course, is that THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH chose which 27 books to include in the Bible.

To Loingirder:

When each of us appears before Jesus Christ at the Bema Seat, everything that we have done during our life will be revealed and tried by fire. What is burned, we will not suffer loss, and we will still be saved. What every man has done for the sake of Jesus Christ and his gospel is like gold, silver, and precious stones. What is burned is like wood, hay and stubble.

1 Cor 3:12-15)
12. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; 13. Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. 14. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
15. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

My first question to you is: How old are you?

My second question is: Since you and I will answer to Christ for our behavior during our lifetime, why do you continue to mock His Word on these threads. Do you consider yourself above His Word?

Sincerely,

Walter

LoinGirder wrote:

To jimp:

The verses you quoted support your position. That position is that we should all love one another, and get along, and let the Gospel be IGNORED.

Walter is right, as always, jimp. Your method of Bible interpretation is novel, to say the least. You're saying that when Jesus said, "Love one another," what he really meant was "Love one another." This sort of free-wheeling, exotic interpretation of Scripture is bound to incite controversy. Let's stick with the plain meaning of the text: when Jesus said "love one another" he meant "love sound doctrine."

To Loingirder (again)

The Catholics had nothing to do with it. Jesus Christ is the one who protected and PRESERVED His Word through the Believing Church, passed down since the beginning.

WHAT DOES GOD HIMSELF PROMISE CONCERNING THE SCRIPTURES?

Let us examine some verses where God has promised both to give and protect His Word.

"Then said the Lord unto me, Thou hast well seen: for I will hasten my word to perform it." (Jeremiah 1:12)

Here God says He is watching over His Word to perform it – to make all that He has said come to pass.

Jesus said, "Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away." (Mark 13:31)
God did not promise to keep the original piece of material upon which His words were given. He says His Words SHALL NOT PASS AWAY. Therefore, this promise demands that we still have them on planet earth.

Jesus also says, "Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels." (Mark 8:38)

Why this verse if God has not preserved His Word?
"But the word of the Lord endureth forever." (I Pet.1:25)

This is a direct quote of Isaiah 40:8. God has said that His Word will endure forever! He did not promise that the original piece of paper, rock or vellum would exist forever but that He would preserve the Word – forever.

"The grass withereth, the flower fadeth; but the word of our God shall stand for ever." (Isaiah 40:8)

".. for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name." (Psalm 138:2)

Look at that! God says He has magnified His Word above His name! That is incredible for supposedly THE name was so sacred to the Jews that they did not even pronounce it.

Jesus said "... and the Scripture cannot be broken." (John 10:35)

Thus, on the basis of God's many promises we declare and proclaim to you that we have in our hands the absolutely infallible inerrant Living Word of Almighty God – that God has promised to keep His Word as revealed through these Scriptures. But there is more!

"The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shall keep them, O Lord, thou shall preserve them from this generation forever." (Psa.12:6, 7)

This is a promise from God! Do you believe it, Loingirder? He says He will preserve it--Do you believe it, Loingirder?. He did not just promise to give the originals pure and free from error – He promised to preserve the text forever!

"He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day." (John 12:48)

Since God's Word will judge us, are we to believe that God will judge us by something which He meticulously gave us and then lost along the way? Would it be just and fair of God to judge us with these words if they are no longer trustworthy – to hold us accountable when our guide is not 100 percent reliable?

In Matthew 5:18, Jesus said not "one jot or one tittle" shall change in the Word of God. Specifically, He was speaking of the Old Testament. We are being taught today that perhaps the Old Testament is not true, that it is full of contradictions, scribal errors, etc., but Jesus said that it was true and unerring – even to the smallest detail – and He was not referring to the originals, but to copies of copies of copies.

"Do you not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses in whom ye trust. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?" (John 5:45-47)

Was Jesus speaking of the "originals"? No, for they did not have the originals. They had copies of copies of copies of the originals yet Jesus said "not one jot or one tittle" had been changed. If God has only promised the "ORIGINALS" to be pure then Jesus erred in His assessment of the Scriptures. Should these statements of Jesus concerning the Scriptures be inaccurate then He is not Lord, no longer all knowing, no longer all God.

"Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life." (John 5:39-40)

The ultimate purpose of the Scriptures is to lead us to Christ – and then to guide our lives. If the Scriptures are not accurate, if they have been changed or altered, if they have been lost so that we no longer have the Word of God, how can we come to Christ for they are the Holy Spirit's implement to testify of the Lord Jesus.

As set forth above, I have Scripturally demonstrated that faith in the preservation of the text is a basic Bible doctrine.

Furthermore, the context of these many promises is not that God's Word is to be preserved in a jar somewhere in a cave or desert, lost for hundreds of years waiting to be found and restored to the believing remnant of the Church. The context is very clear in Second Timothy 3:16-17 that the inspired Word was given by God as a deposit to the Body of Christ "that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works".

Therefore, for God to accomplish this stated purpose for His having given us His Word – it must remain accessible to the disciples of the Lord, Christ Jesus!

Sincerely,

Walter

LoinGirder wrote:

Really glad you brought this up. I have a question for you. On what authority do you rely to KNOW that each and every single one of these books belong IN the New Testament Canon? How were they deemed so? Who made the decision?

Even the mighty Walter preferred to duck that one. Even Luther had a tough time with this one, because the answer, of course, is that THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH chose which 27 books to include in the Bible.

As set forth above, I have Scripturally demonstrated that faith in the preservation of the text is a basic Bible doctrine.

That was a really long post trying to prove what we already agree about. God preserved His written word. I also believe that He preserved His unwritten word as well. You love to use the term "word of God" exclusively for the written Scriptures. But this is unwarranted.

You are still dodging the question you have yet to address.

Let's try that again:

On what authority do you rely to KNOW that each and every single one of these books belong IN the New Testament Canon? How were they deemed so? Who made the decision?

No dancing this time.

by LoinGirder on 2009/10/16 15:41:09 Quote: Really glad you brought this up. I have a question for you. On what authority do you rely to KNOW that each and every single one of these books belong IN the New Testament Canon? How were they deemed so? Who made the decision? Even the mighty Walter preferred to duck that one. Even Luther had a tough time with this one, because the answer, of course, is that THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH chose which 27 books to include in the Bible.

Well the Orthodox would say that it was the Catholic Orthodox Church. But then...it was all one, holy, catholic and apostolic church anyway.

If these guys want to go with a Christ-rejecting Jewish council of Jamnia's canon...they are welcome to.

I'll stick with the church.

To orthodox: “Saint John Chrysostom” was nothing more than a Roman Catholic Gnostic, that would not know the truth if he walked into it. The “Bible” that he studied from was created by other Gnostics, and eventually became the "Roman Catholic Bible": “Of these confessions we are profoundly realized and make public to all beings daily in the Gnostic Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass” This is the link to the above: St. John Chrysostom, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass Who were these Gnostics, who cut and pasted God's Spirit breathed Word, and created their own Bible? Their Bible that has 7 extra false books, created by them (1 Esdras, 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Additions to Esther, Wisdom of Solomon, Baruch, Additions to Daniel, Prayer of Manasses, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) Noah Websters 1828 Dictionary of the English Language has this to say about them: GNOS'TIC, n. nostic. [L. gnosticus; Gr. to know.] The Gnostics were a sect of philosophers that arose in the first ages of christianity, who pretended they were the only men who had a true knowledge of the christian religion. They formed for themselves a system of theology, agreeable to the philosophy of Pythagoras and Plato, to which they accommodated THEIR INTERPRETATIONS OF SCRIPTURE. They held that all natures, intelligible, intellectual and material, are derived by successive emanations from the infinite fountain of deity. These emanations they called oeons. These doctrines were derived from the oriental philosophy. GNOS'TIC, a. nostic. Pertaining to the Gnostics or their doctrines. GNOS'TICISM, n. nos'ticism. The doctrines, principles or systems of philosophy taught by the Gnostics. A BRIEF HISTORY OF MODERN TRANSLATIONS: "Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit: but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit." —Matt. 7:17-18 Note the roots of corruption. I. Justin Martyr (100 A.D.) A. He was born a pagan, and died in the robes of a pagan priest. B. He was the first to mix Gnosticism with Christianity. Gnosticism was a heretical doctrine which taught that Christ was created by God the Father. Funk and Wagnall's Standard Dictionary defines Gnosticism as "A philosophical and religious system (first to sixth century) teaching that knowledge rather than faith was the key to salvation." Many scholars today place their knowledge above faith in God's word. "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" —Rom. 10:17 C. Historian Dr. Benjamin G. Wilkinson wrote, "In the teachings of Justin Martyr, we begin to see how muddy the stream of pure Christian doctrine was running among the heretical seats fifty years after the death of the apostle John." ("Which Bible?". ed. Dr. David 0. Fuller, Grand Rapids International Pub., Grand Rapids, Mica., 49501, p. 191) II. Tatian (150 A.D.) A. He was a disciple of Justin Martyr. Like Martyr, he also embraced Gnosticism. B. Tatian wrote a harmony of the gospels using the Christian Scriptures and the Gnostic gospels, thus omitting Scripture (such as John 8:1-11; and Mark 16.9-20). His "Harmony of the Gospels" was so corrupt that the Bishop of Syria threw out 200 copies. III. Clement of Alexandria (200 A.D.) A. Clement was a disciple of Tatian (Remember Luke 6:40-"The disciple is not above his master: but everyone that is perfect shall be as his master.") B. Clement taught that there was no real heaven or hell, no blood atonement of Christ, and no infallible Bible. C. He used the Gnostic Scriptures to teach his students. D. He founded the school of Theology in Alexandria Egypt. IV. Origen (184-254 A.D.) A. Origen was a disciple of Clement of Alexandria. B.He held to the same doctrine as Clement, plus he taught baptism was necessary for babies to gain salvation. C. Origen stated, "The Scriptures are of little use to those who understand them as they are written." (Ibid. p. 192). D. Dr. Wilkinson stated, "When we come to Origen, we speak the name of him who did the most of all to create and give direction to the forces of apostasy down through the centuries." (Ibid.). E. Origen was one of the first textual critics. His textual work in both the N.T. and the O.T. (the "Hexapla") was the basis for two of the most corrupt manuscripts used by the Roman Catholic Church. (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus). F.Origen developed a method of Biblical interpretation which is called "allegorization". Origen believed the Bible was only a set of stories that illustrate truth, but not literal facts. He believed Christ to be created and subordinate to the Father (the same as Jehovah's Witnesses), the pre-existence of the soul before birth (the same as the Mormons), and the final restoration of all spirits (Universal Salvation). (see Dr. Earle Cairns "Christianity Through The Centuries", Zondervan Publishing House, p. 122). V. Eusebius (260-340 A.D.) A. He was trained at Origen's school in Alexandria. B. Eusebius was the editor of two Greek manuscripts (mss.) named Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. These two mss. were discredited and abandoned by early Christians as being corrupt. ("Which Bible?" p. 139,143). These (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus)are Roman Catholic mss. and were not used by Protestant Christians until 1881. These two mss. are the basis for Roman Catholic Bibles and every major English translation of the Bible since 1901. These mss. were not the ones used for the King James Bible. C. Eusebius was Roman Catholic in his doctrine (see his book, "Ecclesiastical History", Vols. 1-5). D.He was commissioned by Emperor Constantine to make 50 copies of Scripture for the Roman church. Eusebius copied the Gnostic Scriptures and Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. VI. Jerome (340-420 A.D.) A. Like Eusebius, Jerome was Roman Catholic in doctrine. B.Jerome translated the Greek mss. of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus into Latin (called Jerome's Latin Vulgate). This was the official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church. C. The ms. Vaticanus was placed in the Vatican library, while the ms. Sinaiticus was abandoned in a Catholic monastery, and they were not used for the next 1,500 years. VII. Tischendorf (1869) A. He was the first Protestant to find and use the mss. of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. B. Tischendorf was a liberal theologian. VIII. Westcott and Hort (1881) A.They used Vaticanus and Sinaiticus (the text created by the Gnostics, above) to produce a new Greek N.T.. This Greek N.T. is not the same as the one used for the KJB nor during the Reformation. B. Their Greek N.T. was the basis for the Revised Version (RV) of 1881 and the basic Greek text for all modern translations such as the RSV, TEV, NASV, N.TV, etc. C. The Greek text of Westcott and Hort (W & H) differs from the Greek text of the King James Bible (the Received Text) 5,788 times, or 10% of the text. (For examples, see the section "A Brief Comparison of Bible translations".) D. Since all modern translations are based on the work of W & H, it would do us well to know the theology of these two men. WESTCOTT: "I wish I could see to what forgotten truth Mariolatry (Mary-worship) bears witness." "No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history I could never understand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think they did." HORT: "Mary-worship and Jesus-worship have very much in common." "Protestantism is only parenthetical and temporary." "The pure Romish view (Catholic) seems to be nearer, and more likely to lead to the truth than the Evangelical." "Evangelicals seem to me perverted rather than untrue." These men did not hold to sound doctrine; instead they have turned, "...away their ears from the truth, and she be turned unto fables." —2 Tim. 4:4 NOTE: Where the KJB and the Catholic Bible (such as the New American Bible) differ, the NIV and the NASV agree with the Catholic Bible. The Bible says, "For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: —2 Corinthians 2:17a. The prophet Amos wrote, "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord." —Amos 8:11

You've got this all in a nice neat little package don't you? Let's get to bursting this heretical bubble, shall we?

You don't like the fact that the ENTIRETY of early ante-Nicene body of evidence sounds "catholic" or "orthodox" so you accuse early Christianity of being gnostic. That would be hilarious if you weren't so serious. These very men whom you accuse of being gnostic FOUGHT gnosticism and prevailed. But let's take a look even earlier than Justin Martyr. You say things went wrong after John was dead? Well, let's take a look at the guys who were still alive and who knew John and Peter. Men whom they installed as bishop and entrusted the sacred deposit of faith. I'll prove to the world here and now that you believe that the Christian faith was a failure from the moment it passed out of apostolic hands.

The first Christians believed that the Eucharist was a sacrifice and proclaimed this in their writings. They recognized the sacrificial character of Jesus’ instruction, "Do this in remembrance of me" (Touto poieite tan eman anamnasin; Luke 22:19, 1 Cor. 11:24–25) which is better translated "Offer this as my memorial offering."

Thus, Protestant early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly writes that in the early Church "the Eucharist was regarded as the distinctively Christian sacrifice. . . . Malachi’s prediction (1:10–11) that the Lord would reject Jewish sacrifices and instead would have "a pure offering" made to him by the Gentiles in every place was seized upon by Christians as a prophecy of the Eucharist. The Didache indeed actually applies the term thusia, or sacrifice, to the Eucharist. . . .

"It was natural for early Christians to think of the Eucharist as a sacrifice. The fulfillment of prophecy demanded a solemn Christian offering, and the rite itself was wrapped in the sacrificial atmosphere with which our Lord invested the Last Supper. The words of institution, ‘Do this’ (touto poieite), must have been charged with sacrificial overtones for second-century ears; Justin... (who fought gnosticism) understood them to mean, ‘Offer this.’ . . . The bread and wine, moreover, are offered ‘for a memorial (eis anamnasin) of the passion,’ a phrase which in view of his identification of them with the Lord’s body and blood implies much more than an act of purely spiritual recollection" (J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines [Full Reference], 196–7).

The Didache

"Assemble on the Lord’s day, and break bread and offer the Eucharist; but first make confession of your faults, so that your sacrifice may be a pure one. Anyone who has a difference with his fellow is not to take part with you until he has been reconciled, so as to avoid any profanation of your sacrifice [Matt. 5:23–24]. For this is the offering of which the Lord has said, ‘Everywhere and always bring me a sacrifice that is undefiled, for I am a great king, says the Lord, and my name is the wonder of nations’ [Mal. 1:11, 14]" (Didache 14 [A.D. 70]).

Clement of Rome (successor and friend of Peter, Paul, and John - mentioned by Paul in Scripture)

"Our sin will not be small if we eject from the episcopate those who blamelessly and holily have offered its sacrifices. Blessed are those presbyters who have already finished their course, and who have obtained a fruitful and perfect release" (Letter to the Corinthians 44:4–5 [A.D. 80]).

Ignatius of Antioch (successor to Peter in Antioch, friend and disciple of the apostles)

"Make certain, therefore, that you all observe one common Eucharist; for there is but one Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, and but one cup of union with his Blood, and one single altar of sacrifice—even as there is also but one bishop, with his clergy and my own fellow servitors, the deacons. This will ensure that all your doings are in full accord with the will of God" (Letter to the Philadelphians 4 [A.D. 110]).

So what say you? Will you give up your heresy?

Walter,

We will both answer for the same thing on Judgment Day. The difference is that I won't step up to the White Throne expecting a heavenly reward for my work as a Dogma Enforcement Officer. I invented LoinGirder as a one-post joke (remember when I warned you about Chuck Smith's role in the fluoridation conspiracy?), but LoinGirder got so much fan mail that I ran with it for a while. Now I'm running out of jokes and this thread is the perfect place to explain The LoinGirder Project.

To answer your first question, I am 42. LoinGirder's immaturity was part of the joke. LoinGirder is me when I was fifteen and my Heroes of the Faith were Jack Chick, Mike Warnke and Keith Green. Now I look back and cringe at the nonsense I believed and the way I treated people for disbelieving the nonsense that I believed. My excuse is that I was fifteen. I can't tell you how many times I've read posts on this forum and assumed that the writer was 15, only to find he was in his fifties or sixties, or even in his seventies, like that poor "Intensity" nut who got booted off the forum. (Remember when he called you a "pompous fop" for disagreeing with his doctrine? I don't know how a guy who wears horn-rimmed glasses and polyester leisure suits and carries a Jack Van Impe Soulwinner's Bible gets labelled a "fop" but anyway...) I was literally shocked to learn that Intensity was 73 years old! He had the psychology of a teenager - a fragile ego trying to vaunt itself into manhood - and an immature teenager at that. But there you are: dogmatism is always marked by an unusual level of emotional immaturity.

You seem to think that my humorous twisting of the Scripture to support fundamentalism is irreverent and I might be in trouble with the Almighty. I don't. Sanctified satire is justifiable because there is no better way to disaffect people to error than getting them to laugh at it. And fundamentalism is error. In fact, it is a heresy in the strictest New Testament sense of the term. When you sift through the rhetoric, fundamentalism defines "faith" as "sound doctrine." This is a vast departure from "the faith once delivered unto all the saints." Sound doctrine is essential, because saving faith can only arise from a foundation of Gospel truth - no one needs to explain that to you! But faith and doctrine are not the same thing, yet fundamentalism confounds them, making no distinction. Faith in Jesus is synonymous with faith in evangelical theology. Keep this in mind when you peruse your favorite heresy watchdog websites and you will see that this is the case.

Why do fundamentalists infallibly fall into bibliolatry - making an idol out of a casket of words? You said yourself,

"The ultimate purpose of the Scriptures is to lead us to Christ"

All these follies arise from the fundamental error of confounding faith with dogma. But this error did not occur by chance; it arose from the peculiar adolescent psychology of the sectarian.

Jesus said, "If ye love me, keep my commandments...This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you." But since no two people - much less the entire body of Christ - can agree on all things, keeping this commandment entails compromise. But in fundamentalism compromise is a sin.

"Can we maintain spiritual unity and doctrinal diversity in the church?"

If "we" includes fundamentalists, the answer is no. We can invite them to the table, but they won't come. That would be compromise.

And that's the point of the LoinGirder project: fundamentalism is not Christianity. It is a cult like the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society and every other American-born religion.

Exit LoinGirder

To Loingirder (AKA Wayne):

The liberal always attacks the messenger, and thus try’s to obfuscate the message. We have seen that in the recent election when the Liberal Press personally attacked Joe the Plumber, rather than focusing on his message that Obama planned on taking money from those that have it and giving it to those who don’t (redistribution of wealth).

What I have posted is Scripture, that supports my position. Since the liberal Christian places absolutely no value whatsoever on the Word of God and in most cases is totally ignorant of the scripture, he attacks the poster. Not once, but every time.[color=990000][b] In reality, the liberal Christian is offended by the Scripture, by the very Word of God. That is what they are rejecting.[/color][/b]

We certainly are in the last days. The Purpose Driven Church, the Emergent Church, Contemplative prayer, the Name it and Claim it bunch, The Joel Olsteen false message. And guess what? These last day, apostate movements above are filled to the brim with goats that think they are sheep.

If the Word of God was studied, and internalized by Christians today, there would NOT be an apostate Church.

My purpose is not to”win” people to Christ. My purpose is to guide those that are here into all truth. The only way to do that is through the Scriptures.

The problem with you loingirder (and all other "liberal Christians"), is that you have rejected the authority of the Scriptures.[color=990000][b] Thus those that you have "lead" to Christ are totally at the mercy of the Rick Warrens and Joel Olsteen’s of this world. With your own personal rejection of the authority of the Scriptures and their importance in the life of the believer, you are actually responsible for assisting Satan in creating his apostate church, that will march into the great tribulation.[/color][/b]

Sincerely,

Walter

LoinGirder wrote:
Walter,

We will both answer for the same thing on Judgment Day. The difference is that I won't step up to the White Throne expecting a heavenly reward for my work as a Dogma Enforcement Officer. I invented LoinGirder as a one-post joke (remember when I warned you about Chuck Smith's role in the fluoridation conspiracy?), but LoinGirder got so much fan mail that I ran with it for a while. Now I'm running out of jokes and this thread is the perfect place to explain The LoinGirder Project.

DELETED

Loingirder,

I hope "exit loingirder" doesn't mean you left the forum. That would be awful. I really appreciate much of what you say.

If you say faith and dogma must individually be understood, I agree. But both faith and dogma are valid in the strict sense of the words.

Strong words about Prot fundies. But I understand where you are coming from. I, myself, obviously am not a minimalistic fundamentalist.

You are right. It is not scriptural or Christian in the original sense of the term.

Loingirder,

BTW, I actually spent an afternoon with Jack Chick once. He's a nice guy. At the time that was a big deal for me. Now I really think he is just very misguided and gullible. Too bad.

Waltern,

"liberal" is a subjective term as applied to theology since it is an it's core relativistic. But I do know that you probably err on the side of relativism without knowing it.

BTW, I'm waiting for you to answer my question and prove to the world that you aren't a cult member following something you can't substantiate.

I believe the Bible is the infallible inerrant Word of God and can prove why and where it came from and how it was compiled and declared canonical.

Can you?

To Orthodox:

Orthodox said:

[b]BTW, I'm waiting for you to answer my question and prove to the world that you aren't a cult member following something you can't substantiate.

I believe the Bible is the infallible inerrant Word of God and can prove why and where it came from and how it was compiled and declared canonical

Walter responds to Orthodox:

Sir, you err because you have only heard one side of the story, from Roman Catholicism. Of course it would be skewed in favor of their error:

A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE KING JAMES BIBLE OF THE BELIEVING CHURCH AND ITS GREEK TEXT:

I. Believers at Antioch (1st. century)

A. The believers in Antioch were the first to be called "Christians" (Acts 11:26).

B. Since Antioch is in Syria, they translated the Bible into Old Syrian. This Bible agrees with the KJB and not the Catholic line of mss.

C. The believers at Antioch copied the Scriptures in both Syrian and Greek on papyrus (a paper-like material).

II. Believers in Greece (1st.-3rd. century)
A. They used the Greek text of Antioch and rejected the Greek text of Alexandria Egypt as corrupt. (Fuller, p. 194-215).

[b]B. This is the church which departed from Rome and the Catholic church in the 4th century. History shows that the text of the KJB always goes away from the Roman Catholic Church. This being a historical fact, then why go back to Rome to make a new translation?[/b]

C. These believers copied Scripture on papyrus in both Greek and Old Latin (not Jerome's Latin Vulgate, but Old Latin). This Bible was translated in 150 A.D. and agrees in its text with the KJB, not the modern translations.

III. Believers in Northern Italy (3rd.-12th century)

A. They copied and used the Old Latin Bible and rejected the vulgate as corrupt.

[b]B. These believers were called "Waldensens" and were known for the evangelism they did and the street preaching.

C. During the Inquisitions by the Catholic church, the Waldensens were the believers who were put to death (see "Foxe's Book of Martyr's")

IV. Believers in Early England and France (2nd.-17th. century)

A. They used the Old Latin Bible of the Waldensens as the official translation. They also copied the Greek text which later came to be called the Receptus.

B. These believers were very evangelistic and suffered much under Rome.[/b]

(1453) Moslems take Constantinople. Great exodus of Greek scholars from there to Western Europe, bringing with them Greek manuscripts of the Bible FROM THE BELIEVING CHURCH, NOT FROM ROME.[/b]

V. Erasmus (1466-1536 A.D.)
A. Erasmus compiled the Greek mss. of the believers in Greece, Italy, England, and France and the Old Syrian and Latin translations to produce the Greek N.T. the Reformers used.

B. Note, this was the Greek text of the Reformation. This line always goes away from Rome.

VI. Luther (16th. century)

A. Luther translated the Bible into German using the text of Erasmus. He rejected the Greek text of the Catholic church (the text modern translations use).

B. Luther was the father of the Reformation.

VII. The King James Bible (1611)

A. The N.T. was translated off the Greek text of the Reformation. The translators rejected Jerome's Vulgate and the Catholic Bible.

B. The translators were men of God who knew their task. Note the following concerning a few of the translators of the Y-M.

1. Dr. Lansalot Andrews He was the chairman. He spoke 20 languages. He spent 5 hours a day in prayer. (see E. M. Bound, "Power Through Prayer" p. 33).

2. Dr. John Reynolds, Puritan leader. He spoke Hebrew and Greek as well as he could English by the time he was 18 years old.

3. Dr. John Boise He spoke Hebrew by the time he was 5 Years old. By the time he was 14 years old he spoke Greek. He spent from 4:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. studying each day.

4. Dr. Miles Smiths He spoke Chaldee, Syriac, and Arabic as well as he could English. He also served with Dr. Thomas Bilson as one of the two final editors of the whole King James Bible.

5. Dr. William Bedwell: He was called the father of Arabic studies in England. He wrote Lexicons in Arabic, Hebrew, Syriac and Chaldean. (Note: a Lexicon is like a Dictionary telling the meaning of words and their root meaning).

6. Dr. Thomas Holland: Not only was he a great Hebrew and Greek scholar, but a man of great dedication to God. His dying words were, "Come, 0 come, Lord Jesus, Thou Morning Star! Come, Lord Jesus; I desire to be dissolved and to be with Thee."

7. Dr. Laurence Chaderton: He was noted for his knowledge of Latin, Hebrew and Greek. He also spoke French, Spanish, and Italian ' Because of his Christian faith his father cut him off from his family. People enjoyed his preaching so much that they would beg him to preach even after he had just preached a two hour sermon! He was committed to personal witnessing. He said of his household servants, "I desire as much to have my servants know the Lord as myself."

8. All the translators of the KJB suffered under the reign of Queen Mary (also called "Bloody Mary") before James became King of England. This is the only Bible committee to suffer persecution of their faith.

NOTE: For more information on the above translators and the others, see "Which Bible?" pp. 13-24, or the book by Dr. Gustavus S. Paine, "The Men Behind The KJB"

C. The text of the KJB is the same today as it was in 1611, (see enclosed "A Brief Summary of Some Objections to the King James Bible", V.)

D. The translators of the KJB believed they translated the pure word of God. (see Appendix 2).

E. The Greek text of the KJB is based on the majority of all Greek mss. and the line of Bible Believers throughout Church history.

F. The KJB is the Bible of the Great Awakening, the Well's Revival, the preaching of Edwards, Wesley, Moody, Carry, Hudson Taylor, Sunday, Spurgeon, etc., and every major revival from 1611 until now! No modern translation (or its Greek text) can make the same claim.
Matthew 12:33 "Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known of his fruit."

1. The tree of the modern translation is corrupt, how can the translation be good?

2. The tree of the KJB is pure, how can the translation be bad?

3. The fruit of the KJB is Reformation and Revival, not Rome.

4. The modern translation says it is with error, the KJB says it is without error. Which one would you want to read???

5. The Bible always calls for choices (Josh. 24:15); this is also true in reading a Bible translation. You must choose which one you will read. Do so, not by what men say, but by the Word of God .

[color=990000]This is a comparison between the King James Bible of the believing Church & the New Jerusalem Bible, the Bible created by the Gnostics and embraced by Rome. The King James is the Authorized Version of the Protestant Church, while the New Jerusalem Bible is the official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church.[/color]

Matthew:
King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE
Matt. 5:22. But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
But I say this to you, anyone who is angry with a brother will answer for it before the court; anyone who calls a brother `Fool' will answer for it before the Sanhedrin; and anyone who calls him `Traitor' will answer for it in hell fire.

King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE
Matt. 5:27
Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:

New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
`You have heard how it was said, You shall not commit adultery.

King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE
Matt 5:44
But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
44. But I say this to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you;

King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE
Matt 9:13
13. But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
Go and learn the meaning of the words: Mercy is what pleases me, not sacrifice. And indeed I came to call not the upright, but sinners.' .

King James Bible---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE
Matt 16:20
Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ. Note-Jesus was his name, that meant Savior. Christ is His Title, which means Messiah!
New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
Then he gave the disciples strict orders not to say to anyone that he was the Christ.

King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE
Matt 18:2
And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them,
New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
So he called a little child to him whom he set among them.

King James—-- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE
Matt 18:11
For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.
New Jerusalem Bible----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
[b]DELETED[/b]

King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE
Matt 20:16 So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen
New Jerusalem Bible----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
Thus the last will be first, and the first, last."

King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE
20:22 But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able.
New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
Jesus answered, "You do not know what you are asking. Can you drink the cup that I am going to drink?" They replied, "We can."

King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE
22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
For at the resurrection men and women do not marry; no, they are like the angels in heaven.

King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE
23:14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
[b]DELETED[/b]

King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE
Matt 25:15
And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey.
New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
To one he gave five talents, to another two, to a third one, each in proportion to his ability. Then he set out on his journey.

King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE
Matt 27:35
And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots.
New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
When they had finished crucifying him they shared out his clothing by casting lots,

Mark:
King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE
Mark 1:2
As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
It is written in the prophet Isaiah:Look, I am going to send my messenger in front of you to prepare your way before you.

King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE
Mark 1:14
Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God,
New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
After John had been arrested, Jesus went into Galilee. There he proclaimed the gospel from God saying,

King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE
Mark 6:11
And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.
New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
And if any place does not welcome you and people refuse to listen to you, as you walk away shake off the dust under your feet as evidence to them."

King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE
Mark 7:27
But Jesus said unto her, Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it unto the dogs.
New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
And he said to her, "The children should be fed first, because it is not fair to take the children's food and throw it to little dogs."

King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE
Mark 9:44
Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
[b]DELETED[/b]

King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE
Mark 9:46
Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
[b]DELETED[/b]

King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE
Mark 11:10
Blessed be the kingdom of our father David, that cometh in the name of the Lord: Hosanna in the highest.
[New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
Blessed is the coming kingdom of David our father! Hosanna in the highest heavens!"

King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE
Mark 11:26
But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.
New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
[b]DELETED[/b]

King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE
Mark 12:23
In the resurrection therefore, when they shall rise, whose wife shall she be of them? for the seven had her to wife.
New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
Now at the resurrection, when they rise again, whose wife will she be, since she had been married to all seven?"

Mark 13:14
King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE
But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:
New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
`When you see the appalling abomination set up where it ought not to be (let the reader understand), then those in Judaea must escape to the mountains;

King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE
Mark 15:28
And began to salute him, Hail, King of the Jews!
New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
And they began saluting him, "Hail, king of the Jews!"

King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE
Mark 16:9-20
9. Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils. 10. And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept. 11. And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not. 12. After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country. 13. And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them. 14. Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen. 15. And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. 17. And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; 18. They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. 19. So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. 20. And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.

New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
9. Having risen in the morning on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary of Magdala from whom he had cast out seven devils. 10. She then went to those who had been his companions, and who were mourning and in tears, and told them. 11. But they did not believe her when they heard her say that he was alive and that she had seen him. 12. After this, he showed himself under another form to two of them as they were on their way into the country. 13. These went back and told the others, who did not believe them either. 14. Lastly, he showed himself to the Eleven themselves while they were at table. He reproached them for their incredulity and obstinacy, because they had refused to believe those who had seen him after he had risen. 15. And he said to them, "Go out to the whole world; proclaim the gospel to all creation. 16. Whoever believes and is baptised will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17. These are the signs that will be associated with believers: in my name they will cast out devils; they will have the gift of tongues; 18. they will pick up snakes in their hands and be unharmed should they drink deadly poison; they will lay their hands on the sick, who will recover." 19. And so the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven; there at the right hand of God he took his place, 20. while they, going out, preached everywhere, the Lord working with them and confirming the word by the signs that accompanied it.

Luke:

King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE
Luke 2:33
(As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;)

New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
observing what is written in the Law of the Lord: Every first-born male must be consecrated to the Lord,

King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE
Luke 2:44
But they, supposing him to have been in the company, went a day's journey; and they sought him among their kinsfolk and acquaintance.

New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
They assumed he was somewhere in the party, and it was only after a day's journey that they went to look for him among their relations and acquaintances.

King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE
Luke 4:4
And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.
New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
But Jesus replied, "Scripture says:Human beings live not on bread alone."

King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE
Luke 4:8
And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
But Jesus answered him, "Scripture says: You must do homage to the Lord your God, him alone you must serve."

King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE
Luke 9:56
56. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.
New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
56 and they went on to another village.

King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE
Luke 9:57
And it came to pass, that, as they went in the way, a certain man said unto him, Lord, I will follow thee whithersoever thou goest.
New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
As they travelled along they met a man on the road who said to him, "I will follow you wherever you go."

King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE
Luke 11:2
And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.
New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
He said to them, "When you pray, this is what to say:
Father, may your name be held holy, your kingdom come;
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE
Luke 12:31
But rather seek ye the kingdom of God; and all these things shall be added unto you.

New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
No; set your hearts on his kingdom, and these other things will be given you as well.

King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE
Luke 17:36
Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
[b]DELETED[/b]

King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE
Luke 23:17
(For of necessity he must release one unto them at the feast.)
New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
[b]DELETED[/b]

John:
King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE
John 4:42 And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world.
New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
and they said to the woman, "Now we believe no longer because of what you told us; we have heard him ourselves and we know that he is indeed the Saviour of the world."

King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE
John 5:4
For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.
New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
[b] DELETED[/b]\t

King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE
John 8:1-11
1. Jesus went unto the mount of Olives. 2. And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them. 3. And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, 4. They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. 5. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? 6. This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. 7. So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. 8. And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. 9. And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. 10. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? 11. She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go,
New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
1. and Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2. At daybreak he appeared in the Temple again; and as all the people came to him, he sat down and began to teach them. 3. The scribes and Pharisees brought a woman along who had been caught committing adultery; and making her stand there in the middle 4. they said to Jesus, "Master, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery, 5. and in the Law Moses has ordered us to stone women of this kind. What have you got to say?" 6. They asked him this as a test, looking for an accusation to use against him. But Jesus bent down and started writing on the ground with his finger. 7. As they persisted with their question, he straightened up and said, "Let the one among you who is guiltless be the first to throw a stone at her." 8. Then he bent down and continued writing on the ground. 9. When they heard this they went away one by one, beginning with the eldest, until the last one had gone and Jesus was left alone with the woman, who remained in the middle. 10. Jesus again straightened up and said, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" 11. `No one, sir," she replied. "Neither do I condemn you," said Jesus. "Go away, and from this moment sin no more."

King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE
John 8:29
Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.
New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
he who sent me is with me,and has not left me to myself,for I always do what pleases him.

Acts:
King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE
Acts 2:30
Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;
New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
But since he was a prophet, and knew that God had sworn him an oath to make one of his descendants succeed him on the throne,

King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE
Acts 4:24
And when they heard that, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is:

New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
When they heard it they lifted up their voice to God with one heart. "Master," they prayed, "it is you who made sky and earth and sea, and everything in them;
_______________________________________________

King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE
Acts 8:37
And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
[b]DELETED[/b]

King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE
Acts 15:18
Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.
New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
known so long ago.

King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE
Acts 16:31
And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE

31. They told him, "Become a believer in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, and your household too."
____________________________________________
King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE
Acts 17:26
And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
From one single principle he not only created the whole human race so that they could occupy the entire earth, but he decreed the times and limits of their habitation. _______________________________________________
King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE
Acts 28:29
And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves.
New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
[b] DELETED[/b]
___________________________________________

Romans:
King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE
Romans 1:16
For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
For I see no reason to be ashamed of the gospel; it is God's power for the salvation of everyone who has faith, Jews first, but Greeks as well,
___________________________________________
King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE
Romans 8:1
There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
Thus, condemnation will never come to those who are in Christ Jesus,
__________________________________________
King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE
Romans 11:6
And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
And since it is by grace, it cannot now be by good actions, or grace would not be grace at all!
_________________________________________________
King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE
Romans 15:8
Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:

New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
I tell you that Christ's work was to serve the circumcised, fulfilling the truthfulness of God by carrying out the promises made to the fathers,
_________________________________________________
King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE

Romans 16:24
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.
New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
[b] DELETED[/b]

I Corinthians:

King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE

1 Cor: 5:4
In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,
New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
When you have gathered together in the name of our Lord Jesus, with the presence of my spirit, and in the power of our Lord Jesus,

King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE
6:20
For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.
New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
You are not your own property, then; you have been bought at a price. So use your body for the glory of God.

King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE
1 Cor.9:1
Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?
New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord?

King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE
1 Cor 10:28
But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof:
New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
28. But if someone says to you, "This food has been offered in sacrifice," do not eat it, out of consideration for the person that told you, for conscience's sake,

Galatians:
King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE
Gal 6:15
For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.

New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
It is not being circumcised or uncircumcised that matters; but what matters is a new creation.

Ephesians:
King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE
Ephesians 3:9
And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:
New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
9. and of throwing light on the inner workings of the mystery kept hidden through all the ages in God, the Creator of everything.

King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE
Ephesians 5:30
For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones
Note, this refers to Christ’s resurrected body of flesh and bones- see Luke 24:39.

New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
because we are parts of his Body.

Colossians:

King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE
Col 1:14
In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
and in him we enjoy our freedom, the forgiveness of sin.

1 Thess.:
King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE Thes 1:1
Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians which is in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
Paul, Silvanus and Timothy, to the Church in Thessalonica which is in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Grace to you and peace.

I Timothy.:
King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE
1 Tim 3:3
Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
not a heavy drinker, nor hot-tempered, but gentle and peaceable, not avaricious,

King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE
1 Tim 3:16
And without controversy great is the mystery of [color=990000][b][u]godliness[/color][/b][/u]: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
Without any doubt, the mystery of our [color=990000][b][u]religion[/color][/b][/u] is very deep indeed:He was made visible in the flesh,justified in the Spirit,seen by angels,proclaimed to the gentiles,believed in throughout the world,taken up in glory.
Note:

[color=990000][b]As Christian believers, we are blood bought, purchased by the shed blood of Jesus Christ, and have a personal relationship with God.[u] We do not have a religion. The world is full of “religions”, and all of them are false.We have a personal relationship with God, whom we address is Abba (Father).[/color][/b][/u]

1 John:
King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE
1 John 5:7
5. This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
6. If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth: 7. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
5. This is what we have heard from him and are declaring to you: God is light, and there is no darkness in him at all. 6. If we say that we share in God's life while we are living in darkness,we are lying, because we are not living the truth. 7. But if we live in light,as he is in light, we have a share in another's life,and the blood of Jesus, his Son, cleanses us from all sin.
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
Revelation:
King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE
Rev 1:6
And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.
New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
and made us a Kingdom of Priests to serve his God and Father; to him, then, be glory and power for ever and ever. Amen.

King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE
Rev 1:8
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.
New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
`I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, who is, who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE
Rev 1:11
Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.
New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
`Write down in a book all that you see, and send it to the seven churches of Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea."
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
King James---- PROTESTANT DOCTRINE
Rev 21:24
And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honor into it.
New Jerusalem Bible-----CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
The nations will come to its light and the kings of the earth will bring it their treasures.

[color=990000][b]In light of this and about 5,000 other places, how can the Catholic Bible (and all modern versions) be called Protestant Bibles? Remember, they are based on Roman Catholic mms.[/color][/b]

[b]The Bible says,

"Can two walk together, except they be agreed?" —Amos 3:3[/b]

Sincerely,

Walter

Waltern,

I am SO glad the Lord has allowed our paths to cross. I am so happy to be able to show you where these views are biased and without any merit whatsoever. Here we go:

A. The believers in Antioch were the first to be called "Christians" (Acts 11:26).

You are talking to a guy who is a part of this very church that was started in Antioch. I am under the spiritual authority of the Patriarch of Antioch. We have a direct line of succession back to Peter. So you will be very happy to know that our liturgical text is the Syriac Peshitta.

Didn't see that coming did you?

B. Since Antioch is in Syria, they translated the Bible into Old Syrian. This Bible agrees with the KJB and not the Catholic line of mss.

All of the extant mss are "catholic" mss. You have been misinformed.

II. Believers in Greece (1st.-3rd. century) A. They used the Greek text of Antioch and rejected the Greek text of Alexandria Egypt as corrupt. (Fuller, p. 194-215).

The text of Antioch was Western Syriac. The Diatessaron was also used during this time. The canon was not formally defined during this time either.

But I'm sure you got all of this on a Bible Baptist site or some place like that. Don't worry they duped me too.

B. This is the church which departed from Rome and the Catholic church in the 4th century. History shows that the text of the KJB always goes away from the Roman Catholic Church. This being a historical fact, then why go back to Rome to make a new translation?

You forget to add one important fact about the Syrian Orthodox Church. It believes in:

- the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist
- the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist
- that baptism is being born again and that therein grace is given
- "one baptism for the remission of sins"
- the holy theotokos, the virgin mary
- that Mary was a perpetual virgin
- that Mary was sinless
- in the same seven holy mysteries/sacraments of the Catholic Church

I could go on and on.

C. These believers copied Scripture on papyrus in both Greek and Old Latin (not Jerome's Latin Vulgate, but Old Latin). This Bible was translated in 150 A.D. and agrees in its text with the KJB, not the modern translations.

"these" Greek believers never spoke latin and therefore never needed the vulgata.

You're trying to create continuity out of thin air.

III. Believers in Northern Italy (3rd.-12th century) A. They copied and used the Old Latin Bible and rejected the vulgate as corrupt. B. These believers were called "Waldensens" and were known for the evangelism they did and the street preaching.

This is a huge criticism I have for my personal friend David Daniels' book "Did the Catholic Church give us the Bible". The Vadua or Waldensians were started by Peter Waldo (c. 1140 – c. 1218), also Pierre Vaudès or de Vaux.

It is hilarious to see the KJV onlyists try to make this wild claim of a thousand years of continuity using a man who was born in the twelfth century.

Notice...you gave the dates: "3rd.-12th century"

I here and now call you to retract your statement immediately if you love truth.

IV. Believers in Early England and France (2nd.-17th. century) A. They used the Old Latin Bible of the Waldensens as the official translation. They also copied the Greek text which later came to be called the Receptus.

Again, please retract your ignorant statement. It is patently false. It is hard to think that you have ever been a serious student of Christian history.

B. These believers were very evangelistic and suffered much under Rome.

The believers of the second century were very evangelistic...yes. Evangelical? Absolutely not. Have you EVER read the writings of the ante-Nicene fathers?

How could you have and have posted such wild material?

To Orthodox:

Do you have a real name, or are you one of the many aliases of Loingirder (also known as Wayne)?

It is obvious that you are not interested in honest debate about this issue.

I'll just offer several quotes for you to chew on:

The Bible is like a lion; it does not need to be defended; just let it loose and it will defend itself.

-- Martin Luther

[b]Former priest Charles Chiniquy said the following in 1888 in his book Fifty Years in the Church of Rome--

"...modern Protestants have not only forgotten what Rome was, what she is, and what she will forever be: the most irreconcilable and powerful enemy of the Gospel of Christ; but they consider her almost as a branch of the Church whose corner-stone is Christ... [/b]

[color=990000][b]"[The following is] an exact translation of the doctrine of the Church of Rome as taught to-day in all Roman Catholic seminaries, colleges and universities, through the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas, vol. iv., p. 90:

'Though heretics (Protestants) must not be tolerated because they deserve it, we must bear with them till, by the second admonition, they may be brought back to the faith of the church. But those who, after a second admonition, remain obstinate to their errors, must not only be excommunicated, but they must be delivered to the secular power to be exterminated.'"[/color][/b]

Good evening,

Walter

orthodox wrote:
Waltern,

I am SO glad the Lord has allowed our paths to cross. I am so happy to be able to show you where these views are biased and without any merit whatsoever. Here we go:

DELETED

Waltern,

Whoa...did I hit a chord or what? You can't even begin to debate me can you? I took your post point by point and this is all you can say:

It is obvious that you are not interested in honest debate about this issue. I'll just offer several quotes for you to chew on: The Bible is like a lion; it does not need to be defended; just let it loose and it will defend itself. -- Martin Luther

Well that is where you are very wrong. I am INDEED interested in honest debate about this issue. Maybe you have met your match in the Church.

You see, the Church, like her Scriptures, is like a lion. I have let that lion out of the cage and you went running. Hmm...

But I plan to post much more about your beloved Peter Waldo.

Coming next...

WHAT ABOUT THE WALDENSES?

The same period of Medieval history that saw the rise and suppression of the Cathars witnessed the emergence of a very different religious movement known as the Waldenses. In contrast to the Cathars, whose dualistic world- and life-view placed them in radical opposition to historic Christianity, the Waldenses began as a reform movement within the Roman Catholic Church and never imbibed Manichaean teachings.

PETER WALDO : Founder of the Waldenses

The sect owed its origin to Peter Waldo (d. 1216), known in France as Valdes. Little is known about Waldo's life, but it is clear that he was a prosperous merchant in Lyons who suddenly divested himself of his wealth in order to pursue a life of "evangelical perfection," which, to medieval Catholics, meant following the example of Christ, including the Savior's poverty.

The sources indicate that Waldo became impressed with his need to follow Christ when he heard a minstrel relate the legend of St. Alexis, who had renounced riches and separated from his wife to undertake a pilgrimage to the Holy Land. Waldo also accepted counsel from a priest who told him of Christ's command to a rich inquirer who had come to him seeking the way to eternal life. Jesus said:

"If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." (Matthew 19:21)

His personal appropriation of the Lord's teaching to the rich young man mentioned in the Gospel reflects Waldo's habit of accepting biblical injunctions literally, and it shows his great desire to conform his life to the teachings of Christ. Waldo developed a sense of urgency to become learned in the scriptures, and to that end he paid two scholars to translate the Gospels and other portions of the Bible into his vernacular tongue.

While the behavior Waldo exhibited was unusual, it was not unprecedented, and his actions to this point did not violate the canons of the Roman Catholic Church. Vows of poverty and the study of scripture had been regular features of monastic living for centuries and enjoyed the approval of the Church. Waldo, however, was neither a monk nor a priest, but a devout layman who sought to practice "evangelical perfection" without entering a monastery. To those who ridiculed him for this, Waldo explained,

"Citizens and friends, I am not out of my mind, as you seem to think, but I am avenging myself on those who are oppressing me in making me a lover of money more than God. This act I do for myself and for you: for me, so that if from now on I possess anything you may call me a fool; for you, in order that you, too, may be led to put your hope in God and not in riches." [1]

WALDENSES UNAUTHORIZED PREACHING

Recruits to Waldo's "Poor of Lyons" came from all levels of society. A few were priests, but most were laymen. Durand of Huesca (Spain), a scholar of some ability, became unofficial theologian for the movement, but the emphasis of these "Waldenses" was, from the start, on personal piety and good works performed in imitation of Christ and the apostles.

The movement did not seek to alter Catholic dogma and was not intended to be a separatist church. The bishops at first would have found nothing about which to object had not the Waldenses assumed the right to preach. It was unauthorized preaching in public places that aroused suspicion and led the Archbishop of Lyons to attempt to stop them.

Waldo and his disciples were ordered to submit to the bishops. To render unqualified submission would, however, have meant the end of their preaching, so the Waldenses disobeyed and brought upon themselves a barrage of clerical criticism. As of yet the Waldenses had issued no pronouncements which could have been rightly construed as heresy, and in 1180 Waldo signed a statement of faith dictated by a papal legate in which the popular exponent of apostolic living subscribed to all of the major tenets of traditional Catholicism. [2]

While Waldo and his followers had no doctrinal quarrel with Rome, their defiance of episcopal prohibitions against preaching led in 1184 to their condemnation by a synod of bishops meeting in Verona. Much to their dismay, the Waldenses were excluded from the Church and declared to be heretics.

In 1207 Durand of Huesca abandoned the Waldenses and returned to the Catholic Church. He asked Pope Innocent III to authorize an order of "Catholic Poor," a move that would be completely submissive to the hierarchy. St. Dominic Guzman had assisted Durand in recruiting small bands of Waldenses who agreed to return to Rome. Later, clerical opposition to the Catholic Poor hindered their work badly, and in 1254 Pope Innocent IV directed the Poor Catholics to merge with the Augustinian Hermits. [3]

Exclusion from the Church caused the Waldenses to re-examine dogma, with the consequence that they eventually came to espouse teachings that were heretical when judged by standards of medieval Catholic orthodoxy. The drift away from Catholic dogmas was relatively slow and uneven, and some segments of the sect became more radical than others. Waldense churches began to appear in France, Italy, Germany, Switzerland, and elsewhere, and a Waldense Church remains in Italy to the present. The Waldenses comprised the only medieval sect that would survive as an organized religious body into the modern era.

WALDENSES BEFORE WALDO : Do They Exist?

Although there is unanimous agreement among reputable scholars that the Waldenses originated with the work of Waldo, and despite the fact that modern Waldense historians themselves concur with this opinion, successionists of various affiliations have inducted them into the line of "true" churches which have maintained Gospel purity since New Testament times. As one might expect, the Waldenses have been claimed as Baptists (and Plymouth Brethren by E.H. Broadbent, and Seventh-day Adventists by Ellen G. White, and others).

Those who attempt to establish a pedigree for the Waldenses anterior to Waldo himself often refer to the work of Sir Samuel Morland, a 17th-century English author and diplomat who claimed to have found evidence that verifies the great antiquity of the sect. [4] Morland reproduced documents supposedly from the year 1120, which, he said, show that the Waldenses (French, -Vaudois-) had the scriptures for about forty years prior to the translation that Waldo obtained.

The documents in question, however, show the Bible divided into chapters, and such divisions did not appear before about 1250 or later. [5] The confession of faith produced by Morland makes it appear that the Waldenses held to a strongly Protestant-evangelical theology centuries before Luther. It is now known that this document originated in the 16th century. It contains teachings of Martin Bucer, reformer of Strasbourg, copied almost verbatim. [6]

Despite their usual aversion to Roman Catholic sources, successionists have not hesitated to cite a remark by Reinerius Saccho that the Waldenses movement is ancient,

"for some SAY that it has existed from the time of Sylvester, some from the time of the apostles."

It is clear, however, that Reinerius intended only to report a belief held mistakenly by some people. The inquisitor did not accept the legend of Waldense antiquity himself. [7]

No evidence has been found which reveals a Waldense Church prior to Waldo, and neither Waldo himself nor modern Waldense historians ever asserted such claims. Scholars hostile to the Roman Catholic Church have concurred with historians of that body in affirming Waldo as founder of the sect that still bears his name. [8]

A fitting commentary on the pursuit of pedigree has been provided by Harold S. Bender, a leading Mennonite scholar of the 20th century:

"The tempting and romantic theory of apostolic succession from the apostles down to the Anabaptists through successive Old Evangelical groups, which has been very popular with those among the Mennonites and Baptists who feel the need of such an apostolic succession, always includes the Waldenses as the last link before the Anabaptists. It has...no basis in fact." [9]

As in the case of other medieval sects, the primary documents for a study of the Waldenses come mainly from Roman Catholic sources.

[ PP : These include the work of Stephen de Bourbon, a Dominican who was well acquainted with the Waldenses; Reinerius Saccho and his -Summa- is an important source; an anonymous author from Passau also contributed material to Saccho's original work; David of Augsburg, a Franciscan, wrote -Tractatus de Inquisitione Haereticorum- (1270); and Walter Map, an English monk involved in the Third Lateran Council who examined the Waldenses in Rome (1179). ]

All of these sources as well as those of a later date agree in identifying Waldo as founder of the church which now carries his name, and the confession of Waldo himself contains no suggestions that the sect antedated his ministry. [10]

The evidence is conclusive. Waldo was the founder, and "traditions of an earlier origin, stretching back even to the days of the apostles, are fables." [11]

[ PP : At this point I wanted to quote something from Hunt's A Woman Rides the Beast (Harvest House, 1994) since McGoldrick answered these claims of Samuel Morland above on the Waldenses. Hunt repeatedly mixes up the views of the Albigenses (who were Manichees, also called the "Cathari") and the Waldenses (Vaudois or Valdenses). They were completely separate sects. The "Vaudois" was simply the French name for the Waldenses.

"In 1838 George Stanley Faber wrote An Inquiry into the History and Theology of the Ancient Valdenses and Albigenses. Nearly 200 years earlier, in 1648, Samuel Morland had published his History of the Evangelical Churches of Piedmont (an area in France populated by the Albigenses and other 'heretics.') The investigation of both of these authors drew on a number of other works going back into the 13th century. From written and public testimony at their trials, it is quite clear that the Vaudois, Albigenses, Waldenses, and other similar groups were heretics to Rome only. In fact, their beliefs were much like those of the Reformers, of whom they were, in a sense, the forerunners." (Hunt, page 257, emphasis mine)

Furthermore, Mick James, an anti-Catholic Baptist of FidoNet, wrote to me via the Internet on 2/21/97 :

"Another book I just got done reading is called The Waldenses Were Independent Baptists. This book quotes a lot from 2 books by ANGLICAN HISTORIANS from the 17th century who wrote extensively on these groups from the Valleys of Piedmont. Both of these works prove that groups like the Waldenses were baptistic in their doctrine."

Now let's get the facts on the table concerning the Waldenses that answer these wild speculations of Hunt and others.]

WHAT DID WALDO AND THE WALDENSES REALLY BELIEVE?

It is clear that the Waldenses were far less heretical than the Cathars and agreed, at least in the early years of their history, with the Roman Catholic Church on most points of doctrine. This is to be expected, since Waldo hoped to gain papal approval for his movement.

On theology proper that is, the doctrine of God, Waldo and his disciples upheld the orthodox Catholic belief in the Trinity and the two natures of Christ. The Waldenses did not imbibe Cathar dualism. The pope, in fact, commended Waldo for opposing the Cathars. Because Waldo's confession of faith is quite specific in its affirmation of loyalty to traditional Catholicism, it bears quoting at length:

WALDO ("Valdesius") CONFESSION OF FAITH : Catholic to the Core

"In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and of the Blessed and Ever-Virgin Mary. Be it noted by all the faithful that I, Valdesius, and all my brethren, standing before the Holy Gospels, do declare that we believe with all our hearts, having been grasped by faith, that we profess openly that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three Persons, one God....

"We firmly believe and explicitly declare that the incarnation of the Divinity did not take place in the Father and the Holy Spirit, but solely in the Son, so that he who was the divine Son of God the Father was also true man from his Mother.

"We believe one Church, Catholic, Holy, Apostolic and Immaculate, apart from which no one can be saved, and in the sacraments therein administered through the invisible and incomprehensible power of the Holy Spirit, sacraments which may be rightly administered by a sinful priest....

"We firmly believe in the judgment to come and in the fact that each man will receive reward or punishment according to what he has done in this flesh. We do not doubt the fact that alms, sacrifice, and other charitable acts are able to be of assistance to those who die.

"And since, according to the Apostle James, faith without works is dead, we have renounced this world and have distributed to the poor all that we possess, according to the will of God, and we have decided that we ourselves should be poor in such a way as not to be careful for the morrow, and to accept from no one gold, silver, or anything else, with the exception of raiment and daily food. We have set before ourselves the objective of fulfilling the Gospel counsels as precepts.

"We believe that anyone in this age who keeps to a proper life, giving alms and doing other good works from his own possessions and observing the precepts from the Lord, can be saved.

"We make this declaration in order that if anyone should come to you affirming that he is one of us, you may know for certain that he is not one of us if he does not profess this same faith." [12]

In a statement of faith submitted to the bishop of Albano, Peter Waldo affirmed his belief in transubstantiation, prayers for the dead, and infant baptism. [13] The famed Baptist historian A.H. Newman drew the only conclusion warranted by the evidence.

"Waldo and his early followers had more in common with...Roman Catholicism than with any evangelical party. His views of life and doctrine were scarcely in advance of many earnest Catholics of the time." [14]

TWO WINGS OF WALDENSES : French (Lyons) and Italians (Lombardy)

About the same time that the earliest Waldenses were presenting their requests to Pope Alexander III, a comparable movement was forming in Italy. These "Poor of Lombardy" likewise asked for papal endorsement, and they too were denied the right to preach.

The groups amalgamated to a degree under Waldo's leadership and dispatched missionaries to spread their teachings to various countries. Those who were unable to preach formed communities for the practice of an ascetic life and manual labor in a generally monastic fashion.

The union of the Poor of Lyons with the Poor of Lombardy was a rather brief duration because of serious disputes over doctrine and practice.

The Italian Waldenses appear to have been more radical in their views in that they were known to recruit nuns, to separate husbands and wives, and to claim that their church alone could offer salvation. The split became irreparable by about 1205, and the Italians elected Giovanni di Ronco as their leader.

A letter from the Poor of Lombardy to the Poor of Lyons (1218) is extant, and it contains valuable information about the theological issues which contributed to the division. The letter, which is in the form of a report on the proceeding at Bergamo, shows that the nature of the sacraments was evidently a matter of strong contention.

WALDENSES BELIEF IN TRANSUBSTANTIATION AND INFANT BAPTISM

The Lombards related the issues in this way :

"To the question they [the Poor of Lyons] raised concerning baptism, we replied as follows : We affirm that no one can be saved who refuses the material water of baptism and that unbaptized infants are not saved. This we called on them to believe and profess....

"One point of difference between us and the companions of Valdes...concerned the breaking or SACRIFICE [emphasis author] of the bread. As we have verified, their judgment differs from ours...

"In the first place, some of the companions of Valdes maintain that the substance of the bread and wine is transformed into the body and blood of Christ by the Word of God, adding that the power comes not from men but from God.

"To this we objected, saying that, if the bread and wine are transubstantiated...by the mere mention of the Word of God, it follows that any person, Jew or pagan, could pronounce the Word of God on the bread and wine, and, according to this opinion, it would be transformed into the body and blood of Christ.

"This is absolutely impious and cannot be sustained by any valid authority and is unreasonable....They have acknowledged that the sacrament cannot be performed by women or laymen, but only by the PRIEST. They also said that no one, good or bad, but only He who is God and man, that is, CHRIST, can transubstantiate the bread and wine into the body and blood." [15]

Despite the differences between the two wings of the Waldenses, it is clear that BOTH the French and the Italians believed in transubstantiation and a ministerial priesthood to consecrate the bread and wine. The letter states explicitly that the Lombardy Waldenses considered infant baptism essential for salvation, and the same document seems to imply that the French practiced pedobaptism but that they did not regard it as necessary for one to be saved.

Although later Waldenses became Protestants and embraced the Reformed view of salvation by faith alone, the early generations of the sect maintained the essentially Catholic view that salvation comes by faith plus works of charity.

As Emilio Comba, late professor in the Waldensian Theological College at Florence, Italy, stated,

"we shall...seek in vain in the creed of the early Waldenses for those tenets which characterize Protestantism." [16]

The Waldenses, who later moved away from the orthodox Catholic view on soteriology, in the early phase of their history retained a priest-centered, sacramental view of salvation. They accepted all seven sacraments of the Catholic Church, including infant baptism, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and priestly absolution from sin. In fact, a Waldense confession of faith composed at the relatively late date of 1508 espoused all of these tenets. [17]

Another document of Waldense origin is a poem entitled the -Noble Lesson- and comes to us from the 15th century. It contains a clear affirmation of the Catholic teaching on the sacrament of Penance.

"To make our confession sincerely, without any defect: and to do penance during the present life: to fast, to give alms, and to pray with a fervent heart; indeed, through these things the soul finds salvation." [18]

THE MODERN WALDENSE CHURCH : Protestants but never Baptists

During the period of coexistence with the Roman Catholic Church, the Waldenses did not deny the power of the Catholic priesthood and the validity of the sacraments it dispensed. Only after the rupture became irreparable, however, did they denounce the papacy as anti-Christ and claimed that the Waldense Church was THE body of Christ, outside of which there was no salvation. Romanism was viewed as the Beast of the Apocalypse, and Pope Sylvester I was regarded as the first Antichrist. [19]

In the matter of baptism, the Waldenses became divided among themselves. The early Waldenses maintained the view that baptism is essential for salvation, and they administered it to infants. David of Augsburg and the anonymous author from Passau, however, reported that the Waldenses demanded believer's baptism and therefore rebaptized those who had received the sacrament in infancy. Passau Anonymous also indicated that some Waldenses used the laying on of hands as a substitute for water baptism, but it appears that he confused the Waldenses' practice with that of the Albigenses.

It is evident that many Waldenses retained the traditional practice of pedobaptism, while a minority faction discarded that in favor of believer's baptism. The latter were, however, the innovaters who altered the original practice of the sect. The modern Waldense Church in Italy continues to baptize infants.

By the early 16th century the theological character of the Waldenses had developed to the point where it contrasted rather sharply with that of the movement as founded by Peter Waldo. Moving ever more away from traditional Catholic teachings, it assumed features that correspond somewhat to the Protestant beliefs that would be proclaimed by Martin Luther and the other Reformers.

The Waldense Church today numbers about 20,000 adherents in Italy and another 5,000 elsewhere. Although its Protestant character was established by its union with the Reformed Church, in 1974 the Italian Waldense Church joined with the Methodists in a single synod. It is clear then that the modern Waldense Church differs from both its medieval origin and the modified body that emerged during the Reformation. At no time in their history were the Waldense Baptists, despite some beliefs such as the concept of a free church, which the two groups have held in common.

Neither Waldo nor his early disciples could have subscribed to any historic Baptist confession of faith, and those doctrines that are peculiarly baptistic would have been unacceptable to Waldenses in any period of their history. Although successionists have hailed them as Baptists, medieval Waldenses were quite similar to the Catholic Franciscans, those of the Reformation were akin to Presbyterians, and those of today have become Methodists.

I went back to the original post on this thread to try to pick up the flow here. If Iread the date of the first post it is Oct. 2009. With everything that is coming against the body of Christ are there not more timely issues to be concerned about?

Sarah what exactly are God's truths here. I tried to follow Tbis thread from the original post and got lost. In terms of things coming against the body of Chris...how about the Islamic challenge, sin and worldliness in the church, rise of homosexuality, biblical illeteracy, etc. I think you get the picture.

As our pastor so often says:

"Biblical doctrine unites... the truth church."

Meditate on what that means.

Krispy

Hi Sword7,

I see by your profile you recently joined the forum. Do welcome you. Just a friendly word. The SI moderators discourage the posting of those things that could be contraversial. Examples would be politics, Calvinism vs Armianism, Bible translation issues. These topics tend to get heated and even ugly. Please be aware of this when you post.