Jesus Repudiates Mariolatry Volume II

[Agnus_Dei]

There is no such thing as "Independent Church Councils" What a lark!

Do spare me the word games DHK, every Independent Baptist Church I’ve been a member of from Tennessee to Indiana has had a council (or whatever name floats your boat) made up of not only elected deacons, but other elected delegates. Once a month they would meet, they would add to their statement of faith if that statement were weak; they would vote on membership status, to revoke or accept. They would also amend their Constitution if needed.

Councils are Biblical and necessary as we see the first Council held in Jerusalem in the Book of Acts.

I google "Theotokos," and what do I get--a heretical view held by the Eastern Orthodox church…As for Nestorian, I don't know who he is, what he believes, and I don't care. I have stated before that my beliefs come from the Bible, and that is all that matters…

Well then maybe you should redirect your Critical Thinking Skills and google Nestorius, Nestorianism or the Third Ecumenical Council. Then answer the following question.

Do you DHK restrict Mary’s role to be only the mother of Christ’s humanity and not His Divine nature?

ICXC NIKA
-

 

[D28guy]

Jillian said...

"A Christian does not need councils to tell them of the trinity."

And Agnus Dei said...

"Now that’s a funny statement, Jillian doesn’t need a council to tell him/her what to believe, yet his/her own Independent Baptist Church adheres to a set of Baptist Distinctives to formulate a statement of faith that each member is to adhere to in order to become a member. So in essence, these distinctives and statements of faith derive from independent church councils."

My goodness, Agnus. Most peoples conscience would not allow such a ridiculous statement as yours there to see the light of day. Are you truly...TRULY...unable to discern the difference between a simple "statement of faith" and the *supposed* authoritative declarations of the "Councils"???

Amazed,

Mike

 

[DHK]

Do spare me the word games DHK, every Independent Baptist Church I’ve been a member of from Tennessee to Indiana has had a council (or whatever name floats your boat) made up of not only elected deacons, but other elected delegates. Once a month they would meet, they would add to their statement of faith if that statement were weak; they would vote on membership status, to revoke or accept. They would also amend their Constitution if needed.

First, I have been a member of various Independent Baptist Churches for the past 30 some years.
Second, as a missionary I have traveled from the Pacific to the Atlantic in both Canada and the U.S. visiting IFB churches in most of the Provinces and States all along the way.
Third, I don't like to be called a liar. You are wrong. With your limited knowledge of IFB churches you act like an authority on them, but are absolutely wrong. There are no IFB councils. Don't call me a liar, and tell me that I know nothing about wherof I speak. The very word "Independent" implies that there are no councils. They are all independent churches, independent one from another. Learn that. There are no councils.

Councils are Biblical and necessary as we see the first Council held in Jerusalem in the Book of Acts.

Don't bear false witness, as pertains to the IFB churches.
As pertaining to the Book of Acts that was a one-time historical event, and it was not a "church council." The "apostles" met, not the churches met. Show me through Scripture where the churches me to have a church council. There is no such thing, and Acts 15 was not a church council. The Apostles met to make a decision concerning the action of some Judaizers. It was held at one church, the church of Jerusalem of which James was the Pastor. James made the final decision. There was not a consensus, a dialogue, etc. James heard the witnesses. They prayed. James made the decision.

Well then maybe you should redirect your Critical Thinking Skills and google Nestorius, Nestorianism or the Third Ecumenical Council. Then answer the following question.

Why should I? I told you that you couldn't put me in a box. I refuse to be put into anyone's box. My rule of faith and doctrine is the Bible. I am a Biblicist. I believe in Sola scriptura, not in the BCF's, the Bungling Church Father's.

Do you DHK restrict Mary’s role to be only the mother of Christ’s humanity and not His Divine nature?

Mary was used of God as a vessel to bring forth the body of Christ, and nothing more.
At the same time Christ never gave up his deity. He was always God, and always will be. Mary should be given no special status for being used of God at that point in time in history, as God could have used another person or even another means to bring Christ into the world.

 

[bound]

I wouldn't know. I haven't read the content of what those councils wrote or decided upon and I don't really care. What I care about is what the Bible says. "Thus saith the Lord" is important to me, not "Thus saith a council. The Trinity is clearly taught in Scripture. There was no council that discovered it. That is hokey-pokey. Even in passages like Isaiah 6:8 it becomes obvious:

Isaiah 6:8 Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me.
--Of course the NT is much more clear.

And say thou unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel; Cursed be the man that obeyeth not the words of this covenant, Which I commanded your fathers in the day that I brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, from the iron furnace, saying, Obey my voice, and do them, according to all which I command you: so shall ye be my people, and I will be your God: That I may perform the oath which I have sworn unto your fathers, to give them a land flowing with milk and honey, as it is this day. Jeremiah 11:3-5

"this" covenant... are we cursed? Are you concerned with "Thus saith the Lord"? If so why aren't you under the Old Covenant? Why aren't you keeping the Sabbath?

Is God 'mutable'? Does God 'change' His mind?

Books don't 'speak' for themselves. They convey concepts which need interpretation 'especially' if those concepts are conveyed in cryptic tongues and ancient idioms.

The Jews read the Scriptures and yet they didn't understand it pointed to Jesus as the Christ or Isaiah as John the Baptist. They took these types and figures too literally and thus 'missed the mark'.

There is a consensual teaching of this 'exegesis' within the Church if we but look for it. We can see this consensual teaching throughout the History of Christianity. It's real and discernible in the New Testament, the works of the Early Church Fathers, the Councils. This Golden Measure (i.e. Canon) is a necessary ingredient for interpreting God's word correctly and it was not kept with the Jews nor with Heretics who twisted the Golden Measure (i.e. Canon) into their own traditions of men.

I'm not here to convince you but I am here to say that you are using a tradition or exegesis to establish a emphasis of one biblical teaching with another. This exegesis is a product of the Reformation and that of the Enlightenment and although I, personally, find much of it admirable and salvific must call into question the notion that you or another 'speak for God' when you or another 'quote Scripture' to proof-text some of these teachings which you hold dear which find little or no basis in the Apostolic Tradition of the Early Church.

How true. That doesn't give Mary much of a place of honor that the RCC and the Eastern Orthodox do, does it?

It doesn't elevate her Flesh but as I pointed out earlier Elizabeth pointed out what is truly blessed with Mary... her obedience to the Will of God to bring forth His Son and our Saviour. It wasn't Mary's Flesh that was blessed but the indwelling of the Creator was surely the most intimate participation in Providence which anyone, except our Lord played in our redemption.

Then you continue to believe wrong, and have not been reading what I have been posting. I take what you have just posted as either ignorance, or slander. What do you choose?

To 'believe' something cannot be 'slander'. To claim something as a fact when it is not is. I have not claimed anything except what I believe. If I am in error, it is your responsibility to correct the error in kindness.

And so He did. Why are you simply re-iterating what I have already said?

If as you say, Christ was God in the Flesh. Then it cannot be an error to call Mary "Theotokos" (i.e. God-Bearer) for truly she did 'bear God', period.

To deny this is to call into question the identity of our Lord and Saviour.

Would you prefer Christokos (i.e. Christ-Bearer)? If so, why the distinction between our Lord and God? Is not our Lord one and the same? Where the Son is, is not the Father also present? Where the Holy Ghost dwells can we not also find the Son? Is the Will of God in conflict or in confusion?

 

[DHK]

And say thou unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel; Cursed be the man that obeyeth not the words of this covenant, Which I commanded your fathers in the day that I brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, from the iron furnace, saying, Obey my voice, and do them, according to all which I command you: so shall ye be my people, and I will be your God: That I may perform the oath which I have sworn unto your fathers, to give them a land flowing with milk and honey, as it is this day. Jeremiah 11:3-5

"this" covenant... are we cursed? Are you concerned with "Thus saith the Lord"? If so why aren't you under the Old Covenant? Why aren't you keeping the Sabbath?

Is God 'mutable'? Does God 'change' His mind?

I am not an Israelite, neither am I under any covenant given to the nation of Israel. You make no sense.

Books don't 'speak' for themselves. They convey concepts which need interpretation 'especially' if those concepts are conveyed in cryptic tongues and ancient idioms.

This isn't a thread on the trinity. If you want to start one, then so be it. The Catholic (or Orthodox) cannot lay claim to the discovery of the doctrine of the trinity. Such a claim is absurd!! The doctrine of the trinity is clearly taught in the NT. The apostles believed it. They believed the Father. They believed that Christ was deity, and many times affirmed it to be so. They believed that the Holy Spirit was deity, as Peter says in Acts 5 when he accuses Annias of lying against the Holy Spirit and against God in almost the same breath. At the same time they believed that there was only one God. One can only come to the conclusion and no other conclusion, that they believed in the trinity. You don't have to believe that; but I do.

The Jews read the Scriptures and yet they didn't understand it pointed to Jesus as the Christ or Isaiah as John the Baptist. They took these types and figures too literally and thus 'missed the mark'.

Some did, and some didn't. They were not all as "dumb" as you portray them to be.

There is a consensual teaching of this 'exegesis' within the Church if we but look for it. We can see this consensual teaching throughout the History of Christianity. It's real and discernible in the New Testament, the works of the Early Church Fathers, the Councils. This Golden Measure (i.e. Canon) is a necessary ingredient for interpreting God's word correctly and it was not kept with the Jews nor with Heretics who twisted the Golden Measure (i.e. Canon) into their own traditions of men.

It was Jews who came up with a canon of Scripture. They had a complete canon by 400 B.C. One of the stipulations of the OT canon was that no book of the OT could be written after that date. That, of course, excludes the entire apocrypha. The Jews never did accept them.
It was Jewish Christians that wrote and completed the NT canon. I don't believe the councils of the RCC had any part of its "canonization," but that rather the apostles and the early churches knew what books were inspired and which books were not inspired as they were being written. Jesus promised them that they would be led "into all truth." That is what that verse means. The Holy Spirit would direct them into all the truth that God would have them to write in the Scriptures.

I'm not here to convince you but I am here to say that you are using a tradition or exegesis to establish a emphasis of one biblical teaching with another.

You are absolutely wrong. The Catholics and others rely on tradition. I don't. I go by the Bible alone. It is my sole source of authority in all matters of faith and doctrine. I don't rely on any traditon.

This exegesis is a product of the Reformation and that of the Enlightenment and although I, personally, find much of it admirable and salvific must call into question the notion that you or another 'speak for God' when you or another 'quote Scripture' to proof-text some of these teachings which you hold dear which find little or no basis in the Apostolic Tradition of the Early Church.

The ECF don't have or hold authority over the inspired Word of God. If you want the truth then study the Word of God. Jesus said: "you do err not knowing the Scriptures neither the power of God." Take counsel in that Scripture.
Paul said: Study to show thyself approved unto God.
He didn't say: "Study to show thyself approved unto the ECF," as you seem to think. Are you trying to re-write Scriptures at this point?

It doesn't elevate her Flesh but as I pointed out earlier Elizabeth pointed out what is truly blessed with Mary... her obedience to the Will of God to bring forth His Son and our Saviour. It wasn't Mary's Flesh that was blessed but the indwelling of the Creator was surely the most intimate participation in Providence which anyone, except our Lord played in our redemption.

And so?? God blessed Mary. God blesses many people. Why elevate Mary to such a superior status. It is unnecessary. She was still a sinner in need of a Saviour. Recognize that fact.

To 'believe' something cannot be 'slander'. To claim something as a fact when it is not is. I have not claimed anything except what I believe. If I am in error, it is your responsibility to correct the error in kindness.

When I have repeatedly posted truth, and you come and say that I believe the opposite of what I have posted, what do you think I should call it? Ignorance or slander? Which is it?

If as you say, Christ was God in the Flesh. Then it cannot be an error to call Mary "Theotokos" (i.e. God-Bearer) for truly she did 'bear God', period.

Google "theotokos." Find out the truth about this heretical doctrine. If it is the truth then why is it only accepted by the Eastern Orthodox church and not mainline Christianity? Why all of a sudden did it appear when the Orthodox church appear, and no Christian believed in it before that time? Doctrines that are germane to only one religion are usually called cultish and usually define a cult.
God did not have a mother!

To deny this is to call into question the identity of our Lord and Saviour.

You are sadly mistaken.

Would you prefer Christokos (i.e. Christ-Bearer)? If so, why the distinction between our Lord and God? Is not our Lord one and the same? Where the Son is, is not the Father also present? Where the Holy Ghost dwells can we not also find the Son? Is the Will of God in conflict or in confusion?

As I have repeatedly said to Agnus, I refuse to be put into someone else's box. I have said to you plainly the truth. Why do you have trouble accepting it. Here are the facts for the umpteenth time.
Christ is fully God and fully man at the same time.
At no time in all of eternity did Christ ever lose his deity.
There were times in his earthly ministry where Christ laid aside his divine attributes, thus he thirsted, hungered, etc.
As pertaining to Mary, she was used of God to provide a vessel for the God-man to enter into this world, and that is all. She is not the mother of God.

Now is that so hard to accept?

 

[Agnus_Dei]

As I have repeatedly said to Agnus, I refuse to be put into someone else's box. I have said to you plainly the truth. Why do you have trouble accepting it. Here are the facts for the umpteenth time.
Christ is fully God and fully man at the same time.
At no time in all of eternity did Christ ever lose his deity.
There were times in his earthly ministry where Christ laid aside his divine attributes, thus he thirsted, hungered, etc.
As pertaining to Mary, she was used of God to provide a vessel for the God-man to enter into this world, and that is all. She is not the mother of God.

Christ didn’t “lay aside” His Divinity to submit to His human nature…i.e. to hunger or thirst. Christ is fully God and fully man, perfect in His Divinity and perfect in His humanity. Christ’s two (2) natures were joined together in the Incarnation without mixture, division, or confusion.

As a result to Christ being fully God and fully man, Christ has two wills, one human will and one Divine will to which the human will is submitted to, therefore Christ never “laid aside” His Divinity to experience His humanity. His humanity submitted to his Divinity to which Christ was sinless.

Christ has two natures yet Christ remains one person, on hypostasis. The Theotokos safeguards Christ’s Divinity and humanity and thus Mary id God-bearer

You’re trying to invent your own interpretation of the Incarnation and thus skating on the very thin ice of heresy.

Show the class DHK what the Early ‘Baptist’ fathers taught concerning the Incarnation of Christ in regard to His two natures.

Now is that so hard to accept?

Because your view is shallow and theologically inept.

ICXC NIKA
-

 

[DHK]

Christ didn’t “lay aside” His Divinity to submit to His human nature…i.e. to hunger or thirst. Christ is fully God and fully man, perfect in His Divinity and perfect in His humanity. Christ’s two (2) natures were joined together in the Incarnation without mixture, division, or confusion.

Do you misquote me for a reason? Did I ever once say that he laid aside his divinity? No, I did not say that at all. In fact I did say that at all times, throughout all eternity he was and is God, never giving up his deity. So who are you quoting? It is not me. And if you are falsely quoting me then provide the quote.

What I said is that Christ sometimes laid aside his divine attributes
There is a big difference. I have explained this to you many times. He went to the cross willingly of his own accord. He could have used his divine attribute of omnipotence to call down 24,000 angels. But he didn't. He went to the cross instead. He laid aside his omnipotence even when he could have used it, and submitted himself to the will of his Father.
I think this is the third of fourth time that I have explained this to you, but the ears are dull of hearing, aren't they?

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Not arguing....just a few questions...

It was Jews who came up with a canon of Scripture. They had a complete canon by 400 B.C. One of the stipulations of the OT canon was that no book of the OT could be written after that date.

Where did you come up with that "stipulation"? Is it written in the OT? Is it written anywhere in history at all?

That, of course, excludes the entire apocrypha. The Jews never did accept them.

Which Jews are you talking about? The Palestinian Jews? The Sadducees? The Pharisees? The Essenes? Or the Jews of the Dispersion? The Ethiopian Jews, perhaps?

It was Jewish Christians that wrote and completed the NT canon.

Are you sure Luke was Jewish?

 

[Linda64]

Are you sure Luke was Jewish?

LUKE

(luminous). Writer of the Gospel of Luke and of the book of Acts; companion of Paul. "Luke, to whom this Gospel has been uniformly attributed from the earliest ages of the Christian church, is generally allowed to have been `the beloved physician' mentioned by Paul (Colossians 4:14) and as he was the companion of that Apostle, in all his labors and sufferings, for many years (Acts 16:12; Acts 20:1-6; Acts 27:1-2; Acts 28:13-16; 2 Timothy 4:11; Philemon 1:25), and wrote `the Acts of the Apostles,' which concludes with a brief account of St. Paul's imprisonment at Rome, we may be assured that he had the Apostle's sanction to what he did; and probably this Gospel was written some time before that event, about A.D. 63 or 64, as is generally supposed. He would appear, from Colossians 4:10-11, and his intimate acquaintance with the Greek language, as well as from his Greek name (Lucas), to have been of Gentile extraction; and according to Eusebius and others, he was a native of Antioch. From the Hebraisms occurring in his writings, and especially from his accurate knowledge of the Jewish rites, ceremonies, and customs, it is highly probable that he was a Jewish proselyte, and afterwards converted to Christianity.

Way of Life Encyclopedia

 

[DHK]

Where did you come up with that "stipulation"? Is it written in the OT? Is it written anywhere in history at all?

It is common information found in most OT Survey books, or Intros. For example:

THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE
How do we know what books should have been included in the Old Testament and what books should not have been included? When we speak of the [FONT=&quot][/FONT]canon[FONT=&quot][/FONT] of Scripture, we speak of those books which are now included in our Bible.
The word [FONT=&quot][/FONT]canon[FONT=&quot][/FONT] comes from the Hebrew [FONT=&quot][/FONT]qaneh[FONT=&quot][/FONT] which means [FONT=&quot][/FONT]reed,[FONT=&quot][/FONT] or [FONT=&quot][/FONT]rod.[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
It was a measuring stick, used because of its straightness, a standard measure. In the same way, when applied to the Scriptures, a book was canonical depending upon its adherence to certain well defined principles:
1. Any document to be canonical must have been written before 400 B.C.
2. To be Scripture it must have been written by a prophet, or an individual who at least had the prophetic gift (eg. Moses, Joshua).
3. A writing to be canonical had to be extant (in existence at that time).
a. Scripture was for the benefit of every subsequent age, not just the ages in which it was written.
b. Timelessness is a characteristic of true Scripture.
4. The most important canonical criterion is that of inspiration.
a. Any literature not written under the supernatural influence of the Spirit of God was automatically excluded from consideration in the canon.
5. Apparently the books of the Old Testament were canonized as soon as they were written, or very shortly thereafter.

(Eugene Merrill[FONT=&quot]'s[/FONT] book, [FONT=&quot]"[/FONT]An Historical Survey of the Old Testament")

Which Jews are you talking about? The Palestinian Jews? The Sadducees? The Pharisees? The Essenes? Or the Jews of the Dispersion? The Ethiopian Jews, perhaps?

The Sadducees, Pharisees, and the Essenes were all sects that appeared after the canon of Scripture (OT) was finalized. All these came about during the intertestamental period--after the writing of the Book of Malachi and before the coming of Christ.

 

[BobRyan]

:applause:

"this" covenant... are we cursed? Are you concerned with "Thus saith the Lord"? If so why aren't you under the Old Covenant? Why aren't you keeping the Sabbath?

Is God 'mutable'? Does God 'change' His mind?

Books don't 'speak' for themselves. ?

Thought you'd never ask -- I do keep Sabbath.

In Isaiah 66 in the New Earth "from Sabbath Sabbath shall ALL mankind come before Me to Worship".

And you are right about one thing - it is because I DO care about "thus saith the Lord" over tradition.:applause:

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Doubting Thomas]

LUKE

(luminous). Writer of the Gospel of Luke and of the book of Acts; companion of Paul. "Luke, to whom this Gospel has been uniformly attributed from the earliest ages of the Christian church, is generally allowed to have been `the beloved physician' mentioned by Paul (Colossians 4:14) and as he was the companion of that Apostle, in all his labors and sufferings, for many years (Acts 16:12; Acts 20:1-6; Acts 27:1-2; Acts 28:13-16; 2 Timothy 4:11; Philemon 1:25), and wrote `the Acts of the Apostles,' which concludes with a brief account of St. Paul's imprisonment at Rome, we may be assured that he had the Apostle's sanction to what he did; and probably this Gospel was written some time before that event, about A.D. 63 or 64, as is generally supposed. He would appear, from Colossians 4:10-11, and his intimate acquaintance with the Greek language, as well as from his Greek name (Lucas), to have been of Gentile extraction; and according to Eusebius and others, he was a native of Antioch. From the Hebraisms occurring in his writings, and especially from his accurate knowledge of the Jewish rites, ceremonies, and customs, it is highly probable that he was a Jewish proselyte, and afterwards converted to Christianity.

Way of Life Encyclopedia

So according to that Colossians passage (4:10-14) was Luke listed among those who were "of the Circumcision", or not?

 

[Doubting Thomas]

It is common information found in most OT Survey books, or Intros. For example:

But are there any primary sources for this alleged stipulation?

The Sadducees, Pharisees, and the Essenes were all sects that appeared after the canon of Scripture (OT) was finalized. .

Did they all recognize the same canon--yes or no? If not, which Jews do we go with?
And what about the Jews of the Dispersion? Does their opinion of the canon bear any weight? If not, why?

 

[BobRyan]

I'm still not sure I follow your logic, Bob: Mary bore God the Son in he womb and gave birth to Him, therefore it correctly follows from that as surely as night follows day that she is ascribed the title Theotokos. God the Son's pre-existant nature and the supernatural miracle of His conception do not alter that.

Joseph may have picked Christ up - or instructed Christ -- "The INSTRUCTOR OF GOD"??

Mary may have lifted something too heavy for the infant Christ "STONGER THAN GOD???"

Joseph and Mary may have taught the infant lessons of life -- how to tie a knot etc .

"WISER than GOD"???

The RCC would have us believe that using such terms does NOT exault the HUMAN parent in that case but reminds us that Christ is God... yet anyone with a modest grasp of reason and logic INSTANTLY sees that this is exaulting the human parent NOT Christ! The result -- images of Mary - holding a TINY Jesus. The focus is clearly on Mary!

The result - prayers to God asking HIM to intercede WITH MARY for the living.

This is just one reason why NO NT AUTHOR uses terms like "MOTHER of GOD".

The other reason is that the "mother of God" statement conveys JUST as much pure error as -

"WISER than GOD"
"STronger than GOD"
"Corrector of GOD"
"Instructor of GOD"
"QUEEN of HEAVEN"

 

[BobRyan]

. Bob thinks he can agree with us in one sense, yet on his own terms he moves the goal posts and introduces “procreation”, as if Mary had to have sexual relations in order to actually be a “Mother”.

Yet as you point out, and St. Luke’s Gospel affirms, Mary shall conceive in her womb and bring forth a son…How Mary asked: The Holy Spirit shall come upon her.

You either do not understand the point or you are using misdirection here.

The point was stated repeatedly that there is no "BIOLOGICAL pathway to God".

In other words - no amount of biochemistry results in "God".

The issue is not whether an intimate act took place - the issue is that BIOLOGY alone could never account for the result being INFINITE GOD - so from a purely biological "LIFE" context -- this PERSON was not procreated.

This is a UNIQUE case where a LIVING PERSON -- in this case God the SON was ALREADY in existence and was INCARNATED -- RATHER than PROCREATED so that what WAS God the SON-- became Christ the GOD-MAN.

With the human nature being NEW - but the GOD nature PRE-EXISTING

Certainly we can agree that the human nature was derived purely from a biological pathway. No question there -- but BIOLOGY did not account for GOD Himself!

Your attempt to equivocate between EVE "the MOTHER of mankind" and Mary "MOTHER of GOD" using PROCREATION terms for each -- stands out to the objective unbiased reader as logically unsound.

Probably worked well in the dark ages -- but I don't know how anyone goes for it today.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

But are there any primary sources for this alleged stipulation?

Next we come to Josephus of Jerusalem (A.D. 37-95), whose numeration of the Old Testament as consisting of twenty-two books has already been alluded to. In his Contra Apionem, he says, “We have not tens of thousands of books, discordant and conflicting, but only twenty-two containing the record of all time, which have been justly believed to be divine.” After referring to the five books of Moses, thirteen books of the prophets, and the remaining books (which "embrace hymns to God and counsels for men for the conduct of life"), he makes this significant statement: "From Artaxerxes (the successor of Xerxes) until our time everything but has been recorded, but has not been deemed worthy of like credit with what preceded, because the exact succession of the prophets ceased. But what faith we have placed in our own writings is evident by our own conduct; for though so long a time has now passed, no one has dared to add anything to them, or to take anything from them, or to alter anything from them" (1.8).
[FONT=&quot]Note three important features of this statement: (1) Josephus includes the same three divisions of the Hebrew Scriptures as does the MT (although restricting the third group to "hymns" and hokhmah), and he limits the number of canonical books in these three divisions to twenty-two.[FONT=&quot][1][/FONT] (2) No more canonical writings have, been composed since the reign of Artaxerxes, son of Xerxes (.464-424.B.C.), that is, since the time of Malachi. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
Gleason Archer, in his book, "A Survey of OT Introduction, quotes from Josephus. The quote is above. He states that there are only 22 books in the OT canon. Those 22 books correspond to the 39 books of our English Bible, because of their arrangement in combining certain books together. All 12 minor prophets for example were considered as one book. Josephus also states that no canonical book was written since the time of Malachi.
[/FONT]

Did they all recognize the same canon--yes or no? If not, which Jews do we go with?
And what about the Jews of the Dispersion? Does their opinion of the canon bear any weight? If not, why?

All orthodox Jews to this day recognize the Masoretic Text as their canon of Scripture. That has never changed, and there has never been any dispute about that. The only ones that use anything that was different were those that didn't understand Hebrew very well, and used a translation of the MT such as we do in English, and the Greeks of that day used the Septuagint.

 

[DHK]

So according to that Colossians passage (4:10-14) was Luke listed among those who were "of the Circumcision", or not?

All Jews, including the apostles were "of the circumcision." But that is not a term used for a Christian, even one who was a Jew. So if Luke was circumcised, your question is still irrelevant.

 

[D28guy]

Matt,

It was posted...

"A Christian does not need councils to tell them of the trinity.

It is right in God's Word.

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." "And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."

And you said...

"Show me a Greek manuscript from before the 16th century containing those verses as you quote them."

This is amazing. And so very sad. You dont consider the scriptures of God to be reputable and trustworthy. You must have a "Council of Men" to tell you what you must believe. In addition to "StandingFirm inChrist"s post from the Wycliff translation, I'll add this.

Regarding your stipulation, all of the scriptures of God...every book...where all written thousands of years prior to your "16th century" cut off. The new testament scriptures were written 1600 years prior to then, and the old testament much more prior.

And, those scriptures declare that God the Father is God...

Genesis, 17:8, Exodus 12:2, Psalms 86:10, Matthew, 6:9 and many more.

That Jesus Christ is God...

John 1:1, Collosians 2:9, 1 Tim, 3:16, Heb 1:3, and many more.

That the Holy Spirit is God...

Acts 5: 3-4, Matthew 3:16 and many others

And that there is one God, not 3 Gods...

Mark 12:29, and many others.

There you go. I count 9 manuscripts, Matthew, Mark, Psalms, Collosians, Acts, 1 Timothy, Hebrews, Exodus, Genesis...and they proclaim the triune nature of God.

May God help and enlighten you regarding your confusion,

Mike

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Matthew 3:16-17 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Here, we see the trinity manifested. The Father speaking from the heavens, the Holy Spirit descending, and the Son of whom the witness is given

 

[D28guy]

Agnus Dei,

"The Theotokos safeguards Christ’s Divinity and humanity and thus Mary id God-bearer"

I've heard that so many times. It usually goes something like this...

"Back in (such and such) century, there were lots of people in other religions who were disbelieving of Christs, and the scriptures, claim that He was God. They believed in "blankety blankism", and the *Church* decided to help them to believe, and ward off their false doctrine, by proclaiming Mary the "theotokos"!

See? Its just a way to proclaim Christs divinity, so they will believe!"

And that is nothing short of complete INSANITY!

Agnus, if I came to you and said...

"Agnus, I just want you to know that I am the greatest weight lifter in the history of weight lifting! I am the world champion weight lifter!"

Well, you would look at my *mighty* frame and laugh hysterically. You would not believe any of it.

Now, how much difference would it make if I then said...

"Why, Agnus, you dont believe? Well, listen to this. My MOTHER, Agnus, is the MOTHER of the greatest weight lifter in all the world! Surely you NOW believe, dont you????"

You would say that I've lost my mind.

That tired old Catholic claim about lifting up Mary the way they...and others...do is pure lunacy. Its nonsense.

What IS going on with all these groups who lift up Mary so inordinately is nothing short of idolatry, and blasphemy, and Goddess worship on full display.

If you want to proclaim to someone that Christ is God, you show them from the scriptures that Christ is God. The scriptures are annointed, and are..."living, and powerful, and sharper than a 2 edged sword". The scriptures have Gods annointing on them. Maryolatry does not.

Just like if you want to show the triune nature of God. You do not bring out some explanation from some *council* a long time ago. It is devoid of any annointing.

You show them from the scriptures, that ARE annointed, that the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit make up the one God.

When we substitute Gods way with mans way, no good comes from it...as is plainly evident.

Mike