Any thoughts on this? No exploding heads please.

[Mr E]

I hope you are more right about the Bible then you are about me.

And BTW . . . sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Statements like these are kind of a tautology.

Gee, can anyone set aside their preconceptions? Is there Anyone who can just sit down with the Bible, and read it with fresh eyes, and an open heart? Can I? Can you? Can he? Can we? Do you know what I'm saying?

I already "know you don't like" . . . well, I don't write like that myself, because it's not my job to define you. My job is to declare the Word of the LORD. Everybody has their own ideas. Let's conform them to Scripture.

Much love!

I can go by what I see, right? By what I witness with my own eyes, observing you. One of the things I noticed right away is a tendency to dismiss direct questions, and redirect away from answering for yourself on behalf of yourself. Example above.

But let's look at your starting point for this conversation on topic-- example below. You assume that the saying is plain. That is your starting point. And you introduce a false narrative to support the false assumption-- that being the story of Lot's encounter with 'the angels' who came to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah.

I don't agree with this. The saying that angels had sex with humans is plain. Your quote from the NASB shows that.

The men of Sodom gathered around Lot's house, demanding that Lot hand over the two angels that they could have sex with them. Lot responded with what he (crazily) hoped would be accepted as an acceptable substitute, that he would give them his two daughters so they could have sex with them instead. Did Lot somehow think that his daughters would be able help them with their genetic experiments? I don't think so.

And who are the unclean spirits which roam arid places looking for a body to inhabit? These angels who disobeyed aren't roaming anywhere, they are bound in eternal chains. These unclean spirits are the "spirits" of the nephilim having perished in the flood, neither man, that they would go to sheol, nor angel, that they are bound with the angels. Left to roam the earth disembodied, and seeking bodies to inhabit.

When you begin with a misunderstanding-- you almost always make a false conclusion.

You conclude that angels can have physical sex because you assume that the men of Sodom wanted these angels handed over to them so that they could do just that-- The story goes....

The two angels came to Sodom in the evening while Lot was sitting in the city’s gateway. He invites them to take shelter at his house, but before they could lie down to sleep, all the men—both young and old, from every part of the city of Sodom—surrounded the house. They shouted to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so we can have sex with them!

The story just doesn't make sense to you if angels can't actually have sex with men (or women). Am I trackin' ya, so far?

Your error is in your (mis)understanding of angels. In the previous chapter there in Genesis, the text is clear--

Abraham looked up and saw three men standing across from him. One of these we learn is the LORD-- known at that time as Melchizedek. The other two-- are sent on....

The LORD said, “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so blatant that I must go down and see if they are as wicked as the outcry suggests. If not, I want to know.”

The two men turned and headed toward Sodom, but Abraham was still standing before the LORD.

You should start by re-examining your understanding of angels. Then, you will at least give yourself a chance of understanding where Jude is coming from.

 

[MatthewG]

I'm suddenly wondering, well, do you realize I'm asking for an exegesis of this particular passage,

Jude 1:6-7 KJV
6) And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
7) Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

I'm thinking that it shouldn't be too difficult if you already have an understanding of the passage. I'm just looking for you to share your specific understanding of these sayings, and what you base that understanding upon. In asking for exegesis, I'm asking you to center your basis on the specific words used and the statements that they make.

For myself, I have no issue changing what I think when I see the Bible speaking differently. Not to do so is foolish in my opinion, that is, foolish in the Biblical meaning, which is to deny God to my own hurt. Personally, I hang on His every word!

Anyway, just to clarify I'm only asking for your exegesis of those 2 verses. And whatever else you want to say, naturally!

Much love!

Here is a better translation, @marks

Jud 1:3 Beloved, all diligence using to write to you concerning the common salvation, I had necessity to write to you, exhorting to agonize for the faith once delivered to the saints,

Jud 1:4 for there did come in unobserved certain men, long ago having been written beforehand to this judgment, impious, the grace of our God perverting to lasciviousness, and our only Master, God, and Lord—Jesus Christ—denying,

Jud 1:5 and to remind you I intend, you knowing once this, that the Lord, a people out of the land of Egypt having saved, again those who did not believe did destroy;

Jud 1:6 messengers also, those who did not keep their own principality, but did leave their proper dwelling, to a judgment of a great day, in bonds everlasting, under darkness He hath kept,

Jud 1:7 as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them, in like manner to these, having given themselves to whoredom, and gone after other flesh, have been set before—an example, of fire age-during, justice suffering.

 

[MatthewG]

@marks,

John Gills commentary - Verse 6 and 7

Jude 1:6​

And the angels which kept not their first estate,.... Or "principality"; that holy, honourable, and happy condition, in which they were created; for they were created in perfect holiness and righteousness, stood in the relation of sons to God, and were, for the lustre of their nature, comparable to the morning stars; they were among the thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers; were a superior rank of creatures to men, and who beheld the face, and enjoyed the presence of God; but this estate they kept not, for being mutable creatures, one of them first sinning, the rest were drawn into it by him, and so were not what they were before, nor in the same estate, or place:

but left their own habitation; by attempting to rise higher; or by quitting their station and posts of honour, being unwilling to be subject to God, and especially to the Son of God, who was to assume human nature, and in it be above them, which they could not bear; and by gathering together in a body, in another place, with Satan at the head of them; though this may be considered as a part of their punishment, and they may be said to do what they were forced to; for they were drove out of their native habitation, heaven; they were turned out of it, and cast down to hell; see 2Pe 2:4. And this their habitation, which they left, or fell from, or they were cast out of, is by the Jews frequently called the place of their holiness, or their holy place (g),

He hath reserved in everlasting chains, under darkness; by these "everlasting chains" may be meant the power and providence of God over them, which always abide upon them; or their sins, and the guilt of them upon their consciences, under which they are continually held; or the decrees and purposes of God concerning their final punishment and destruction, which are immutable and irreversible, and from which there is no freeing themselves:, the phrase, under darkness, may refer to the chains, as in 2Pe 2:4; where they are called "chains of darkness"; either because the power, providence, and purposes of God are invisible; so the Syriac version reads, "in unknown chains"; or because horror and black despair are the effects of sin, and its guilt, with which their consciences are continually filled: or it may denote the place and state where they are, either in the darkness of the air, or in the dark parts of the earth, or in hell, where is utter darkness, even blackness of darkness; or that they are under the power of sin, which is darkness, and without the light of God's countenance, or any spiritual knowledge, or comfort: and they are "reserved" in these chains, and under this darkness; or "in prison", as the Arabic version renders it; which denotes the custody of them, and their continuance in it, in which they are kept by Jesus Christ, who can bind and loose Satan at his pleasure; and it shows that they are not as yet in full torment, but are like malefactors that are kept in prison, until the assize comes: so these are laid in chains, and kept in custody

unto the judgment of the great day; that is, the future and last "judgment" of men and devils, which is certain, and will be universal, and executed with the strictest justice: this is called "a day", which is fixed by God, though unknown to men and angels; and because of the evidence and quick dispatch of things, the matters judged will be as clear as the day, and finished at once; and a great one, for the Judge will appear in great glory; great things will be done, the dead will be raised, and all nations will be gathered together, and the process will be with great solemnity; the thrones will be set, the books opened, the several sentences pronounced, and, all punctually executed; the judgment of the great day is the same the Jews call יום דינא רבא, "the day of the great judgment" (h). This account shows the imprisoned state of the devils, that they are not their own lords, and cannot do as they would; they are under restraints, and in chains, and not to be feared; which must be a great mortification to their proud and malicious spirits: and since this is the case of fallen angels, what severity may be expected from God against the opposers of the truths of the Gospel?

(g) Yalkut Simeoni, par. 2. fol. 73. 1. Pirke Eliezer, c. 14, 22, 27. Zohar in Gen. fol. 28. 1. & Sepher Bahir in ib. fol. 27. 3. (h) Targum in Psal. l. 3.

Verse 7

Jude 1:7​

Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them,.... Admah and Zeboiim, for Zoar was spared. This is a third instance of God's vengeance on sinners; and which, like that of the Israelites, and of the angels, was after great favours had been enjoyed: these places were delightfully situated, and very fruitful, as the garden of God; they were under a form of government, had kings over them, and had lately had a very great deliverance from the kings that carried them captive, being rescued by Abraham; they had a righteous Lot among them, who was a reprover in the gate, and Abraham made intercession for them with God. But they

in like manner giving themselves over to fornication; not as the angels, who are not capable of sinning in such a manner; though the Jews make this to be a sin of theirs, and so interpret Gen 6:2 (i), but rather the Israelites, among whom this sin prevailed, 1Co 10:8; though it seems best of all to refer it to the false teachers that turned the grace of God into lasciviousness, and were very criminal this way; and then the sense is, that in like manner as they, the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, gave themselves over to the sin of fornication; wherefore these men might expect the same judgments that fell upon them, since their sin was alike; which sin is a work of the flesh, contrary to the law of God, is against the body, and attended with many evils; exposes to judgment here and hereafter, and unfits for the communion of the saints, and for the kingdom of heaven:

and going after strange flesh; or "other flesh"; meaning not other women besides their own wives, but men; and designs that detestable and unnatural sin, which, from these people, is called sodomy to this day; and which is an exceeding great sin, contrary to the light of nature and law of God, dishonourable to human nature, and scandalous to a nation and people, and commonly prevails where idolatry and infidelity do, as among the Papists and Mahometans; and arose from idleness and fulness of bread in Sodom, and was committed in the sight of God, with great impudence: their punishment follows,

are set forth for an example; being destroyed by fire from heaven, and their cities turned into a sulphurous lake, which continues to this day, as a monument of God's vengeance, and an example to all such who commit the same sins, and who may expect the same equitable punishment; and to all who live ungodly lives, though they may not be guilty of the same crimes; and to all that slight and reject the Gospel revelation, with whom it will be more intolerable than for Sodom and Gomorrah; and to antichrist, who bears the same name, and spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt; and particularly to all false teachers, who besides their strange doctrines, go after strange flesh:

suffering the vengeance of eternal fire; which may be understood of that fire, with which those cities, and the inhabitants of it, were consumed; which, Philo the (k) Jew says, burnt till his time, and must be burning when Jude wrote this epistle. The effects of which still continues, the land being now brimstone, salt, and burning; and is an emblem and representation of hell fire, between which there is a great likeness; as in the matter of them, both being fire; in the efficient cause of them, both from the Lord; and in the instruments thereof, the angels, who, as then, will hereafter be employed in the delivery of the righteous, and in the burning of the wicked; and in the circumstance attending both, suddenly, at an unawares, when not thought of, and expected; and in the nature of them, being a destruction total, irreparable, and everlasting: and this agrees with the sentiments of the Jews, who say (l), that "the men of Sodom have no part or portion in the world to come, and shall not see the world to come.

And says R. Isaac,

"Sodom is judged בדינא דגיהנם, "with the judgment of hell" (m).

(i) Pirke Eliezer, c. 22. Joseph. Antiqu. l. 1. c. 3. sect. 1. (k) De Abrahamo, p. 370. (l) T. Hieros. Sanhedrin, fol. 29. 3. (m) Zohar in Gen. fol. 71. 3.

 

[David in NJ]

@marks,

John Gills commentary - Verse 6 and 7

Verse 7

Now i see your dilemma............presupposition of man by adding to the scripture what it did not state/say.

Follow the Guidelines set forth by God = Deuteronomy, Psalms, Proverbs, Revelation

Every word of God is flawless;
He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him.
6Do not add to His words,
lest He rebuke you and prove you a liar.
Proverbs 30

 

[marks]

Here is a better translation, @marks

Jud 1:3 Beloved, all diligence using to write to you concerning the common salvation, I had necessity to write to you, exhorting to agonize for the faith once delivered to the saints,

Jud 1:4 for there did come in unobserved certain men, long ago having been written beforehand to this judgment, impious, the grace of our God perverting to lasciviousness, and our only Master, God, and Lord—Jesus Christ—denying,

Jud 1:5 and to remind you I intend, you knowing once this, that the Lord, a people out of the land of Egypt having saved, again those who did not believe did destroy;

Jud 1:6 messengers also, those who did not keep their own principality, but did leave their proper dwelling, to a judgment of a great day, in bonds everlasting, under darkness He hath kept,

Jud 1:7 as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them, in like manner to these, having given themselves to whoredom, and gone after other flesh, have been set before—an example, of fire age-during, justice suffering.

That looks like Young's. I don't know that I'd say better, but I think his is excellent.

This is from J. P. Green,

Jude 1:6-7 LITV
6) And those angels not having kept their first place, but having deserted their dwelling-place, He has kept in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of a great Day;
7) as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them, in like manner to these, committing fornication, and going away after other flesh, laid down an example before-times, undergoing vengeance of everlasting fire.

Much love!

 

[MatthewG]

There is nothing wrong with exploring with what other people may before us have said. I may not even agree with all that John Gill says, was just sharing it, he does have some good commentary in my opinion, but that doesn't mean people have to believe anything the man says dear friend, @David in NJ.

 

[MatthewG]

That looks like Young's. I don't know that I'd say better, but I think his is excellent.

This is from J. P. Green,

Jude 1:6-7 LITV
6) And those angels not having kept their first place, but having deserted their dwelling-place, He has kept in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of a great Day;
7) as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them, in like manner to these, committing fornication, and going away after other flesh, laid down an example before-times, undergoing vengeance of everlasting fire.

Much love!

Cool.

 

[David in NJ]

There is nothing wrong with exploring with what other people may before us have said. I may not even agree with all that John Gill says, was just sharing it, he does have some good commentary in my opinion, but that doesn't mean people have to believe anything the man says dear friend, @David in NJ.

100% Agree with you Brother
and
there is a Better Way

Peace

 

[marks]

I can go by what I see, right? By what I witness with my own eyes, observing you. One of the things I noticed right away is a tendency to dismiss direct questions, and redirect away from answering for yourself on behalf of yourself. Example above.

But let's look at your starting point for this conversation on topic-- example below. You assume that the saying is plain. That is your starting point. And you introduce a false narrative to support the false assumption-- that being the story of Lot's encounter with 'the angels' who came to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah.



When you begin with a misunderstanding-- you almost always make a false conclusion.

You conclude that angels can have physical sex because you assume that the men of Sodom wanted these angels handed over to them so that they could do just that-- The story goes....

The two angels came to Sodom in the evening while Lot was sitting in the city’s gateway. He invites them to take shelter at his house, but before they could lie down to sleep, all the men—both young and old, from every part of the city of Sodom—surrounded the house. They shouted to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so we can have sex with them!

Yes, that sounds like what happened. And the fact is, nothing happened between them, so I suggest that this question of, Is it even possible for angels to have sex with humans? isn't actually answered in this passage. What do you think?

The story just doesn't make sense to you if angels can't actually have sex with men (or women). Am I trackin' ya, so far?

Your error is in your (mis)understanding of angels. In the previous chapter there in Genesis, the text is clear--

Abraham looked up and saw three men standing across from him. One of these we learn is the LORD-- known at that time as Melchizedek. The other two-- are sent on....

The LORD said, “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so blatant that I must go down and see if they are as wicked as the outcry suggests. If not, I want to know.”

The two men turned and headed toward Sodom, but Abraham was still standing before the LORD.

Melchizedek? I must have missed that verse! No, it is YHWH, Creator of Melchizedek. And you. But you're point here seems to be that this was Melchizedek and two humans. Is that right? Using the "messenger" interpretation, not specifically celestial beings?

A couple of things to remember, they struck all of the men there with blindness. They were tasked with destroying the city. YHWH sent them to destroy it. Lot negotiated with them for his escape to Zoar.

When Abraham saw them, it's said he saw three men, and one of them was YHWH Himself. For myself this doesn't make a compelling argument, and while yes, "angel", messenger is sometimes used of humans, the great number of times it is not, and should be demonstrated how it's not in this case, as you can do in those instances where it is in fact used of humans.

You should start by re-examining your understanding of angels. Then, you will at least give yourself a chance of understanding where Jude is coming from.

Much love!

 

[marks]

I can go by what I see, right? By what I witness with my own eyes, observing you. One of the things I noticed right away is a tendency to dismiss direct questions, and redirect away from answering for yourself on behalf of yourself. Example above.

But let's look at your starting point for this conversation on topic-- example below. You assume that the saying is plain. That is your starting point. And you introduce a false narrative to support the false assumption-- that being the story of Lot's encounter with 'the angels' who came to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah.



When you begin with a misunderstanding-- you almost always make a false conclusion.

You conclude that angels can have physical sex because you assume that the men of Sodom wanted these angels handed over to them so that they could do just that-- The story goes....

The two angels came to Sodom in the evening while Lot was sitting in the city’s gateway. He invites them to take shelter at his house, but before they could lie down to sleep, all the men—both young and old, from every part of the city of Sodom—surrounded the house. They shouted to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so we can have sex with them!

The story just doesn't make sense to you if angels can't actually have sex with men (or women). Am I trackin' ya, so far?

Your error is in your (mis)understanding of angels. In the previous chapter there in Genesis, the text is clear--

Abraham looked up and saw three men standing across from him. One of these we learn is the LORD-- known at that time as Melchizedek. The other two-- are sent on....

The LORD said, “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so blatant that I must go down and see if they are as wicked as the outcry suggests. If not, I want to know.”

The two men turned and headed toward Sodom, but Abraham was still standing before the LORD.

You should start by re-examining your understanding of angels. Then, you will at least give yourself a chance of understanding where Jude is coming from.

Does this mean no exegesis on Jude? It's OK if you don't want to. I was just interested in what you'd say.

Much love!

 

[Mr E]

Yes, that sounds like what happened. And the fact is, nothing happened between them, so I suggest that this question of, Is it even possible for angels to have sex with humans? isn't actually answered in this passage. What do you think?

Melchizedek? I must have missed that verse! No, it is YHWH, Creator of Melchizedek. And you. But you're point here seems to be that this was Melchizedek and two humans. Is that right? Using the "messenger" interpretation, not specifically celestial beings?

A couple of things to remember, they struck all of the men there with blindness. They were tasked with destroying the city. YHWH sent them to destroy it. Lot negotiated with them for his escape to Zoar.

When Abraham saw them, it's said he saw three men, and one of them was YHWH Himself. For myself this doesn't make a compelling argument, and while yes, "angel", messenger is sometimes used of humans, the great number of times it is not, and should be demonstrated how it's not in this case, as you can do in those instances where it is in fact used of humans.

I agree. You must have missed it.

The LORD appeared to Abraham by the oaks of Mamre while he was sitting at the entrance to his tent during the hottest time of the day. Abraham looked up and saw three men standing across from him.

Now this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, met Abraham as he was returning from defeating the kings and blessed him.

 

[Taken]

Clarify if i misread this.
Are you saying that Mary's body did not feed, nourish and oxygenate the body inside her that God was preparing/creating for the Eternal Son to inhabit - as prophesied.

I’m saying what I understand is Scriptural.

God does not require oxygen or the nourishment of man or blood of man or will of man to reveal Himself.

Blood of the human female is exactly how a human fetus receives oxygen and nourishment and disposes of waste.

I would guess a great deal believe Jesus is God in the Flesh.

I believe Scripture is clear: God purposed in Himself to be Revealed in a fashion faithful men would know He appeared as God in the flesh.

Eph 1:
[9] Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:

John 1:
[13] Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[marks]

I agree. You must have missed it.

The LORD appeared to Abraham by the oaks of Mamre while he was sitting at the entrance to his tent during the hottest time of the day. Abraham looked up and saw three men standing across from him.

Now this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, met Abraham as he was returning from defeating the kings and blessed him.

Genesis 18:1-6 KJV
1) And the LORD appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day;
2) And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground,
3) And said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant:
4) Let a little water, I pray you, be fetched, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree:
5) And I will fetch a morsel of bread, and comfort ye your hearts; after that ye shall pass on: for therefore are ye come to your servant. And they said, So do, as thou hast said.
6) And Abraham hastened into the tent unto Sarah, and said, Make ready quickly three measures of fine meal, knead it, and make cakes upon the hearth.

Genesis 14:17-24 KJV
17) And the king of Sodom went out to meet him after his return from the slaughter of Chedorlaomer, and of the kings that were with him, at the valley of Shaveh, which is the king's dale.
18) And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.
19) And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth:
20) And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all.
21) And the king of Sodom said unto Abram, Give me the persons, and take the goods to thyself.
22) And Abram said to the king of Sodom, I have lift up mine hand unto the LORD, the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth,
23) That I will not take from a thread even to a shoelatchet, and that I will not take any thing that is thine, lest thou shouldest say, I have made Abram rich:
24) Save only that which the young men have eaten, and the portion of the men which went with me, Aner, Eshcol, and Mamre; let them take their portion.

Different locations.

Not to mention the other differences in how the story reads. The king Sodom was with Abraham when Melchizedek met him, petitioning Abraham to give the king his people, and to keep the loot for himself. So the king was there, maybe even the other kings. And the townsfolk were there. The townsfolk of Sodom. Including Lot and his family. Who are you thinking was in Sodom when the two angels went there?

Did Lot and all the rest race to get back first?

YHWH came to Abraham as he was kicking back at home.

What is it that leads you to think these are the same?

Much love!

 

[David in NJ]

I’m saying what I understand is Scriptural.

God does not require oxygen or the nourishment of man or blood of man or will of man to reveal Himself.

Blood of the human female is exactly how a human fetus receives oxygen and nourishment and disposes of waste.

I would guess a great deal believe Jesus is God in the Flesh.

I believe Scripture is clear: God purposed in Himself to be Revealed in a fashion faithful men would know He appeared as God in the flesh.

Eph 1:
[9] Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:

John 1:
[13] Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Glory to God,
Taken

Please review Hebrews chs 1-2 and Philippians ch2

 

[BreadOfLife]

It was the CC that ADDED the other books into the canon . They called them secondary .
I see why they were removed . I sure hope you dont read gospels like the gosple of thomas
and other things . I actually sat down and tried to read that gospel and got so depressed i had to close the thing .
YET always am i filled when i read the books IN that bible . Yet none of those other books
could ever once do that for me . My advice is , OPEN BIBLE and STAYGLUED IN BIBLE .

I have asked you about this very topic SEVERAL times - and you ALWAYS fail to answer correctly. No WONDER why you're so confused.
Time for a History Lesson - and ALL of you Anti-Catholics need to pay attention here . . .

After the destruction of Jerusalem, a group of Rabbis established a rabbinical school in the Jewish city of at Jabneh (or Jamnia). It became center for Jewish political and religious political thought. Because the Temple had been destroyed in 70 AD – this school led by Rabbi Akiba ben Joseph (A.D. 37-137) redefined certain aspects of Judaism until the Temple could be restored.

One of the things discussed was use of the Greek translation of the Old Testament (the Septuagint) by early Christians.

They decided to eject 7 Books (and portions of Esther and Daniel) that they felt were “uninspired”. They provided a new Greek translation because the early Christians were converting the Jews using the Septuagint, which was compiled about 200 years before the birth of Christ. According to historical sources, the rabbinical gathering at Jabneh was not even an "official" council with binding authority to make such a decision. It can be clearly shown that Jesus and the Apostles studied and quoted from these 7 Books. In the New Testament, we see almost 200 references to them.

The main advocate for removing the 7 Deuterocanonical Books was Rabbi Akiba, who was also known for proclaiming that a man named Simon Bar Kokhba was the “real” Messiah during the 2nd Jewish Revolt (circa 132 AD). It was during THIS time that the Jewish Canon had still been an OPEN Canon during the life of Christ was closed.

So, your Protestant Fathers chose to go with a POST-Christ, POST-Temple Canon of Scripture that was declared by a FALSE Prophet (Akiva) who proclaimed a FALSE “Christ” (Kokhba).

This is who Protestants have chosen to follow instead of Christ’s Church, on whom He bestowed supreme earthly Authority (Matt. 16:18-19, Matt. 18:15-18, Luke 10:16, John 16:12-15, John 20:21-23).

Luther also had problems with many New Testament Books, which he sought to remove. The Book of Hebrews, the Epistles of James and Jude and the Book of Revelation were ALL on the chopping block. He referred to the Epistle of James as the “Epistle of Straw” because it stressed the importance of works, which he rejected. If it had NOT been for the urging of his contemporaries – men like Philip Melanchton – Protestant Bibles would have been MUCH thinner.

My advice to YOU is - pay attention to Church History or you will remain ignorant about God and His Word . . .

 

[David in NJ]

I have asked you about this very topic SEVERAL times - and you ALWAYS fail to answer correctly. No WONDER why you're so confused.
Time for a History Lesson - and ALL of you Anti-Catholics need to pay attention here . . .

After the destruction of Jerusalem, a group of Rabbis established a rabbinical school in the Jewish city of at Jabneh (or Jamnia). It became center for Jewish political and religious political thought. Because the Temple had been destroyed in 70 AD – this school led by Rabbi Akiba ben Joseph (A.D. 37-137) redefined certain aspects of Judaism until the Temple could be restored.

One of the things discussed was use of the Greek translation of the Old Testament (the Septuagint) by early Christians.

They decided to eject 7 Books (and portions of Esther and Daniel) that they felt were “uninspired”. They provided a new Greek translation because the early Christians were converting the Jews using the Septuagint, which was compiled about 200 years before the birth of Christ. According to historical sources, the rabbinical gathering at Jabneh was not even an "official" council with binding authority to make such a decision. It can be clearly shown that Jesus and the Apostles studied and quoted from these 7 Books. In the New Testament, we see almost 200 references to them.

The main advocate for removing the 7 Deuterocanonical Books was Rabbi Akiba, who was also known for proclaiming that a man named Simon Bar Kokhba was the “real” Messiah during the 2nd Jewish Revolt (circa 132 AD). It was during THIS time that the Jewish Canon had still been an OPEN Canon during the life of Christ was closed.

So, your Protestant Fathers chose to go with a POST-Christ, POST-Temple Canon of Scripture that was declared by a FALSE Prophet (Akiva) who proclaimed a FALSE “Christ” (Kokhba).

This is who Protestants have chosen to follow instead of Christ’s Church, on whom He bestowed supreme earthly Authority (Matt. 16:18-19, Matt. 18:15-18, Luke 10:16, John 16:12-15, John 20:21-23).

Luther also had problems with many New Testament Books, which he sought to remove. The Book of Hebrews, the Epistles of James and Jude and the Book of Revelation were ALL on the chopping block. He referred to the Epistle of James as the “Epistle of Straw” because it stressed the importance of works, which he rejected. If it had NOT been for the urging of his contemporaries – men like Philip Melanchton – Protestant Bibles would have been MUCH thinner.

My advice to YOU is - pay attention to Church History or you will remain ignorant about God and His Word . . .

FYI = The LORD Jesus is against roman catholicism and calls you to flee her idolatry.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Sounds sticky.

You realize that until 1684, 'the Bible' had 80 books, right?

80

Maybe you are Catholic? Maybe you are okay with the Vatican telling you what you should and shouldn't be reading?

Uhhhh, no.

The Synod of Rome (382) is where the canon was first formally identified – ALL 73 (not 66 - not 80) Books.
- 11 years after that, it was confirmed at the Synod of Hippo (393).
- 4 years later, at the Council (or Synod) of Carthage (397), it was yet again confirmed. The bishops wrote at the end of their document, "But let Church beyond sea (Rome) be consulted about confirming this canon". There were 44 bishops, including St. Augustine who signed the document.
- 7 years later, in 405, in a letter from Pope Innocent I to Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse, he reiterated the canon.
- 14 years after that, at the 2nd Council (Synod) of Carthage (419) the canon was again formally confirmed.

The Canon of Scripture was officially closed at the Council of Trent (c. 1563) because of the perversions happening within Protestantism and the random editing and deleting of books from the Canon.

 

[BreadOfLife]

FYI = The LORD Jesus is against roman catholicism and calls you to flee her idolatry.

The Lord Jesus wants YOU to stop lying . . .

Rev. 21:8
But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, AND ALL LIARS, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.

 

[Taken]

Please review Hebrews chs 1-2 and Philippians ch2

And would that change...

God purposed in himself?
Born of God?
Not born of blood?
Not born of the will of the flesh?
Not born of the will of man?

If so, How?


TY.

 

[Taken]

FYI = The LORD Jesus is against roman catholicism and calls you to flee her idolatry.