Fidei Defensor Posted July 6, 2020 Group: Royal Member Followers: 18 Topic Count: 165 Topics Per Day: 0.06 Content Count: 3,997 Content Per Day: 1.56 Reputation: 2,607 Days Won: 15 Joined: 04/29/2017 Status: Offline Author Share Posted July 6, 2020 18 minutes ago, teddyv said: So you mean Paul was being prophetic then? Because his writings are probably the earliest of the NT. Yes, I believe Paul meant the Scriptures of the OT and the ones being written in his lifetime, The New Testament, both of which were given to the prophets and apostles by the Holy Spirit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fidei Defensor Posted July 6, 2020 Group: Royal Member Followers: 18 Topic Count: 165 Topics Per Day: 0.06 Content Count: 3,997 Content Per Day: 1.56 Reputation: 2,607 Days Won: 15 Joined: 04/29/2017 Status: Offline Author Share Posted July 6, 2020 12 minutes ago, Justin Adams said: Believe what you wish. But you are wrong. Canons took a very long time, so Paul had NO IDEA of the later canons. For mainstream Pauline Christianity (growing from proto-orthodox Christianity in pre-Nicene times) which books constituted the Christian biblical canons of both the Old and New Testament was generally established by the 5th century, despite some scholarly disagreements,[1] for the ancient undivided Church (the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions, before the East–West Schism). The Catholic canon was set at the Council of Rome (382),[2] the same Council commissioned Jerome to compile and translate those canonical texts into the Latin Vulgate Bible. In the wake of the Protestant Reformation, the Council of Trent (1546) affirmed the Vulgate as the official Catholic Bible in order to address changes Martin Luther made in his recently completed German translation which was based on the original Greek of the component texts. The canons of the Church of England and English Presbyterians were decided definitively by the Thirty-Nine Articles (1563) and the Westminster Confession of Faith (1647), respectively. The Synod of Jerusalem (1672) established additional canons that are widely accepted throughout the Orthodox Church. The apostle was not talking about the protestant canon. He was talking about what Yeshua and the apostles read. Namely, Hebrew texts (not the Masoretic rendition) and the LXX which was quoted most often AND the Aramaic Targums. See my post above^. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Adams Posted July 6, 2020 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 25 Topic Count: 61 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 9,606 Content Per Day: 3.97 Reputation: 7,795 Days Won: 21 Joined: 09/11/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted July 6, 2020 14 minutes ago, Fidei Defensor said: See my post above I saw it. The LXX was more comprehensive than the protestant abridged canon. That is what Paul read and the Hebrew texts along with Greek poetry and myths which he alludes to quite often. He also, like the other apostles, alludes to and quotes 1st Enoch and other books not in our current 'canon'. Paul was very well read and his knowledge of second temple literature is evident as well. That is where he was trained. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fidei Defensor Posted July 7, 2020 Group: Royal Member Followers: 18 Topic Count: 165 Topics Per Day: 0.06 Content Count: 3,997 Content Per Day: 1.56 Reputation: 2,607 Days Won: 15 Joined: 04/29/2017 Status: Offline Author Share Posted July 7, 2020 3 hours ago, Justin Adams said: I saw it. The LXX was more comprehensive than the protestant abridged canon. That is what Paul read and the Hebrew texts along with Greek poetry and myths which he alludes to quite often. He also, like the other apostles, alludes to and quotes 1st Enoch and other books not in our current 'canon'. Paul was very well read and his knowledge of second temple literature is evident as well. That is where he was trained. May I be bold to ask, are you just wanting people to be aware of these extra-canonical texts because they help inform our understanding of Scripture? I.e. Paul and others knew them? Do you hold to The New Testament being divinely inspired like the Old Testament? That the New Covenant is greater than the old, “But in fact the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, since the new covenant is established on better promises” (Hebrews 8:6), and “When God speaks of a “new” covenant, it means he has made the first one obsolete. It is now out of date and will soon disappear” (Hebrews 8:13), or do you adhere to Duo-Covenant Theology? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Adams Posted July 7, 2020 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 25 Topic Count: 61 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 9,606 Content Per Day: 3.97 Reputation: 7,795 Days Won: 21 Joined: 09/11/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted July 7, 2020 (edited) 5 hours ago, Fidei Defensor said: (Hebrews 8:13), or do you adhere to Duo-Covenant Theology? More ecumenical nonsense. Hebrews is really plain speaking, but televangelists go ape over anything that gets them fame, fortune and notoriety. I have a Divine Council Deut. 32 worldview along with understandings that some scriptures are incorrect. You will only find this clarity in the newer scripture translations that make full use of the Qumran and other older texts not available for other translators. I.e. 'The sons of God' (bene Elohim) in Psalm 82 and NOT 'the sons of Israel'. An error since at Babel the was no Israel. until God chose Abram. Also the Augustine's 'sons of Seth' idea is plainly incorrect but adopted by 'the church' for centuries. This is ominous since it means the fallen host are obviously meddling. Edited July 7, 2020 by Justin Adams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fidei Defensor Posted July 7, 2020 Group: Royal Member Followers: 18 Topic Count: 165 Topics Per Day: 0.06 Content Count: 3,997 Content Per Day: 1.56 Reputation: 2,607 Days Won: 15 Joined: 04/29/2017 Status: Offline Author Share Posted July 7, 2020 51 minutes ago, Justin Adams said: More ecumenical nonsense. Hebrews is really plain speaking, but televangelists go ape over anything that gets them fame, fortune and notoriety. I have a Divine Council Deut. 32 worldview along with understandings that some scriptures are incorrect. You will only find this clarity in the newer scripture translations that make full use of the Qumran and other older texts not available for other translators. I.e. 'The sons of God' (bene Elohim) in Psalm 82 and NOT 'the sons of Israel'. An error since at Babel the was no Israel. until God chose Abram. Also the Augustine's 'sons of Seth' idea is plainly incorrect but adopted by 'the church' for centuries. This is ominous since it means the fallen host are obviously meddling. You didn’t answer two of my questions, (1) do you believe New Testament is divinely inspired, (2) do you believe the new covenant is greater than the old covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-34, Hebrews 8:6, 13). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Adams Posted July 7, 2020 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 25 Topic Count: 61 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 9,606 Content Per Day: 3.97 Reputation: 7,795 Days Won: 21 Joined: 09/11/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted July 7, 2020 1 minute ago, Fidei Defensor said: You didn’t answer two of my questions, (1) do you believe New Testament is divinely inspired, (2) do you believe the new covenant is greater than the old covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-34, Hebrews 8:6, 13). I said 'Hebrews is plain speaking'. Thus my answer. It is all God's doing. The old was designed to be obsolete, and showed us that only ONE could keep it perfectly, but we could not. There are more than just one covenant. The Abramic covenant says, "thru you all nations will be blessed". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fidei Defensor Posted July 7, 2020 Group: Royal Member Followers: 18 Topic Count: 165 Topics Per Day: 0.06 Content Count: 3,997 Content Per Day: 1.56 Reputation: 2,607 Days Won: 15 Joined: 04/29/2017 Status: Offline Author Share Posted July 7, 2020 (edited) @Justin Adams What is your opinion of ecumenism/ ecumenicalism? There are many types of ecumenism, but I am curious what you think. Most brothers and sisters in Christ feel the call to ecumemism because of Christ’s words: “I am praying not only for these disciples but also for all who will ever believe in me through their message. I pray that they will all be one, just as you and I are one—as you are in me, Father, and I am in you. And may they be in us so that the world will believe you sent me.” (John 17:20-21). Edited July 7, 2020 by Fidei Defensor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Adams Posted July 7, 2020 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 25 Topic Count: 61 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 9,606 Content Per Day: 3.97 Reputation: 7,795 Days Won: 21 Joined: 09/11/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted July 7, 2020 9 minutes ago, Fidei Defensor said: What is your opinion of ecumenism/ ecumenicalism? Dangerous. It is the Holy Spirit that unites and not the work of man. I am close to my 'sell by' date and have seen much. Most of it is not good and I fear the general apathy of some 'churches' is due to the leaders and teachers who are merely passers by that cannot be bothered to study and make due diligence their MO. It has been my understanding that even the seminaries are in an age old Augustinian rut. Most supernatural content has been stripmined by the priestly classes, so not only are some places dead thru atrophy, they are being set up now for a major setback. When that great Darby sky elevator does not land shortly in their backyards, disillusionment is a distinct possibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fidei Defensor Posted July 7, 2020 Group: Royal Member Followers: 18 Topic Count: 165 Topics Per Day: 0.06 Content Count: 3,997 Content Per Day: 1.56 Reputation: 2,607 Days Won: 15 Joined: 04/29/2017 Status: Offline Author Share Posted July 7, 2020 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Justin Adams said: Dangerous. It is the Holy Spirit that unites and not the work of man. I am close to my 'sell by' date and have seen much. Most of it is not good and I fear the general apathy of some 'churches' is due to the leaders and teachers who are merely passers by that cannot be bothered to study and make due diligence their MO. It has been my understanding that even the seminaries are in an age old Augustinian rut. Most supernatural content has been stripmined by the priestly classes, so not only are some places dead thru atrophy, they are being set up now for a major setback. When that great Darby sky elevator does not land shortly in their backyards, disillusionment is a distinct possibility. Do you think Christian Unity is possible? Particularly among the churches that share common core beliefs? I think of this mantra, “In Essentials Unity, in Non-Essentials liberty, in All Things Charity.” (Rupertus Meldenius). The problem is many churches in the Ecumenical movements can't get the Essentials down, they water down Christology, and other major doctrines to let Unitarians and other cults that are not Orthodox Christianity (Biblical Christianity) join. If you can’t get the Essentials right, the rest won’t work. Edited July 7, 2020 by Fidei Defensor 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts