The divinity of Christ has recently been cleverly questioned. The attack originated with Elysian in an indirect way. He avoided using scripture and instead opted to go the extra-biblical route via the path of Church History. He started by making this patently absurd claim about Christ:

This bit of sophistry would be analogous to saying the the creator wasn't officially God until the First Caveman Council of HardRock Cafe was convened back in 600,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 B.C. (And, of course, it's been all downhill for mankind ever since that horrible decision was voted on! So much for the virtues of pure Democracy!) :rolleyes:

Then our resident wanna-be church historian tried to advance his attack on Christ's divinity with this little gem:

Huh? Two different titles = a contradiction? :bang:

And then Elysian later added:

Nullified the title "Son of God"? This would be analogous to saying that because the title "Mr. President" is the most often used of the President of the U.S. that this would somehow nullify his other title "Commander-in-Chief"!. This sophistry is too much to bear. Or it would be analogous to saying that because the NT scriptures are probably more widely read than the OT scriptures, this would nullify the OT. And with Elysian's whacky logic, he probably would further conclude that the two different sets of books with different names would prove that that bible is self-contradictory. :rolleyes:

But regardless, Elysian remains as clueless and dauntless as ever, thereby stepping into the deeper end of the Field of Cow Pies in the process when he wrote:

So, according to Elysian, it's the Bible's fault. Just like everything wrong in America is Bush's fault. This is, of course, an extremely arrogant and self-righteous attitude because it completely absolves those who don't agree with scripture. Those in disagreement with the bible's clear teaching are just innocent little angels who have been victimized, of course, by God and his Word. These disagreements are all God's fault!. However, ever notice how those who see things differently than skeptics are always in the wrong? In our case, it's not the bible that is wrong; it's us! :bang:

Then Thaskalos steps up to the plate to lend Elysian some moral support:

This is patently false, not to mention absurd! And it's this falsehood that I will easily demolish with scripture.

And Thaskalos continued with:

I'm sure he's alluding to the NT "documents". And this is true. They were scattered. And when it came to the NT, whatever teachings the early church received, were largely spread abroad by oral tradition as I pointed out a couple of days ago. And this continued until the Canon was determined and those Gospels and Epistles were copied, and eventually distributed to established congregations. But to say that the Church's faith in the first century was not grounded in scripture is a remarkably inaccurate statement. It's beyond belief that anyone at all, even with a smattering knowledge of the bible, could say that with a straight face.

And how ironic are these next words by Elysian:

I couldn't agree more! How could I possibly argue with that assertion!? The reason it does is because Elysian's history doesn't go back nearly far enough. (But have no fear, for I will correct that.) Then Elysian can tell me how much it sucks to get the real skinny from an Evangelical Christian. And we'll all find out why he didn't want to answer my simple, straight forward question as to who mainly were the first century Christians.

But as the Fox correctly wrote regarding this subject:

He is absolutely right because.....(drum roll, please) the earliest Christians were, for the most part, JEWS. Therefore, what holy book (to borrow Thaskalos' phrase) do you think the Jews used to determine if Jesus was truly the promised Messiah or not? If someone here said the "holy book" used is what we now call the Old Testament, then go to the head of the class! And there was no shortage of those scriptures! It was the holy book Christ extensively and exclusively used when he preached the Gospel. It was the holy book that Peter used in Acts when he gave his Gospel sermons. It was the holy book Stephen used in Acts when he gave his Gospel sermon that earned him the first recorded martyr's death. It was the holy book Paul used on his three missionary journeys when he preached the Gospel to Jews and Gentiles alike and reasoned from the scriptures to prove that Jesus was the Son of God! It was the holy book all the Apostles quoted in their epistles when teaching Gospel truth. In short, this OT holy book was the only book of choice among NT figures and virtually the only quoted book in the NT!

In my next post, we'll trace the historical use of the Old Testament from which Christ and his Apostles preached the Gospel of the Kingdom of God!

Boxcar

The Messiah was Expected by the God-Fearers
 

If we're going to review a little Christian history (or even Church History), then let's start at the beginning which isn't 325 A.D. A good place to start, in my opinion, would be with the birth of Christ. A good question to ask: Would anyone be looking for Him? Would anyone be expecting Him? Were there any righteous, devout, God-fearing Jews who would be on the lookout for their Messiah? And if so, why would they have been expecting him at or around that general time?

The Great Expectation: The Hope of Israel

In Luke 2, we read of a devout, God-fearing Jew named Simeon, who was near the temple when baby Jesus was brought there to be consecrated, as instructed under the Law. Simeon had a revelation by the Holy Spirit that he would not die until his own eyes had beheld the "consolation of Israel".

Further down in that same passage, we are told the prophetess Anna also recognized and acknowledged the infant as the promised Messiah.

And even later in the passage, we read this:

Luke 2:38
38 And at that very moment she came up and began giving thanks to God, and continued to speak of Him to all those who were looking for the redemption of Jerusalem.
NASB

Therefore, there were devout, God-fearing Jews who were in fact looking for the Messiah. Of course, the anticipated birth of John the Baptish, the forerunner of Christ, would have something do with this, given the circumstances of the angel's announcement to Elizabeth's husband, etc. But there was another strong reason, too, that God's people would have been in anticipation of some big even looming close over the horizon. I am referring to Daniel's 70 Weeks prophecy in the OT. I will quote the prophecy but delving into its interpretation would be far beyond the scope of this brief historical review of the Gospel. While all Evangelicals are not in complete agreement as to the exact details, in term of the calculation of years, there is unanimous agreement that this Messianic prophecy has been fulfilled. Daniel, himself, was a prophet in exile in Babylon. And how this prophecy came about was that Daniel was searching the prophecies of Jeremiah, trying to determine when the Jews' Babylonian Captivity would cease. (Jeremiah had prophesied that Judah would go into exile for 70 years, cf. Jer 25:9-12; 29:10.) And one of the main reasons for Israel's punishment was because the nation, again, broke covenant by not keeping God's Law regarding Jubilee. Since the Jews failed to observe 10 Jubilees (which occurred every 7th year), they broke 10 Sabbaths because they did not give the Land its "rest" for a total 70 years. Just as the Jews themselves were to observe the Sabbath on every 7th day, likewise the Land was to "rest" on every 7th year. But since the Jews disobeyed and did not observe this law, God punished them severely by sending them into captivity for 70 years, which covers a period of 10 Jubilees (10 x 7). So, a prophecy via a vision is given to Daniel along this theme of "70 Years", or rather 70 Weeks of Years (70 x 7) or 490 years. With this brief backdrop providing a little context for this important Messianic prophecy, here is how it reads:

Dan 9:24-27
24 "Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most holy place. 25 "So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; it will be built again, with plaza and moat, even in times of distress. 26 "Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined. 27 "And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate."
NASB

Verse 25 is the key verse. This tells us in very clear terms that this is a Messianic prophecy. And the prophetic clock started ticking when a royal decree would go forth from either king Cyrus or king Artaxerxes (an issue of some debate) for the Jews to restore and rebuild Jerusalem -- the Jerusalem was that was destroyed by the invading armies of the Babylonians. The prophecy is alluding to that destruction, since it looks ahead to a time of restoration of the holy city. Obviously, the prophecy has been fulfilled because Jerusalem was indeed rebuilt, as was the temple. Therefore, since that was fulfilled, then the coming of the "Messiah the Prince" has also been fulfilled! The prophecy, of course, also goes on to predict the death of the Messiah in v.26. The phrase "cut off" is a Hebrew idiom for death! The Messiah would be put to death, which He was. He would be "cut off" from his people or "cut off" from the land of the living in the middle of the 69th week (7 + 62-1/2).

There is a ton of material on the web pertaining to this important prophecy, so I'm not going to comment further on it -- only to say that just like Daniel and other devout Jews of his day were searching their holy book to find the time of the deliverance from their captors, so too would the God-fearing Jews of Jesus' time been searching that same holy book to determine their time of redemption! And this is what Luke 2:38 is teaching. It's teaching us that there were those who were actually looking for the Messiah! And for good reason! The reason is Daniel 9!

Nathanael is another great example of a devout, God-fearing Jew who seemed to be very sensitive to the imminent arrival of the Messiah. Christ paid him a incredible compliment by saying that he was a man with "no guile". Look how quickly this righteous man acknowledged who Jesus was:

John 1:47-49
47 Jesus saw Nathanael coming to Him, and said of him, "Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!" 48 Nathanael said to Him, "How do You know me?" Jesus answered and said to him, "Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you." 49 Nathanael answered Him, "Rabbi, You are the Son of God; You are the King of Israel."
NASB

But let's back up just a little, lest we miss something of importance. It was Philip who first found Nathanael and he told Nathanael this:

John 1:43-44
43 The next day He purposed to go forth into Galilee, and He found Philip. And Jesus said to him, "Follow Me." 44 Now Philip was from Bethsaida, of the city of Andrew and Peter. 45 Philip found Nathanael and said to him, "We have found Him of whom Moses in the Law and also the Prophets wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph."
NASB

So, the early Christians had no "holy book", according to Thaskalos? Yet, the earliest of the early believers -- "Christians" who were believers long before that first post-resurrection Pentecost -- consulted with their holy book to determine the time of their Messiah's visitation. And all these earliest of devout Jews did this without the aid of the NT scriptures.

I will try to wind this historical overview of how the Gospel was preached prior to the NT canon in my next installment.

Boxcar

Jesus Christ is Everywhere in the OT
 

I'm going to cover some familiar ground here. The familiar ground is that the OT was Christocentric. This doctrine is hated by all skeptics; but nevertheless, the OT is all about Christ. Jesus believed this about himself, taught this and used the OT scriptures to preach his Gospel. And the Apostles also believed this and also used their OT scriptures (their "holy book") to preach the Gospel. In short, during the transition period from the Old Covenant economy (i.e. the Jewish Age which ended in 70 A.D. ) to this New Covenant dispensation (Times of the Gentiles) and prior to the assembling of the NT canon during this period, the OT scriptures were entirely sufficient for God's elect to be saved.. Because so many of these passages are self-explanatory and the interpretation should be self-evident to all (but of course, it won't), I will try to keep commentary to a minimum.

Jesus Preached the Gospel from the OT

A key text in this regard is this one:

Luke 4:16-17
16 And He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up; and as was His custom, He entered the synagogue on the Sabbath, and stood up to read. 17 And the book of the prophet Isaiah was handed to Him.
NASB

As was his "custom". He would, every sabbath, go and preach the gospel from the only scriptures available to him -- the OT.

We find out later in this passage that on that particular day, he preached from a passage in Isaiah and then proclaimed to all that he was fulfilling that very Messianic prophecy in their hearing. Some, if not many (perhaps even most) became so outraged at his gospel preaching that they sought to kill him by throwing him off a cliff. (Jesus' "sword" (Word) on that day must have been exceedingly sharp!)

John 5:46
46 "For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote of Me.
NASB

Later in the story about the Rich Man and Lazarus, Jesus taught about the source of this gospel of salvation:

Luke 16:29
29 "But Abraham said, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them,
NASB

After Jesus rose from the dead, he gave the world's best bible study to two disciples who were traveling the road to Emmaus:

Luke 24:25-28
25 And He said to them, "O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! 26 "Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory?" 27 And beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.
NASB

Later in the same passage to even more disciples, Christ said:

Luke 24:44-47
44 Now He said to them, "These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled." 45 Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46 and He said to them, "Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and rise again from the dead the third day; 47 and that repentance for forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.
NASB

It's very important to understand at this point that Jerusalem was the Hub of the Gospel Wheel. Everything began in the Holy City and spread out from there. And as we're about to see in Acts, this is precisely what happened.

The Apostles Preached the Gospel from the OT in Acts

Acts 1:7-8
7 He said to them, "It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority; 8 but you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth."
NASB

Note, please, how the Gospel flowed out to the nations. It logically proceeded outward from Jerusalem, then to Judea and Samaria and then eventually to the entire world. And this is precisely how Jesus said the Gospel woudl spread. It would begin in Jerusalem (Lk 24:47). The earliest first century were mostly Jews!

In Acts 2, Peter preaches his first Gospel sermon in Jerusalem, quoting extensively from the OT. 3,000 men were saved afterward. It later says in the same passage that the Lord even kept adding to their number "day by day".

In Acts 3, Peter gave another sermon by which God saved 5,000 more men (4:4).

In Acts 6:1 we are told that the "disciples kept increasing in number". God only knows how many thousands or even tens of thousands of Jews were being saved -- all from hearing the gospel from their OT scriptures, and on some occasions by seeing signs and wonders, as well, performed by the Apostles. But nonetheless -- a lot of preaching took place from their holy book.

After God saved Paul and sent him to preach across Asia Minor, it's was Paul's custom to first preach the gospel to the Jews in their synagogues on the sabbath.

Acts 17:2-3
2And according to Paul's custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, 3 explaining and giving evidence that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, "This Jesus whom I am proclaiming to you is the Christ."
NASB

Every believing Jew would have equated Jesus' divinity with him being the Christ (The Anointed One). Numerous OT scriptures speak to the Messiah's divinity. If a believing Jew thought "Messiah", then he also thought Deity. And, of course, all the evidence Paul presented could only come from the OT.

Later on in this same passage we are told that Paul went to Berea to preach the Gospel. And this is how the more noble-minded Bereans responded:

Acts 17:11-13
11 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things were so. 12 Many of them therefore believed, along with a number of prominent Greek women and men.
NASB

They examined their holy book -- the only "book" they had. And it was sufficient unto Salvation!

Paul powerfully refuted unbelieving Jews by demonstrating from his [/i]holy book[/i] that Jesus was the Messiah:

Acts 18:28
28 for he powerfully refuted the Jews in public, demonstrating by the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ.
NASB

In fact, shortly after the apostle Paul (Saul) was converted, we read:

Acts 9:19-22
Now for several days he was with the disciples who were at Damascus, 20 and immediately he began to proclaim Jesus in the synagogues, saying, "He is the Son of God." 21 And all those hearing him continued to be amazed, and were saying, "Is this not he who in Jerusalem destroyed those who called on this name, and who had come here for the purpose of bringing them bound before the chief priests?" 22 But Saul kept increasing in strength and confounding the Jews who lived at Damascus by proving that this Jesus is the Christ.
NASB

How could Paul prove that Jesus was the Son of God -- the Christ -- the Messiah? Answer: In the only way possible -- with the OT scriptures. OT revelation was more than adequate at that time because those scriptures were preached primarily to the Jews or God-fering Gentiles who lived among the Jews. It was THEIR holy book!. And as more and more Jews became converted, the Gospel started to reach the ears of more and more Gentiles, thanks largely to Paul's efforts, as well as his traveling companions'. But even the Gentiles would not have stood for a Christ preached out of thin air. They, too, would have demanded solid evidence and aside from Jesus, there was probably no one more learned in the Jewish scriptures than Paul. There was no one more qualified to preach and teach from the OT.

Other NT scriptures that attest to the efficacy of the OT scriptures when preached to the ears of God's elect can be found in Rom 1:2; 15:4, 16:26; 1Cor 15:3,4. But the non-believing only twisted and distorted those same scriptures to their own destruction (2Pet 3:16).

In conclusion, then, we first saw that God-fearing Jews actually were on the lookout for their Messiah based on their knowledge of the OT. Then we saw that the Gospel of the Kingdom was preached solely from the Jews' holy book. Everything the Jews needed to know and understand about Salvation, Christ and the Kingdom, etc. was in their scriptures.

And there is only way to God the Father -- and that was through his Son. All true believers in the first century, the second and all subsequent centuries have appropriated only one truth -- one gospel. Jesus Christ did not become the Son of God in 325 A.D. when a group of men decided to bestow that title upon Him. He always was the Father's beloved Son and all believers throughout all these many centuries knew and understood this.

All truth is God's truth. And God owns human history, including the history of his wonderful and gracious Gospel which had it source, originally, in the OT scriptures.

Boxcar

The death of Judas ended his ownership of the 30 pieces of silver paid to him by the priests. Although Jewish law forbade adding blood money to the treasury in perpetuity, Judas renouncing and returning it to the priests before his death and then dying, ended his legal and moral ownership. It did not remain his in perpetuity. Therefore when the priests bought potters' field, legally and morally the original 30 pieces of silver had reverted back to them, and they made the purchase with there own blood money. I believe the mistake you are making is confusing the strict Jewish law forbidding Temple ownership of blood money with murderers owning blood money. Our hypocritical priests were not acting as priests but rather craven vile individuals.

Assuming they had stolen it from the treasury initially to bribe Judas, which is a good possibility, at that very moment it became blood money and fully in THEIR possession. At the moment of the bribe it became BOTH theirs and Judas'. Although Judas may have physically carried the silver, it never fully left the priests dirty hands So it makes sense that after Judas dies it returns to those same dirty hands.

Your head is as thick as the Rock of Gibraltar. The problem with your fancy, convoluted explanation is two things: The chief priests didn't see things that way and their law made it UNLAWFUL for them to accept the money. The fact that they had possession of the money means nothing. LEGALLY, it wasn't theirs because the money was tainted. And these hypocrites did not see that they had done any wrong in bribing Judas. Quite the contrary! As I have shown from John 11, they thought they were doing the RIGHT thing for the nation of Israel. They believed they were saving the nation. What part of Jn 11:47ff. don't you understand? :bang: :bang:

Whatever you think about who is guilty and who is not, and who owns what and who doesn't own anything doesn't mean diddly squat. The only thing that counts is what scripture says about why they could not accept the money under their law, and about their very obvious self-deceived belief that they had done no wrong. These things are very evident from the relevant passages.

Since Judas ran out of the temple and the priests could not return the money to him, they considered themselves empowered under their law to dispose of Judas' money in a way -- in a manner -- that would not violate their law; therefore, they bought the field on HIS behalf. This got the hypocrites out from under a sticky situation (so they believed!). They believed they had extricated themselves from an unwelcomed and unanticipated dilemma.

Boxcar
P.S. And Mr. Empathy Man, where is your empathy for those chief priests? Can you not walk a mile in their shoes to understand their hypocrisy? And how these poor priests were victimized by Judas? Can you not have any appreciation for their mindset? For HOW THEY FELT? How they felt they were caught between a rock (Judas) and a hard place (their law)? :bang: :bang: Can you have no appreciation for their shrewdness in how they extricated themselves from between that rock and hard place? If not, you had better fuel up at the next Empathy Station you see.

The Guilt of Priests??
 

boxcar
You and hcap and others have studied Judas situation deeper than I have.
But the following question occurs to me.
I'm wondering whether or not the Priests might have felt guilty about their role in death of Jesus, possibly realized how wrong they were and wanted no part of the silver pieces paid to Judas?
Is that a possibility?

That could be. But from the way all the Gospels portray the religious establishment of Jesus' day (at least the two major parties), most of them were stone-cold hypocrites. I think they really believed that in order to save their nation, they had no choice but to murder the nation's Savior, as John 11 teaches. (Talk about mega, mega, megabytes of irony!) And the Scribes, Pharisees and Sadducees were well known for their devotion to the external, ceremonial rituals of the Law, while simultaneously totally ignoring the deeper spiritual aspects to it. So, how they thought about the money they paid Judas and their role in Jesus' condemnation fits perfectly with the biblical characterization of them.

And don't forget we have a LAW issue here. They knew that they could not put that money back into the temple treasury. If they were motivated by anything, it would have been the strict ritualistic adherence to that law before admitting or even feeling any guilt over their role in Jesus' death!

And another thing: If Judas had stuck around for some coffee and donuts after he returned the money, you can believe the priests would have returned it to him. They would have wanted to no part of that money. So, just because Judas did a quickie drive-by to dump the money and run would not have changed their attitude. In their mind, it was HIS blood money. In their mind, Judas sold Jesus out. What happened to Jesus was HIS problem.

Boxcar

More Irony!
 

Fox, another passage in the Gospels has come to mind that is just as ironic as the verse in John 11. People should be very careful what they wish for, most especially when God is somehow involved in that wish:

Matt 27:22-25
22 Pilate said to them, "Then what shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ?" They all said, "Let Him be crucified!" 23 And he said, "Why, what evil has He done?" But they kept shouting all the more, saying, "Let Him be crucified!" 24 And when Pilate saw that he was accomplishing nothing, but rather that a riot was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the multitude, saying, "I am innocent of this Man's blood; see to that yourselves." 25 And all the people answered and said, "His blood be on us and on our children!
NASB

Again, I have to think many of the priests were there because they had a vested interest on how this was going to end for Jesus. Does the crowd sound remorseful? Hesitant? Guilty? They wanted to murder Christ because he was such a thorn in their side. (Not a real "sweetheart" of theirs, you know?)

Of course, the irony comes in when you consider what happened to the nation of Israel in 70 A.D. Over 1 million Jews lost their lives when the Roman general Titus destroyed the holy city and the temple, as Jesus predicted. And how many Jews suffered tremendous hardships and additional loss of lives long that event?

Boxcar

No, in that passage they do not sound remorseful or guilt ridden.
The emotion of a crowd can be contagious.
However, guilt feelings can develop some time after an act when away from that contagion in private.
I suspect that possibly happened with some of the Priests, but if it's not documented anywhere that is only speculation on my part.
Thank you for your answer on this matter.

Greyfox

Boxcar speals about Jewish law as though he is an expert. He is not. However I agree there was no remorse.

My understanding after speaking briefly with scholars in the Jewish community is that Judas was only the hired help, the fall guy. The root of the evil started with the priests and culminated with the return of their own 30 pieces of silver. Full circle. The "blood" stain on the money began the moment the priests planned it's use in the murder of Christ


I will try to give you my understanding from the inner spiritual/psychological hidden side.

The Passion is an analogue and model for growth of the kingdom of heaven within each of us. The Eastern model says, among other things, we are a fractured mirror unable to reflect the universal light properly. Mending the fractures and re-uniting all the parts that are worth saving is the road to understanding. But there are fragments that are to damaged to save. (This is separating wheat from chaff)

This process can be quite painful. Many personalities and what we call 'I", moment to moment flickers of consciousness have no wish to abandon their claim to the illusion that they are real. The most tenacious and treacherous parts within ourselves to deal with are those that think they know the truth but are just stale skins and remnants of real teachings. The Scribes and Pharisees were following only the outer portion of Jewish law and had subverted it's essence. And within us these inner Scribes and Pharisees always resist each time a Shepperd/Savior attempts the mending process. Inwardly on the spiritual path, if you are trying, this happens everyday. Large decisions and small

The re-integration of all the broken parts of our kingdom/mirror is sometimes likened to an inner battle, The Bhagavad-Gita for example. In any case there are Generals and leaders on both sides. There is a hierarchy. Judas is not a general, more a lieutenant. The priests are central command and actively employ more devious means than a mere lieutenant.

Remember this is an analogue and only an outline to the main lines of fractures that repeat in all of us. However none of this can be understood without experiencing silently the ongoing struggle, and pulling back from the drama that we create inwardly to support this constant churning. Sturm und Drang is the hallmark of the Scribes and Pharisees. Silence and stillness and a GENTLE quieting of the worthwhile parts within us is the mark of the Shepperd/Savior.

Thank you for the response hcap.
Recorded history apparently does not mention any remorse.
Yet the reported events of the day of the Crucifixion (eg. darkeniing of sky) would have caused me to reflect had I been in the Priests shoes.

Christ you are dense.

Athanasius wrote the Easter Letter in 367... suggesting what 27 works would constitute the New Testament.

He was the leader of the Son of God argument at Nicaea 42 years prior.

These are facts...

The bible didn't just appear in present form one day on the ground it was compiled by men, a lot of them with agenda's, and because that admission would bring your house of cards down you simply can't admit to it.

Thats a you problem, not a me problem.

For someone whose entire world revolves around quoting a book your lack of understanding the history of how it came to exist is... well... pretty effing pathetic.

You have chapter and verse in the holy book to support all this, right?
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Hcap, anyone ever tell you that you're shot?

Boxcar

The last time I looked, the name of this thread was Religious, not Boxcarian Evangelical Fundamentalist Snobbery

There are many other things in the universe other than you and your excessive belching, bloating, and Flatulence.

So What! :bang: :bang: But Jesus wasn't declared the Son of God OFFICIALLY in 325 A.D. by any mere mortal! That premise is beyond absurd. And I have proved from scripture that the earliest Christians knew who exactly Jesus Christ was from the OT scriptures. And if they didn't -- they weren't Christians! End of story.

And you're so dishonest. This was never a discussion about the NT canon per se and how it came about. It was about your most idiotic remark to date that Jesus wasn't officially the Son of God until 325 A.D.

And it was about this also:

Here's a newsflash for you: That's was always Jesus' "official stance"! And the Apostles' "official stance". And all those who came to believe their gospel message; it was theirs too!

And as you can see, you, like Thaskalos, forgot about the OT and that the Gospel for the first few centuries, was for the most part, preached from that "bible"!

And my little series was about this, too:

Contradictions because of multiple titles? One title nullifies another? You need some serious help because whatever drugs you're on are destroying your mind.

And finally my series was about this:

The Word of God doesn't evolve, though. Like its Author, it's the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. So, whatever has "changed" about how professing Christians may look at their faith, what hasn't changed is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. There's only one. And Paul said, if someone preaches another gospel -- a Gospel that is DIFFERENT -- a Gospel that has EVOLVED -- a Gospel that has CHANGED from the original, let him be ACCURSED!

Change isn't always a good thing. Go out in the market place and compare the quality of machines, appliances and equipment of today with those made 20 or even 30 years ago and tell me how great change always is.

Boxcar