Catholics Vs Protestants: Who is Right? 11-2-24

[B-A-C]

If Jesus is the Word of God all that which is NOT Jesus is not the Word of God. Period.

Is there anything in the Bible, that is not Jesus?

John 5:39 "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me;

 

[Rhema]

Whether you like it or not, our lexicons, translations, and canons are just as valid as yours ( probably more so )

"probably more so" ??? As if that's not the very same type of acerbic comment that you just scolded me for. (What a hoot.)

You should be reviewing your own comments made over the last week or so before scolding me.

And yet... WHAT LEXICON?

What lexicon have you ever quoted from? Strong's? NOT a lexicon my brother. And the majority of a Strong's entry comes AFTER the dash, which is just a list of words that were selected for use in the King James. Thayer's? Obsolete before even being published, as he never had access to (or used) the Koine papyri coming out of Egypt. All Thayer did was revise and translate the edition of C.G. Wilke's Clavis Novi Testamenti - first published in 1841 (LINK). Koine wasn't discovered until 1898.

I spent the time effort and energy of decades to understand how the actual text reads and what the actual text says. You can't even admit that you messed up your own attempt to show off that you know Greek. (WE assume too much?) So why should I give any time to someone that dishonest?

And for this, my brutal honesty and integrity to NOT change the words, that's what you're crucifying me for? (Rhetorical, because that IS what you're kvetching about.) But you're not alone. I was banned from here for an entire year because I had the audacity to reprimand you for changing the words of the New Testament text.

If you ever deign to learn the language, you would KNOW that your translations are not more valid. But that's a scary abyss to look into isn't it? I'm glad God showed me the edge of that abyss when I was 14 and hadn't wasted 50 years of life in a cult.

And they said unto Moses, Let the Bible translators speak with us, and we will hear: but let not God speak with us, lest we die.​

(Exodus 20:19 ~~~)

But we are usually OK with it.

Yes, I'm starting to recognize that you (and even y'all) are okay with being wrong. That you're okay with denying the true Jesus before men. That you're okay with all the errors in whatever crappy Bible you read. That you're okay with all the theological heresies that compose your faith, derived from obviously biased translations. But how would YOU know? You can't even read the Bible, because you don't have the Bible. Just cultic English trash.

When you tell the whole world they are wrong, and you are right, ... that they are uneducated, can't spell, can't type correctly,
... you lose your audience. Without love, you are just noise.

At least I have pushed through and know what Truth is. The teachings of Jesus are Truth, and there's not once where he ever said that his blood would pay for your sins. Christ commanded that we worship in Spirit (of which love is part) AND Truth, a truth that necessitates an accuracy in knowledge of the New Testament texts. An accuracy that I've been presenting, only to be buffeted with anger and vitriol because indeed, men do NOT love the truth.

And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.​

(2 Thessalonians 2:10 KJV)

Those who do indeed love truth would eagerly await my posts, given to show insight into both the language and the understanding of the teachings of Jesus.

And you? You want me to sooth and scratch the itching ears to gain an "audience"? One that will stop up their ears when hearing something that they might just not like to hear? (Oh, well we can't offended anybody with any radical teachings, now can we.)

What hypocrisy - telling me to please men, when you yourself adhere to the following as "God's Word":

For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.​

(Galatians 1:10 KJV)

For the time is coming when people will not put up with sound doctrine, but having itching ears, they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own desires, ​

(2 Timothy 4:3 NRSV)

I'm not here to accumulate an audience of people with itching ears. I truly don't care if anybody likes me or not. And if a man cannot abide by my teachings, then let him crawl back into the bottle of his fictional religion.

Iron sharpens iron, and one person sharpens the wits of another.​

(Proverbs 27:17 NRSV)

Obviously, one needs to start with iron to begin with. Triggered people need not apply.

So @B-A-C ... you ever going to come clean about your abilities in Greek? (And you think to scold me.)

@Christ4Ever has stated on more than one occasion that this type of conversation that you stared should occur in PM. Perhaps you should take his advice.

Rhema

And while I believe that the canon of the Church of the East is correct with regards to their exclusion of Revelation, I no longer adhere to that canon. If you haven' yet read The Canon of the New Testament by Dr. Bruce Metzger, I'll buy it for you. (And if you reject the gift, remember that was your choice.)

The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development…

Completing his New Testament trilogy, eminent theologia…

www.goodreads.com

You seem like a smart guy.

Maybe you should remember that.

 

[Rhema]

Is there anything in the Bible, that is not Jesus?

YES.

But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: ...​

(1 Corinthians 7:12 KJV)

And it's a bit disingenuous to use a quote where Jesus references the OT and then underhandedly slip in the NT into his words. It's a lie to teach that Jesus meant the NT when he said scripture.

It hurts the eyes to come into the light.

Rhema

 

[B-A-C]

it's a bit disingenuous to use a quote where Jesus references the OT and then underhandedly slip in the NT into his words.

Most of us would say it includes the NT as well, all of the NT.

You don't believe the NT is about Jesus?

 

[Rhema]

Most of us would say it includes the NT as well, all of the NT.

And most of you don't care about accuracy or Truth.

for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth;​

(Genesis 8:21 KJV)

You don't believe the NT is about Jesus?

It certainly contains a number of individual accounts of fantasies about Jesus.
But so does the Epistle of the Apostles.
Also the Apocalypse of Peter. A book, btw, that IS in the Muratorian canon (LINK).

Why do you accept that God had the power to ensure that certain Catholic Bishops would select the "right" books for your canon, and yet was powerless to ensure that these very same Bishops would preach a saving faith? As if God was more interested in publishing a book than in saving souls.

So WHAT LEXICON?

Rhema

 

[B-A-C]

contains a number of individual accounts of fantasies about Jesus.

Fantasies? I guess this explains a lot.
You've finally surprised me. That's hard to do. I've heard all the doctrines you have proposed here before.
But the New testament is fantasies? That's a new one.

So WHAT LEXICON?

I have the following.

A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (BDAG) by Walter Bauer and Frederick William Danker: This is one of the most comprehensive and authoritative lexicons available

Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains by Johannes P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida: This lexicon organizes Greek words by their meanings, which can be very helpful for understanding the nuances of the original text

The Concise Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament by Frederick William Danker: A more compact version of BDAG, this lexicon is useful for quick reference

New Testament Greek Lexicon: Available on Bible Study Tools, this lexicon is based on Thayer's and Smith's Bible Dictionary and is keyed to the large Kittel and the "Theological Dictionary of the New Testament"

The Liddell-Scott Greek-English Lexicon (LSJ) is a classic and comprehensive lexicon for Ancient Greek, widely used in classical studies. However, it has some differences compared to the lexicons specifically designed for Biblical Greek:

1. Scope and Focus:
   • LSJ: Covers a broad range of Ancient Greek literature, including classical, Hellenistic, and early Christian texts. It is not specifically focused on the New Testament or early Christian writings
     
     
   • BDAG and Louw-Nida: These lexicons are tailored specifically for the Greek of the New Testament and other early Christian literature, providing more detailed semantic and contextual information relevant to these texts
2. Usage and Audience:
   • LSJ: Ideal for scholars and students of classical Greek literature, philosophy, and history. It provides extensive references to classical authors and works
     
     
   • BDAG and Louw-Nida: More suited for biblical scholars, theologians, and students of the New Testament. They offer insights into the theological and doctrinal nuances of the Greek text
3. Updates and Editions:
   • LSJ: The most recent major edition was published in 1940, with some updates and supplements added later
     
     
   • BDAG: Regularly updated to reflect the latest scholarship and discoveries in New Testament studies
4. Format and Accessibility:
   • LSJ: Known for its detailed and sometimes complex entries, which can be challenging for those not familiar with classical Greek
     
     
   • BDAG and Louw-Nida: Generally more user-friendly for those specifically studying the New Testament, with entries organized to highlight semantic domains and theological significance

The LSJ remains a valuable resource for its comprehensive coverage of Ancient Greek, but for focused New Testament studies, BDAG and Louw-Nida are often preferred due to their specialized content and ease of use.

Mostly for items 1 and 2, I do not use the Liddell-Scott, as they are less than ideal.

 

[Rhema]

But the New testament is fantasies? That's a new one.

And it'a a new one to me, since I did not say that.

But should I be surprised from someone who thinks errors are okay?

Mostly for items 1 and 2, I do not use the Liddell-Scott, as they are less than ideal.

Au contraire. The usage of Koine Greek has not changed in 2,000 years. Although the papyri have helped to clarify certain obscurities, the words will always mean what they meant back then. We don't need to translate into Ebonics.

But I appreciate the list, even though you have NEVER quoted from them. Why?

I link to the Liddell Scott because it's available free through Perseus at Tufts University and the Cambridge Lexicon is not, though I do type in the whole entry when necessary. .... I back up my posts.

The BDAG? An insular cultic publication that plays to it's customers. You get an Evangelical bias because they sell it to evangelicals who would freak out if they even thought it possible that the actual meanings might be different from what they are accustomed to.

I've already addressed "Thayer's," but what good is anything being "keyed" to the "large Kittle" if one doesn't use or have the Kittle's?

Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains by Johannes P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida: This lexicon organizes Greek words by their meanings, which can be very helpful for understanding the nuances of the original text

Thank you. This is greatly appreciated. And that's not one I have in my library, although I see an online copy HERE. I shall see if it can come in handy in any way.

Are you familiar with Notes de lexicographie neo-testamentaire, by Ceslas Spicq? It's next on my purchase list.

The Concise Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament by Frederick William Danker: A more compact version of BDAG, this lexicon is useful for quick reference

I find it hilarious that the Chicago Press describes the The Concise Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament as offering "extended definitions or explanations in idiomatic English for all Greek terms. (So much for the accuracy of the word concision.)

Fantasies? I guess this explains a lot.
....
But the New testament is fantasies? That's a new one.

I said contains not "is." How such inaccuracy doesn't bother you is quite beyond me.

The book of Acts contains three accounts of Paul's "Road to Damascus" experience that all differ from one another. ONE can be true. The other two are fantasies.

I stand by my words.

Rhema

 

[Garee]

And yet you KNOW that when people hear or read the phrase "Word of God" they blindly without even cognizance replace it with "Bible" up inside their head.

And there should be no quotes about it. Jesus IS the Word of God, and we should embrace only that which He teaches.

If Jesus is the Word of God all that which is NOT Jesus is not the Word of God. Period.

God bless,
Rhema

Does not jesus mean Savior? .He would seem to speak the word or teach it as it is written

 

[B-A-C]

I said contains not "is." How such inaccuracy doesn't bother you is quite beyond me.

How do you decide which parts are fantasies, and which parts aren't?

A half truth is a whole lie. If you're wrong about part of it, you're wrong about all of it.

 

[Rhema]

A half truth is a whole lie. If you're wrong about part of it, you're wrong about all of it.

So then which of the THREE contradicting accounts of Paul's Road to Damascus in the book of Acts is right?

According to your logic, then, all three are a lie and the author of Acts is "wrong about all of it" and one must discard the entire book of Acts.

One cannot maintain a profession of sanity and say that contradicting accounts are all true.

How do you decide which parts are fantasies, and which parts aren't?

Doesn't the Holy Spirit actually speak to you about this? (Maybe you need to ask.)

Kindly,
Rhema

 

[Rhema]

Does not jesus mean Savior? .He would seem to speak the word or teach it as it is written

Garee, with all due respect you have it backwards. What is written as the teachings of Jesus in the gospel texts is that which he spoke. The speaking came first, the writings came later. And for those who repent, the Word is placed in one's heart, not in a book that needs to be searched and decoded. But Jesus was not a bloody parrot to just read TORAH.

Torah was broken (for a long time).

How can you say, "We are wise, and the TORAH of YHWH is with us," when, in fact, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie?​

(Jeremiah 8:8 NRSV~)

Jesus came to FIX the Torah.

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to PLEROO (G4137).​

(Matthew 5:17 KJV)

PLEROO being a Greek words to "fill in" as filling in a pothole in the street, or a part of a mud wall that came loose and fell down.

If Jesus was just mimicking or merely reading Moses (TORAH) what reformation (as you know it) was needed?

Jesus IS the Word, and as such ALL that He taught was from the Father, including those things that had not (yet) been written.

Does not jesus mean Savior?

Indeed, Jesus has brought salvation to us by teaching the true Way for one's sins to be forgiven.

Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins:​

(Acts 13:38 KJV)

And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil.​

(Luke 11:4 KJV)

Are not people whose sins have been forgiven saved?

God bless,
Rhema

 

[Garee]

Garee, with all due respect you have it backwards. What is written as the teachings of Jesus in the gospel texts is that which he spoke. The speaking came first, the writings came later. And for those who repent, the Word is placed in one's heart, not in a book that needs to be searched and decoded. But Jesus was not a bloody parrot to just read TORAH.

Torah was broken (for a long time).

How can you say, "We are wise, and the TORAH of YHWH is with us," when, in fact, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie?(Jeremiah 8:8 NRSV~)

Jesus came to FIX the Torah.

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to PLEROO (G4137).(Matthew 5:17 KJV)

PLEROO being a Greek words to "fill in" as filling in a pothole in the street, or a part of a mud wall that came loose and fell down.

If Jesus was just mimicking or merely reading Moses (TORAH) what reformation (as you know it) was needed?

Jesus IS the Word, and as such ALL that He taught was from the Father, including those things that had not (yet) been written.

The preaching of the Son of man Jesus the apostle (sent messenger) The teaching of the father as Christ who worked from within. The thoughts of the father came first then Jesus preached the gospel.

Jeramiah 8: 8;How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the Lord is with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain.

The pen of the false scribe is in vain .Not the one moved by the Holy Spirit

Jesus the son of man came to establish two laws working as one perfect new .

The letter of the law as it is written death (seen) kills And the law of faith (believing) a work of labor of faith (God's understanding)

Christ in us. Both the just (letter) and the Justifier (Spirit of grace)

Romans 3:26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

The perfect law two working as one. Both to will and do. demonstrated in a parable (Psalms 19)

Psalms 19 ;7-10 The law of the Lord is perfect, (working) converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing (Moving) the heart: the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes. The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether. More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb.

 

[B-A-C]

So then which of the THREE contradicting accounts of Paul's Road to Damascus in the book of Acts is right?

I see no contradictions.

 

[Rhema]

I see no contradictions.

And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.​

(Acts 9:7 KJV)

And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.​

(Acts 22:9 KJV)

Did they hear the voice or did they not hear the voice?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.​

(Acts 9:7 KJV)

And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.​

(Acts 26:14 KJV)

Did the men stand speechless or did they fall to the earth?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Be honest.

Rhema

 

[Garee]

And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.​

(Acts 9:7 KJV)

And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.​

(Acts 22:9 KJV)

Did they hear the voice or did they not hear the voice?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.​

(Acts 9:7 KJV)

And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.​

(Acts 26:14 KJV)

Did the men stand speechless or did they fall to the earth?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Be honest.

Rhema

I would offer..

very hard to kick against the pricks (letter of the law death)

Hearing the word . .no vision attached (no undestanding) . Secondly the oposite seeing not hearing .(no understanding )

The born again believer empowered to do both (the key) hear the will having heard empowered to do

The daily bread the apostles knew not of at first. Both . . power to hear and do. A companion parable (God working in us) with the Philippian 2:13

John 4:33-35Therefore said the disciples one to another, Hath any man brought him ought to eat? Jesus saith unto them, My meat (daily bread) is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.

Called hidden manna in Rev 2:17

Father and Son . The dynamic dual (original)

Not Tonto and the Lone Ranger . .second place. Third, Tom Terrific and his mighty Wonder Dog Manfred LOL

 

[Christ4Ever]

It reminds me of when several witnesses observe an accident and subsequently recount their observations to the authorities. Rarely if ever are they the same. The focus is different for each person. What you do find to be common is that there was an accident!

The person themselves can have a different recollection of specifics, in the telling of it, after a time. They even have a tendency to embellish the telling by focusing more on certain points in one telling and another part in another telling adding or leaving out parts.

Each instance of the telling and recording by Luke I do believe was different and yet each confirmed the incident itself, which is the important point of what happened.

No different than each one of the Gospels, that have the focus in certain incidents as being different, when in truth it was just the witness' perspective that is different, and what they were focused on. I'd be more inclined to believe it was made up, if each writer had the same worded recollection, because that's not the reality of individual memory.

Just my small input. Apologies if it upsets anyone.

With the Love of Christ Jesus.
YBIC
Nick
\o/
<><

 

[B-A-C]

Acts 9:7 KJV)

And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.(Acts 22:9 KJV)

Did they hear the voice or did they not hear the voice?

I guess it depends on your Bible translation. I almost always use the NASB.

Acts 9:7 The men who traveled with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one.
Acts 22:9 "And those who were with me saw the light, to be sure, but did not understand the voice of the One who was speaking to me.

 

[B-A-C]

Did the men stand speechless or did they fall to the earth?

Again, the NASB.

Acts 9:5 And he said, "Who are You, Lord?" And He said, "I am Jesus whom you are persecuting,
Acts 9:6 but get up and enter the city, and it will be told you what you must do."
Acts 9:7 The men who traveled with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one.

Acts 26:14 "And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew dialect, 'Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.'
Acts 26:15 "And I said, 'Who are You, Lord?' And the Lord said, 'I am Jesus whom you are persecuting.
Acts 26:16 'But get up and stand on your feet; for this purpose I have appeared to you, to appoint you a minister and a witness not only to the things which you have seen, but also to the things in which I will appear to you;

Still no contradiction.

KJV
Acts 9:6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.
Acts 9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

Acts 26:14 And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
Acts 26:15 And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.
Acts 26:16 But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee;

I think people try to find contradictions that aren't really there.

 

[backNforth]

I guess it depends on your Bible translation. I almost always use the NASB.

Yep. Once we abandon the standard, it's a humanistic free-for-all. Witness the posts in this thread (or in any thread). Everyone thinks they are the sole arbiter of truth.

I think people try to find contradictions that aren't really there.

Of course they do. The Holy Bible is the world's largest selling book but also the most attacked. When you're trying to run a control trip on people, you can't have anyone walking around with the truth. Hence the plethora of eye candy "versions" of. the truth. This is where the OP and the formation of countless denominations come into play.

 

[Rhema]

Just my small input. Apologies if it upsets anyone.

No one is upset, but just look at the implications of what you posted.

The ABSOLUTELY MOST IMPORTANT EVENT of Paul's entire life - you're saying that he couldn't remember it accurately or keep the details straight.

Then how could you trust that Paul could remember anything accurately of his supposed direct revelations of doctrine from his ChristLight visions?

But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.​

(Galatians 1:11-12 KJV)

They even have a tendency to embellish the telling by focusing more on certain points in one telling and another part in another telling adding or leaving out parts.

First, embellishments are lies. But more importantly, we're talking about contradictions.

@B-A-C clearly stated that he sees NO contradictions, despite what is actually written or the excuses you make for them.

when in truth it was just the witness' perspective that is different,

As you know, Luke wasn't a witness. He merely records witness' accounts, of which I can readily agree that they may differ. But when a contradiction is present, given the doctrine of inerrancy, how can one know which account was actually true?

Rhema