No one goes to heaven!

[Rhema]

Yet, secular and religious paleographists have determined certain books/letters with dates that are after the death of the Apostle Thomas in 72AD, and yet are included in his church's canon.

Should be simple enough for him to answer, don't you think?

Again, I answered you TWICE. So what gives?

"His church's ..." ???

Nick, are you even reading my posts? (Although I do understand how post 96 could be misconstrued. My apologies. By "our" I did not mean the Church of the East. I had meant those of us who fellowship together.)

Here are sections from a post that you may have missed....

I think you've made a pretty big assumption here. I am NOT advocating the Church of the East as some sole source of salvation as the Roman Rite does of itself. And I addressed some of the division in my previous post. By now, though, I'd be considered a heretic.

Oh my... once again it would seem that I wasn't clear - "By now, though, I'd be considered a heretic.." to those in the Church of the East.

But in that same post I had also written:

My apologies, but you seem to think that I am a current adherent (congregant?) or member of the Church of the East. I had not meant to give that impression. The technical term would be that I am not in communion with them, (or at this point any other ... ?group?), although I think there's a Lutheran church somewhere that might have me on their membership list, also some Fundamentalist Baptist church, and maybe even a Charismatic Congregation (none of that stuff holds any interest for me) and I've been visiting an Armstrong gathering when I can, which has been both fun and interesting, as it has given me a very different perspective on baptism.

And while their(our?) their? canon may have a better pedigree, they embraced the rejection of Arius and had fallen into the Trinitarian trap as far back as Nicaea (there were representatives there), and I bring this to light ONLY as an example to show that they would consider me just as much a heretic now as most of the rest of Christendom.

So, there is no "his church." To be clear, I am not a member of the Church of the East.

Yet, secular and religious paleographists have determined certain books/letters with dates that are after the death of the Apostle Thomas in 72AD,

Again, PROOF ?? Citations?? Sources ??

It's hard to use Palaeography (LINK) to date manuscripts when there ARE NO manuscripts that go back that far. One needs to have the manuscripts to classify the writing style. The oldest fragment of the New Testament texts is the Rylands Library Papyrus P52 (LINK), a very small fragment of "John" that is generally dated to 125 AD. So any date of any other New Testament text cannot be based upon Palaeography by definition.

The first complete copies of single New Testament books appear around 200 AD. (LINK)

All books of the New Testament texts that are dated by Palaeography are well after everyone was dead.

So no. Palaeography cannot be used to establish any date for the creation of any New Testament texts.

Rhema

 

[Christ4Ever]

Unless you are saying that none of the books/letters in the Canon accepted by you and the Church of the East are dated after the death of the Apostle Thomas. Is that what you are saying?

Simple yes or no little brother.

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

 

[Rhema]

I do believe I had said that the timelines you've presented are mere guesses, and that most all of such scholarly work was done by unbelievers.

Actually, you have not, as much as you'd like to say you have.

First answer:

When did Thomas die, and when were the other books of the NT written?

I'll be honest. Nobody really knows.

Second answer:

If it is accurate that he died 72AD, according to you, you'd have to consider anything written afterwards as being invalid or unacceptable as canon. The majority of the NT would then not fit within that criteria.

That's only if we accept your dating speculations.

My apologies if the above answers weren't clear AS answers.


But in addition to my request for you to provide citations for your position on dating, there was one other question that you haven't addressed. (ALTHOUGH... I realize that our conversation has fractured into two threads with a lot of pieces to it.)

Now, can you name one good thing that has come out of that book? I'll consider it. I really will. Just one...

God bless,
Rhema

 

[Christ4Ever]

Unless you are saying that none of the books/letters in the Canon accepted by you and the Church of the East are dated after the death of the Apostle Thomas. Is that what you are saying?

Simple yes or no little brother.

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

 

[B-A-C]

One of the primary tests for canonicity was that the letter was written by an apostle. No credible scholar denies Revelation was written by John.

 

[Rhema]

Are you not my brother in Christ and younger than I am?

Depends upon your metric. I was 12 years in Christ before you. Now would you call your pastor, "little brother" if he were younger? (There's no reason to be a smartass.)

Unless you are saying that none of the books/letters in the Canon accepted by you and the Church of the East are dated after the death of the Apostle Thomas. Is that what you are saying?

NONE of the books are accurately dated. We have no reliable dating for any of them. All dates are scholarly speculations at best. The tradition of the Church of the East holds that the books in their canon were written before the death of the Apostle (Thomas).

So here is your answer:

Yes, all of the books in the canon of the Church of the East were written before the death of the Apostle Thomas; according to the Church of the East.​

I added "I do not know" because I'd rather your ignorance, than your avoidance.

Nobody knows any of the dates, not even the dates when Paul wrote his letters, although I hold that Paul wrote 1 Thessalonians first.

Palaeography cannot be used to establish any date for the creation of any New Testament texts. (Yes or no, little brother .)

Rhema

 

[Rhema]

One of the primary tests for canonicity was that the letter was written by an apostle.

Indeed, as confirmed by Dr. Bruce Metzger, p253 The Canon of the New Testament Its Origin, Development, and Significance (c)1987 (Oxford University Press - reprint 2009)

HOWEVER...
Mark was not an apostle, and Luke most certainly was not an apostle. The Epistle of Barnabas was removed even though Barnabas WAS an Apostle, and it is found in the Codex Sinaiticus.

So obviously, other criteria were also used.

No credible scholar denies Revelation was written by John.

(Your scholars need better credibility.)

Jacques Basnage de Beauval (1653-1723) finds that during the first three centuries there was no decision concerning the limits of the New Testament canon, bue each local church had the liberty to choose or reject individual books; this freedom was most noticeable among Eastern Churches in rejecting Revelation. (p. 16)​

​

Early in the third century (200's) Gaius (or Caius), said by Eusebius to be "a very learned man" and evidently a respected Roman presbyter, not only denied the Pauline authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews... but also rejected the Book of Revelation. (p. 104,105)​

It's not a new thing, @B-A-C

Kindly,
Rhema

 

[B-A-C]

Mark was not an apostle, and Luke most certainly was not an apostle.

Or, you had to be sponsored by an apostle. Meaning you were mentioned as a Christian brother in one of their letters.

Your scholars need better credibility.

As do yours.

 

[Rhema]

As do yours.

Then please do update the following article.

LINK to the Wikipedia article on Revelation.

Kindly,
Rhema


(You could also write a letter to the Britannica to set them straight...)

Revelation to John | Summary & Facts | Britannica

Revelation to John, last book of the New Testament. It is the only book of the New Testament classified as apocalyptic literature rather than didactic or historical, indicating thereby its extensive use of visions, symbols, and allegory, especially in connection with future events.

www.britannica.com

 

[B-A-C]

Then please do update the following article.

I see nothing in these articles to suggest the invalidity of Revelation, or John being the author.
But even if I did, wikipedia is hardly a source I trust.

The thing is, for every internet article you post to support a theory, I can post 3 or 4 that support another argument.
The whole argument of "I am right because someone on the internet agrees with me" is a false argument.

 

[Christ4Ever]

Our relationship has not progressed to the point where "little brother" would be an endearment, and it's certainly not a term of respect, mijo. But within my culture (more German and Chinese than Hispanic), "little" is a pejorative diminutive, and has nothing to do with "Brother," a term we also use amongst ourselves. So imagine that !! that you hadn't answered my question. I'll provide my own answer. You would never call your pastor "little brother," because you know the disrespect it would imply. But if your pastor has (or lets) himself be called "pastor," then there are more fundamental problems in your Faith than I suspected.

But be not ye called Pastor: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.(Matthew 23:8 KJV~)

And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?(Luke 6:46 KJV)

If we have no relationship in Christ Jesus, then we are lost to ever break bread. I have opened the door hermanito, and you have decided to keep yours closed or do not have the ability to open it. Whichever befits your heart, I leave you to.

Yes, I would, but conditionally because his position would dictate a matter of respect, which I have stated before. Still, I know more about him than I do about you so if it moved me and we were in a Hispanic environment, I would have no problem doing so hermanito. Sadly, any attempt on my part to build a bridge to you has been rebuffed lay man. I would receive you as a brother, whether small, big, or just one, as I have done so with others here, but you have rejected it. I will not go where I am not wanted.

I give the etymology so that you might understand it as I meant it and not as you want it to be.

[Mat 23:8 KJV] 8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, [even] Christ; and all ye are brethren.

pastor | Search Online Etymology Dictionary

The online etymology dictionary (etymonline) is the internet's go-to source for quick and reliable accounts of the origin and history of English words, phrases, and idioms. It is professional enough to satisfy academic standards, but accessible enough to be used by anyone.

www.etymonline.com

You are not my Lord, so Luke 6:46 KJV does not apply to our relationship, for I am accountable to him, as are you layman. You would do well to look at the Lord's compassionate side as well and integrate that part into your life as well.

Being raised in the church, it was always there, like water around an ichthus. I acknowledged the water in 1967. Baptized in miracles in 1973. Baptized in tongues in 1990, interpretation of tongues in 1991. Baptized in Prophecy in 1993.

Well said.

[Mat 7:23 KJV] 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Note: I added this verse to show you what you do, with the Word of God to others layman.

Accuracy is important. But many don't mind missing the mark.

It's okay, you're not alone.

(Sigh...) None of the books can be individually dated to a specific year. Accepting the testimony of the Church of the East, those books in the canon (their canon, not yours) would have been written before 72 AD. So at this point, there is one accurate data point for dating the New Testament texts. But the term "pure speculation" wouldn't apply. "Informed opinion" might be a better description. Allow me an example:

There are three epistles of Paul where he does not identify himself as an apostle: 1 & 2nd Thessalonians and Philippians. I submit these were written before Acts 13:2. Obviously others disagree, but I think it to be a valid informed opinion.

As I said, you neither agree nor disagree.

I'm not denying the usefulness of Palaeography. But one must actually have physical manuscripts in hand in order to analyse the handwriting. Since we have only copies, and the earliest fragment of a manuscript dates to 120 AD, there is no way to use Palaeography to establish a time frame for when a book in the New Testament texts was first written. Palaeography, then, can only be used to establish a relative time frame for copies.

As I have said but having the physical manuscripts in hand also only provide a certain amount of data in the handling of which is useful but not the lone determining factor in dating.

Oddly enough, the above rationale is used to declare that the Pastorals were not written by Paul since the word Bishop (episkopē G1984 ἐπισκοπή) was not found in use by the Proto-Orthodox Church until decades after the death of Paul.

You collect data, and present, and what anyone makes of it...

Please, I beg you to read the article LINK to Palaeography. Historical events are not part of the purview of Palaeography, although both are used when attempting to establish the date for when a document was first written.

Stop arguing with yourself. = happy, joyful, foreign to some...

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

 

[Curtis]

The Word of God contained in scripture is the ultimate authority and if you are looking for other sources to declare their ultimate authority then you are disbelieving the Word of God as there is no higher authority.

 

[Rhema]

I see nothing in these articles to suggest the invalidity of Revelation, or John being the author.

Which John? If you meant the Apostle John, you left out the word Apostle. It gives the impression that you're being obtuse on purpose. So I'll need to presume (sorry) that you mean the Apostle John.

You see nothing? Nothing? You hadn't read this part?

The modern consensus is that a Johannine community produced the Gospel of John and the three Johannine epistles, while John of Patmos wrote the Book of Revelation separately.[c][15][16]​

So... John of Patmos NOT John the Apostle.

But even if I did, wikipedia is hardly a source I trust.

It's merely a handy first reference tool. And if your sources are more credible, as you implied, then don't you have the moral obligation to annotate the article? Just pissing on Wikipedia is a lazy out. Make things better.

The thing is, for every internet article you post to support a theory, I can post 3 or 4 that support another argument.

Then do so. Cite your sources. Fix the Wikipedia article. Unless you're unsure...

And cite your sources here. I have. And more than one.

You might not realize, B-A-C that I have a rather high degree of respect for your posts, even though I know the same is not reciprocated. But to bluster like this? It's just not a good look on you.

Cite your sources.

The whole argument of "I am right because someone on the internet agrees with me" is a false argument.

So Curtis agrees with you. What an interesting "false argument."

But that's NOT what was stated. I gave citations for the scholars I quoted and posted supportive links when available. You? puff...nothing. Just a big empty.

And just because citations are made through an internet link does NOT invalidate the credibility of the source and the validity of the scholarship. That would mean that since everything on, say, Biblehub is posted by "someone on the internet," citing the Bible itself would be a "false argument." (C'mon. We both know you can do better.)

Rhema

the invalidity of Revelation

Whatever that means...

 

[Rhema]

I have opened the door hermanito, and you have decided to keep yours closed

Well... thank YOU for telling me what I decided.

Still, I know more about him than I do about you

That's EXACTLY what I said... here:

Our relationship has not progressed to the point where "little brother" would be an endearment,

So are you sure you're not being combative on purpose?

Sadly, any attempt on my part to build a bridge to you has been rebuffed lay man

As if you hadn't purposefully used the word "lay man" as an insult, and then you accuse me of rebuffing you? (What a work.)

as are you layman.

Truly, what IS your problem? Layman to you, but ordained priest to others. Are you truly that blind that you just don't see how you use your words as an insult? Why do you do that? (And yet try to pluck the speck from my eye?)

But back to the issue under discussion.

You are not my Lord, so Luke 6:46 KJV does not apply to our relationship,

And I thank my God I am not. But if one cannot understand one of the most simplest commands of Jesus (be not called Pastor, or any other elitist title that would create a great divide between one brother and another), what more can be done? You would accept the division of the brethren by "layman" and "clergy" ?? How sad if that be true.

I quite know what a Pastor is, and I know the power-plays within the deceitful human heart and mind. I haven't called anyone "Pastor" "Reverend" "Father" "Your Holiness" "Bishop" "Apostle" or "Grand Poohbah" since I was 15, having understood the command of Jesus and deciding to obey it.

I quoted Luke 6:46 as it applies to YOUR relationship with your "pastor." Not us.

You would do well to look at the Lord's compassionate side as well and integrate that part into your life as well.

So a Pharisee demands compassion. Interesting. Need I truly point out (QUOTE) "You are not my Lord..."(UNQUOTE)?

Well said.

[Mat 7:23 KJV] 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Note: I added this verse to show you what you do, with the Word of God to others layman.

If your addition made any sense, well, it might make sense.

I think you should give yourself a three day ban for the continued use of "layman" as a purposeful insult.

It's okay, you're not alone.

Like, dude, you should repent. (What may you think you're doing isn't working.)

You collect data, and present, and what anyone makes of it...

What anyone makes of any post is up to them. Reject it, Accept it, Question it, that would be the decision of this hypothetical "anyone."

Stop arguing with yourself.

Yeah. I had a bad headache by the time I wrote that sentence. So if your goal was to badger me into making a misstatement, well bully for you, take a bow and add up the points. But it doesn't alter the fact that Paleography can only apply when one has the physical document.

Rhema

 

[Rhema]

The Word of God contained in scripture is the ultimate authority and if you are looking for other sources to declare their ultimate authority then you are disbelieving the Word of God as there is no higher authority.

Curtis, It would seem at this point that the discussion has turned into "Who decides what is the Word of God"? You? Others? The Catholics?

In saying that "The Word of God contained in scripture is the ultimate authority," you are parroting the Doctrine of Sola Scriptura created by Martin Luther when rejecting the Ecclesiastical Authority of Rome - it's a doctrine that is only 500 years old. Luther's BIG Mistake, though, was that he could not fathom that any sane and rational person could read the exact same passage in the Bible as he, and arrive at a different conclusion. (Well that didn't work, did it.)

But... I'm sure you know that the New Testament texts were written in Greek. Yet you may not know that there are two words in Greek - LOGOS and RHEMA that are both translated into "Word" in your English Bible. So when you read (or say) "Word of God" which Word do you mean? The LOGOS(word) of God? Or the RHEMA(word) of God?

I believe that understanding what is meant by the "Word of God" is extremely important, so one would need to study the difference between the LOGOS and the RHEMA.

Rhema
From scripture, though, I can show you what the ultimate authority is...

Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.​

(John 16:13 KJV)

And I don't believe that you believe that the Holy Spirit is a book, OR that the Holy Spirit is limited by a book.

God bless....

 

[Curtis]

The Gospel of John.

John 21:24 I, John, am that disciple who has written these things to testify of the truth, and we know that what I’ve documented is accurate. (TPT)

John 21:24 I am John, the disciple who witnessed these events and testifies to them. I have written them down myself. Everything written here is the truth. (Remedy)

The Book of Revelations.

Rev 1:4 I, John, am writing this letter. I am sending it to the seven churches in Asia Minor.....

Rev 1:9 I, John, am a believer like you. I am a friend who suffers like you. As members of Jesus' royal family,......

Rev 22:8 I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. After I had heard and seen them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel. He is the one who had been showing me these things.

The Apostle of John was well known throughout all the Churchs as he did not need to specify his Apostleship as everyone knew who he was.

 

[Rhema]

John 21:24 I, John, am that disciple who has written these things to testify of the truth, and we know that what I’ve documented is accurate. (TPT)

You quote a deceitful and lying Bible, Curtis, where words have been added to the text.

This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.​

(John 21:24 KJV)

this is the disciple who is testifying concerning these things, and he wrote these things, and we have known that his testimony is true.​

(John 21:24 YLT)

This is that disciple, which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things, and we know that his testimonie is true.​

(John 21:24 Geneva)

This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true.​

(John 21:24 NRSV)

But no matter... HERE is the original Greek text from the Textus Receptus:

(Greek NT TR) ουτος εστιν ο μαθητης ο μαρτυρων περι τουτων και γραψας ταυτα και οιδαμεν οτι αληθης εστιν η μαρτυρια αυτου

The name John (Ἰωάννης) is NOT in the text. Just compare the letters to the above. I've never encountered The Passion Translation before, but truly it should be burned. Whoever Brian and Candice Simmons are, they have dealt deceitfully with scripture.

Rhema

 

[Curtis]

You quote a deceitful and lying Bible, Curtis, where words have been added to the text.

This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.​

(John 21:24 KJV)

this is the disciple who is testifying concerning these things, and he wrote these things, and we have known that his testimony is true.​

(John 21:24 YLT)

This is that disciple, which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things, and we know that his testimonie is true.​

(John 21:24 Geneva)

This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true.​

(John 21:24 NRSV)

But no matter... HERE is the original Greek text from the Textus Receptus:

(Greek NT TR) ουτος εστιν ο μαθητης ο μαρτυρων περι τουτων και γραψας ταυτα και οιδαμεν οτι αληθης εστιν η μαρτυρια αυτου

The name John (Ἰωάννης) is NOT in the text. Just compare the letters to the above. I've never encountered The Passion Translation before, but truly it should be burned. Whoever Brian and Candice Simmons are, they have dealt deceitfully with scripture.

Rhema

That is just your opinion. You can believe anything you want and that is exactly what you do.

 

[B-A-C]

So... John of Patmos NOT John the Apostle.

The same John.

John of Patmos - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Rhema]

That is just your opinion. You can believe anything you want and that is exactly what you do.

No. It's not my opinion. There IS NO extant Greek manuscript that has the name John in that verse. Period.

Are you SURE that you want to be influenced by translations that ADD IN WORDS ????

(God I hope not.)
Rhema

How can you say, "We are wise, and the law (Bible) of the LORD is with us," when, in fact, the false pen of the scribes (& translators) has made it into a lie?​

(Jeremiah 8:8 NRSV+)

And so much for Revelation 22:18