Christ Jesus came into the world to save ALL sinners

[Alfred Persson]

The Church is the continuation of Judaism. Unbelieving Jews are not the oracles of God. That passed to the Church. St. Paul also said "The Church is the Pillar and Ground of the Truth". The Church Canonised the Septuagint. That is what is Holy Scripture, by the ruling of the Holy Spirit....period!

The apostles were Jews, as is our LORD Jesus:

"salvation is of the Jews". (Jn. 4:22 NKJ)

We aren't the "continuation" of Judaism, we are grafted into the "Israel of God"

17 And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree,
18 do not boast against the branches. But if you do boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you.
19 You will say then, "Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in."
20 Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear.
21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either. (Rom. 11:17-21 NKJ)

The Church is the Pillar and ground where God reveals His truth. The Church cannot invent its own truth.

The Church also sanctioned Icons, and I am an iconoclast.

God has made His canon known, its the 66 books accepted by the entire Church, not just one faction of it.

 

[Alfred Persson]

It is written..."For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?" (1 Peter 4:17)
Your answer to that question is...NOTHING.
It is a very unwise answer.

Not my answer. Bearing false witness has consequences also. You should consider that before you make stuff up and claim others believe it.

 

[SolaScriptura]

I am curious as to what grounds you have for rejection? A 66 book Canon is an invention of the Reformation. The Apostles used the Septuagint and so did their successors.

this is very much incorrect!

The Jews NEVER have accepted ANY of the "Apocrypha" books of the Old Testament as Scripture.

The LXX is NOT inspired by God the Holy Spirit, and is just another translation like the King James, etc

 

[Hopeful 2]

Not my answer. Bearing false witness has consequences also. You should consider that before you make stuff up and claim others believe it.

It is your answer.
You posit a second chance after death to submit to God.
Who would refuse such an offer ?
Ergo, "nothing" will happen to those who disobey the gospel of God while alive.
Your doctrine fosters disobedience to God.

 

[SolaScriptura]

can we PLEASE keep to the subject in the OP

 

[Alfred Persson]

It is your answer.
You posit a second chance after death to submit to God.
Who would refuse such an offer ?
Ergo, "nothing" will happen to those who disobey the gospel of God while alive.
Your doctrine fosters disobedience to God.

God so loved the entire kosmos (world) He sacrificed His only Begotten Son to give everyone (who didn't commit eternal sins like accepting the Mark of the Beast) THE OPPORTUNITY to be saved.

God does not over-ride free will.

Your premise is evil people will repent and be saved. That is unscriptural. There are children of God and children of the devil.

In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother. (1 Jn. 3:10 NKJ)

The children of the devil (like the Devil himself) cannot "fake it", pretend they want to be holy and righteous.

So the wicked children of the devil will get what they chose, eternal punishment. They can't fake it, fool God as it were.

In the early church some speculated the soul, once freed of all bodily contrivances, is an "open book". They are who they are:

"He who is unjust, let him be unjust still; he who is filthy, let him be filthy still; he who is righteous, let him be righteous still; he who is holy, let him be holy still." (Rev. 22:11 NKJ)

Your conclusion the wicked can fool God and be saved is both absurd, and contradicts scripture. Its a "straw man" argument that misrepesents my logically sound and scripturally correct beliefs.

 

[Dyonisius the Areopagite]

The apostles were Jews, as is our LORD Jesus:

"salvation is of the Jews". (Jn. 4:22 NKJ)

We aren't the "continuation" of Judaism, we are grafted into the "Israel of God"

17 And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree,
18 do not boast against the branches. But if you do boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you.
19 You will say then, "Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in."
20 Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear.
21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either. (Rom. 11:17-21 NKJ)

The Church is the Pillar and ground where God reveals His truth. The Church cannot invent its own truth.

The Church also sanctioned Icons, and I am an iconoclast.

God has made His canon known, its the 66 books accepted by the entire Church, not just one faction of it.

You said:
The apostles were Jews, as is our LORD Jesus:

"salvation is of the Jews". (Jn. 4:22 NKJ)

We aren't the "continuation" of Judaism, we are grafted into the "Israel of God"

My response:
I must call your attention to the fact that your observation that the Apostles were Jews goes to my argument. The first Church members were Jews and it was so for over twenty years. Gentiles were "grafted in"; not Jewish Christians. The Apostles passed down the Septuagint to their successors as a valid text of the Holy Scriptures. Thus, it is a valid text of the Holy Scriptures despite your objections. The Apostles have more authority than you or the Reformers.
As for your Scripture reference. Again, you make my argument for me. Unbelieving Jews were "broken off" the Vine, and we Gentiles were "grafted into" their place. Were were grafted into the continuation of Judaism, "The Israel of God".

I said nothing about the Church creating truth. She contains the truth given by the Lord. You make of YOURSELF a repository of truth with your iconoclasm. Who are you to speak for God? You are but one Christian.
God indeed has made His Canon known and it includes the Septuagint, not the Masoretic text.
Tell me, which version of Psalm 40:6 is the correct version? The one quoted in Hebrews 10:5-7 or the one from the Masoretic text in your "66 book canon"?

 

[Dyonisius the Areopagite]

this is very much incorrect!

The Jews NEVER have accepted ANY of the "Apocrypha" books of the Old Testament as Scripture.

The LXX is NOT inspired by God the Holy Spirit, and is just another translation like the King James etc.

Nope! You just simply don't know the history of the Church. The Apostles, were Jews and quite very much did accept the Septuagint as Holy Scripture. Your assertion that it is not inspired is incorrect. In fact the Apostles quoted the LXX quite often in the New Testament and you might want to explore why they used the Septuagint version of Psalm 40:6 in Hebrews 10:5-7, rather that the Masoretic version.

 

[Dyonisius the Areopagite]

can we PLEASE keep to the subject in the OP

Post 75 was on topic. It is not my fault that you and Alfred do not accept Canonized Scripture.

 

[Alfred Persson]

You said:
The apostles were Jews, as is our LORD Jesus:

"salvation is of the Jews". (Jn. 4:22 NKJ)

We aren't the "continuation" of Judaism, we are grafted into the "Israel of God"

My response:
I must call your attention to the fact that your observation that the Apostles were Jews goes to my argument. The first Church members were Jews and it was so for over twenty years. Gentiles were "grafted in"; not Jewish Christians. The Apostles passed down the Septuagint to their successors as a valid text of the Holy Scriptures. Thus, it is a valid text of the Holy Scriptures despite your objections. The Apostles have more authority than you or the Reformers.
As for your Scripture reference. Again, you make my argument for me. Unbelieving Jews were "broken off" the Vine, and we Gentiles were "grafted into" their place. Were were grafted into the continuation of Judaism, "The Israel of God".

I said nothing about the Church creating truth. She contains the truth given by the Lord. You make of YOURSELF a repository of truth with your iconoclasm. Who are you to speak for God? You are but one Christian.
God indeed has made His Canon known and it includes the Septuagint, not the Masoretic text.
Tell me, which version of Psalm 40:6 is the correct version? The one quoted in Hebrews 10:5-7 or the one from the Masoretic text in your "66 book canon"?

Good argument, but no win. The Seputagint's apocraphal books are not quoted. Therefore, your premise the apocryphal books in it are canon is unsupported.

I accept your clarification about church and pillar.

The use of Icons in any form during worship is clearly rejected by God:

15 "Take careful heed to yourselves, for you saw no form when the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire,
16 "lest you act corruptly and make for yourselves a carved image (LXX εἰκόνα) in the form of any figure: the likeness of male or female,
17 "the likeness of any animal that is on the earth or the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the air,
18 "the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground or the likeness of any fish that is in the water beneath the earth.
19 "And take heed, lest you lift your eyes to heaven, and when you see the sun, the moon, and the stars, all the host of heaven, you feel driven to worship them and serve them, which the LORD your God has given to all the peoples under the whole heaven as a heritage. (Deut. 4:15-19 NKJ)

Their use developed over time, it was not a practice found in the apostolic church. The distinction between carved and painted icons isn't implied in the context of Dt. 4:16.

I often wondered if the rise of Islam is a consequence of iconolotry by the Orthodox.

As for Hebrew 10:5 its context reveals the true meaning of the Hebrew idiom "my ears you have opened". The Aramaic Translation reveals this connection:

Sacrifice and offering You did not desire; My ears You have opened. Burnt offering and sin offering You did not require. (Ps. 40:6 NKJ)

Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not; but a body hast thou prepared me: whole-burnt-offering and sacrifice for sin thou didst not require. (Ps. 40:6 LXX)

You do not want sacrifice and offering; you have scooped out ears for me to hear your redemption; you have not asked for holocaust and sin offering. (Ps. 40:7 PST) Aramaic

Its idiomatic, the opening of the ears, their being "scooped out" denotes obedience of the total person to God's will: "I have come...to do your will, O God".

5 Therefore, when He came into the world, He said: "Sacrifice and offering You did not desire, But a body You have prepared for Me.
6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You had no pleasure.
7 Then I said,`Behold, I have come-- In the volume of the book it is written of Me-- To do Your will, O God.'"
8 Previously saying, "Sacrifice and offering, burnt offerings, and offerings for sin You did not desire, nor had pleasure in them" (which are offered according to the law),
9 then He said, "Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God." He takes away the first that He may establish the second.
10 By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. (Heb. 10:5-10 NKJ)


There is a missing premise the Septuagint and NT are connecting, by translating "ears" as "body". Doing God's will because of what He provided, the ears/body is the LORD providing the sacrifice that takes the place of sacrifices and offerings God did not want. He wants the true being of the person, not a substitution.

In other words, the "body" becomes the means by which true obedience is manifested, thus replacing the old sacrificial system. God does not desire sacrifices and offerings (external rituals); rather, He desires the true obedience and devotion of the whole person, which is represented by the body.

So the LXX (and NT) is showing the "hidden meaning" in the Hebrew Gentiles normally don't see because they do not infer the missing premises, don't see the connect the two make.

The virgin birth was certainly like God "scooping out ears" for Christ to "do His will."

One must remember, this is before TV and other forms of entertainment. Scripture contains a wealth of information missed by modern commentators, that the ancients saw because its all they thought about.

Back to your conclusion, this tends to confirm the Hebrew is the original, the LXX a translation. Obviously it is an important translation that we should certainly use when studying scripture, along with the Hebrew original.

 

[Alfred Persson]

Post 75 was on topic. It is not my fault that you and Alfred do not accept Canonized Scripture.

Correction, I accept Canonized scripture, not the apocrypha some suppose is also scripture. The evidence for the Protestant canon is its acceptance in the world wide church, while the other lesser accepted books are not accepted in the "universal church". That would be the work of the Holy Spirit. It indicates what God says is scripture.

All these subjects would make excellent forum topics. You should create posts in support for icons, Septuagint. That would be interesting. Perhaps convince some of your Orthodox buddies to join in....

The Orthodox manifest a depth of understanding scripture that often is lacking elsewhere, on a lot of subjects.

 

[Dyonisius the Areopagite]

Good argument, but no win. The Seputagint's apocraphal books are not quoted. Therefore, your premise the apocryphal books in it are canon is unsupported.

I accept your clarification about church and pillar.

The use of Icons in any form during worship is clearly rejected by God:

15 "Take careful heed to yourselves, for you saw no form when the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire,
16 "lest you act corruptly and make for yourselves a carved image (LXX εἰκόνα) in the form of any figure: the likeness of male or female,
17 "the likeness of any animal that is on the earth or the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the air,
18 "the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground or the likeness of any fish that is in the water beneath the earth.
19 "And take heed, lest you lift your eyes to heaven, and when you see the sun, the moon, and the stars, all the host of heaven, you feel driven to worship them and serve them, which the LORD your God has given to all the peoples under the whole heaven as a heritage. (Deut. 4:15-19 NKJ)

Their use developed over time, it was not a practice found in the apostolic church. The distinction between carved and painted icons isn't implied in the context of Dt. 4:16.

I often wondered if the rise of Islam is a consequence of iconolotry by the Orthodox.

As for Hebrew 10:5 its context reveals the true meaning of the Hebrew idiom "my ears you have opened". The Aramaic Translation reveals this connection:

Sacrifice and offering You did not desire; My ears You have opened. Burnt offering and sin offering You did not require. (Ps. 40:6 NKJ)

Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not; but a body hast thou prepared me: whole-burnt-offering and sacrifice for sin thou didst not require. (Ps. 40:6 LXX)

You do not want sacrifice and offering; you have scooped out ears for me to hear your redemption; you have not asked for holocaust and sin offering. (Ps. 40:7 PST) Aramaic

Its idiomatic, the opening of the ears, their being "scooped out" denotes obedience of the total person to God's will: "I have come...to do your will, O God".

5 Therefore, when He came into the world, He said: "Sacrifice and offering You did not desire, But a body You have prepared for Me.
6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You had no pleasure.
7 Then I said,`Behold, I have come-- In the volume of the book it is written of Me-- To do Your will, O God.'"
8 Previously saying, "Sacrifice and offering, burnt offerings, and offerings for sin You did not desire, nor had pleasure in them" (which are offered according to the law),
9 then He said, "Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God." He takes away the first that He may establish the second.
10 By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. (Heb. 10:5-10 NKJ)


There is a missing premise the Septuagint and NT are connecting, by translating "ears" as "body". Doing God's will because of what He provided, the ears/body is the LORD providing the sacrifice that takes the place of sacrifices and offerings God did not want. He wants the true being of the person, not a substitution.

In other words, the "body" becomes the means by which true obedience is manifested, thus replacing the old sacrificial system. God does not desire sacrifices and offerings (external rituals); rather, He desires the true obedience and devotion of the whole person, which is represented by the body.

So the LXX (and NT) is showing the "hidden meaning" in the Hebrew Gentiles normally don't see because they do not infer the missing premises, don't see the connect the two make.

The virgin birth was certainly like God "scooping out ears" for Christ to "do His will."

One must remember, this is before TV and other forms of entertainment. Scripture contains a wealth of information missed by modern commentators, that the ancients saw because its all they thought about.

Back to your conclusion, this tends to confirm the Hebrew is the original, the LXX a translation. Obviously it is an important translation that we should certainly use when studying scripture, along with the Hebrew original.

No more time for replies to this heavy subject today or tomorrow. I accept creating to topics for discussion/debate however I do wish to make some comments.
1) It is irrelevant what is or is not quoted in the NT of the LXX. The LXX is used quite a bit, and so is the Hebrew version.
Regardless, not every OT book, even from the Hebrew version is quoted. Thus, your argument is logically moot. But it us also spiritually moot because it is the Septuagint which was Canonized.
2) you keep arguing for the "universally" recognized Canon. Yet, that is not the case. Only Protestants use the Masoretic text. Both Orthodox, and Catholic use the Septuagint. Furthermore, the Protestant usurped authority in changing the Canon. Their decision was no where near ecumenical, as you are attempting to imply.
3) Hebrews 10 5-7 is MESSIANIC. The actual reason that it differs in the Masoretic text is that the post Christian unbelieving Jews tampered with the proto-Hebrew text and created a version the Masoretes would eventually use for the modern Hebrew text.
More in threads I will start.

 

[Alfred Persson]

No more time for replies to this heavy subject today or tomorrow. I accept creating to topics for discussion/debate however I do wish to make some comments.
1) It is irrelevant what is or is not quoted in the NT of the LXX. The LXX is used quite a bit, and so is the Hebrew version.
Regardless, not every OT book, even from the Hebrew version is quoted. Thus, your argument is logically moot. But it us also spiritually moot because it is the Septuagint which was Canonized.
2) you keep arguing for the "universally" recognized Canon. Yet, that is not the case. Only Protestants use the Masoretic text. Both Orthodox, and Catholic use the Septuagint. Furthermore, the Protestant usurped authority in changing the Canon. Their decision was no where near ecumenical, as you are attempting to imply.
3) Hebrews 10 5-7 is MESSIANIC. The actual reason that it differs in the Masoretic text is that the post Christian unbelieving Jews tampered with the proto-Hebrew text and created a version the Masoretes would eventually use for the modern Hebrew text.
More in threads I will start.

Good, when you have time lets discuss these in full.

I consider the 66 books "ecumenical" precisely because the church universal agrees (and the Jews on the OT) these are canon.

I reject Scripture has lost even one jot or tittle of meaning; All will be fulfilled:

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. (Matt. 5:18 KJV)

But start new theads on these topics. Let me know if I fail to notice them, message me. Peace.

 

[Dyonisius the Areopagite]

Good argument, but no win. The Seputagint's apocraphal books are not quoted. Therefore, your premise the apocryphal books in it are canon is unsupported.

I accept your clarification about church and pillar.

The use of Icons in any form during worship is clearly rejected by God:

15 "Take careful heed to yourselves, for you saw no form when the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire,
16 "lest you act corruptly and make for yourselves a carved image (LXX εἰκόνα) in the form of any figure: the likeness of male or female,
17 "the likeness of any animal that is on the earth or the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the air,
18 "the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground or the likeness of any fish that is in the water beneath the earth.
19 "And take heed, lest you lift your eyes to heaven, and when you see the sun, the moon, and the stars, all the host of heaven, you feel driven to worship them and serve them, which the LORD your God has given to all the peoples under the whole heaven as a heritage. (Deut. 4:15-19 NKJ)

Their use developed over time, it was not a practice found in the apostolic church. The distinction between carved and painted icons isn't implied in the context of Dt. 4:16.

I often wondered if the rise of Islam is a consequence of iconolotry by the Orthodox.

As for Hebrew 10:5 its context reveals the true meaning of the Hebrew idiom "my ears you have opened". The Aramaic Translation reveals this connection:

Sacrifice and offering You did not desire; My ears You have opened. Burnt offering and sin offering You did not require. (Ps. 40:6 NKJ)

Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not; but a body hast thou prepared me: whole-burnt-offering and sacrifice for sin thou didst not require. (Ps. 40:6 LXX)

You do not want sacrifice and offering; you have scooped out ears for me to hear your redemption; you have not asked for holocaust and sin offering. (Ps. 40:7 PST) Aramaic

Its idiomatic, the opening of the ears, their being "scooped out" denotes obedience of the total person to God's will: "I have come...to do your will, O God".

5 Therefore, when He came into the world, He said: "Sacrifice and offering You did not desire, But a body You have prepared for Me.
6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You had no pleasure.
7 Then I said,`Behold, I have come-- In the volume of the book it is written of Me-- To do Your will, O God.'"
8 Previously saying, "Sacrifice and offering, burnt offerings, and offerings for sin You did not desire, nor had pleasure in them" (which are offered according to the law),
9 then He said, "Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God." He takes away the first that He may establish the second.
10 By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. (Heb. 10:5-10 NKJ)


There is a missing premise the Septuagint and NT are connecting, by translating "ears" as "body". Doing God's will because of what He provided, the ears/body is the LORD providing the sacrifice that takes the place of sacrifices and offerings God did not want. He wants the true being of the person, not a substitution.

In other words, the "body" becomes the means by which true obedience is manifested, thus replacing the old sacrificial system. God does not desire sacrifices and offerings (external rituals); rather, He desires the true obedience and devotion of the whole person, which is represented by the body.

So the LXX (and NT) is showing the "hidden meaning" in the Hebrew Gentiles normally don't see because they do not infer the missing premises, don't see the connect the two make.

The virgin birth was certainly like God "scooping out ears" for Christ to "do His will."

One must remember, this is before TV and other forms of entertainment. Scripture contains a wealth of information missed by modern commentators, that the ancients saw because its all they thought about.

Back to your conclusion, this tends to confirm the Hebrew is the original, the LXX a translation. Obviously it is an important translation that we should certainly use when studying scripture, along with the Hebrew original.

BTW, one last thought. Iconoclasm was not the driving force behind Islam. Christology was. Mohamed studied under a Nestorian Priest for a time. Even the Muslim scholars acknowledge this as fact, although they downplay how impactful this was on Muhamed.

 

[Dyonisius the Areopagite]

Good, when you have time lets discuss these in full.

I consider the 66 books "ecumenical" precisely because the church universal agrees (and the Jews on the OT) these are canon.

I reject Scripture has lost even one jot or tittle of meaning; All will be fulfilled:

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. (Matt. 5:18 KJV)

But start new theads on these topics. Let me know if I fail to notice them, message me. Peace.

I wi

Good, when you have time lets discuss these in full.

I consider the 66 books "ecumenical" precisely because the church universal agrees (and the Jews on the OT) these are canon.

I reject Scripture has lost even one jot or tittle of meaning; All will be fulfilled:

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. (Matt. 5:18 KJV)

But start new theads on these topics. Let me know if I fail to notice them, message me. Peace.

I will do so.
I would like to know what you mean by "church universal"?

 

[Alfred Persson]

I wi

I will do so.
I would like to know what you mean by "church universal"?

The body of Christ is One subsisting in many denominations throughout Christendom. They are distinguishable from the TARES surrounding them. They are in a state of repentance, and love God and the brethren. They radiate Christ, evangelize to whatever degree God has equipped them.

 

[Alfred Persson]

BTW, one last thought. Iconoclasm was not the driving force behind Islam. Christology was. Mohamed studied under a Nestorian Priest for a time. Even the Muslim scholars acknowledge this as fact, although they downplay how impactful this was on Muhamed.

You can educate me on that. Its not history I am familiar with.