Erroneous additons to the Word of God !

[glorydaz]

Walking by your carnal eyes, your carnal eyes tell you that Matthew 27:52 & 53 are suppose to be there, because you can see these two verses with your carnal eyes. Well big deal ! At least one is not physically blind. But what about being spiritually blind ? ? Your physical eyes might work perfectly well, but one can still be spiritually blind even if your physical eyes work just fine. You see two verses in your bible. And most people say that God would not allow anything to slip into the bible. Only someone who is spiritually blind would say such a thing. They are naive in believing such a thought ! The fact remains, our translations are flawed ! Period ! Now people need to get over it ! Grow up ! And start to realize this truth ! Our bibles are not "holy". But "You" are holy, because the scriptures tell us that you are "holy". Not you the person, but the Word of Truth that is written in your hearts. That is what is 'holy' !

The Spirit of truth will reveal unto you, that Matthew 27:52 & 53 were additions by man/men ! It does not fit ! It is 'NOT' the God breathed Word of God ! When you come to this truth is up to you. God tells us to plant and water, but it is God who gives the increase, and it is God who opens up the eyes of one's understanding. But first, you must have the proper reading glasses (Spirit of truth in you). Second, God is the one who opens the lenses on those reading glasses. Then and only then do you "SEE" and "understand".

Love IN Christ - MM

Quite the lecture, but totally flawed.

The reason we have the Bible...the reason God has kept it, in spite of man's efforts, is because it is the TRUTH. We are not required to listen to any man who thinks he has the answers because only his "spiritual eyes" are open. We have a body of believers to agree on what the Bible is saying, and we have the Holy Spirit to alert us to those who put more faith in their own insight than they do the written Word. People can say whatever they like and claim to be using their spiritual eyes, but the written Word is the authority.

 

[glorydaz]

As Hagar became the surragote for Sarah, so are women here on earth giving birth to those whom God has chosen from before the foundations of the earth, and God puts his promise seed in them.

Uh.....NO.

Those whom you claim came out of the graves , which we can read in our bibles. Are not established within the Word of God. There are not a second reference pertaining to them coming out of the ground from their graves and going into the holy city as a witness < There is no second witness of this within the Word of God ! None ! Zip ! Zero !

The Word of God always gives us a second reacord, be it an allegory, or what the prophets had prophesied in the OT pertaining to Jesus the Christ himself.

IN Christ - MM

There is no "claim". There is the Word of God, which says quite clearly graves were opened and many saints arose from the dead. Any child can read the Word...it is not meant to be too difficult for even the slowest among us. The second witness is the Holy Spirit who opens our understanding. This section of scripture is highlighted in my Bible. The Lord opened my understanding to it many years ago. It was confirmed by other believers as we discussed it. You can deny it if you want, but it doesn't take it away.

 

[Mysteryman]

Walking by your carnal eyes, your carnal eyes tell you that Matthew 27:52 & 53 are suppose to be there, because you can see these two verses with your carnal eyes. Well big deal ! At least one is not physically blind. But what about being spiritually blind ? ? Your physical eyes might work perfectly well, but one can still be spiritually blind even if your physical eyes work just fine. You see two verses in your bible. And most people say that God would not allow anything to slip into the bible. Only someone who is spiritually blind would say such a thing. They are naive in believing such a thought ! The fact remains, our translations are flawed ! Period ! Now people need to get over it ! Grow up ! And start to realize this truth ! Our bibles are not "holy". But "You" are holy, because the scriptures tell us that you are "holy". Not you the person, but the Word of Truth that is written in your hearts. That is what is 'holy' !

The Spirit of truth will reveal unto you, that Matthew 27:52 & 53 were additions by man/men ! It does not fit ! It is 'NOT' the God breathed Word of God ! When you come to this truth is up to you. God tells us to plant and water, but it is God who gives the increase, and it is God who opens up the eyes of one's understanding. But first, you must have the proper reading glasses (Spirit of truth in you). Second, God is the one who opens the lenses on those reading glasses. Then and only then do you "SEE" and "understand".

Love IN Christ - MM

Quite the lecture, but totally flawed.

The reason we have the Bible...the reason God has kept it, in spite of man's efforts, is because it is the TRUTH. We are not required to listen to any man who thinks he has the answers because only his "spiritual eyes" are open. We have a body of believers to agree on what the Bible is saying, and we have the Holy Spirit to alert us to those who put more faith in their own insight than they do the written Word. People can say whatever they like and claim to be using their spiritual eyes, but the written Word is the authority.

HI

Please show me where the scriptures tell us that the written Word is the authority , would you please ?

 

[glorydaz]

HI

Please show me where the scriptures tell us that the written Word is the authority , would you please ?

Certainly...not that I'm under any illusions that you will believe it. ;)

For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

 

[Mysteryman]

glorydaz

You didn't show one verse of scripture that tells us that the written Word is the authority.

Look up the word authority.

All the verses you did gave me, are great verses pertaining to the Word of God. But it is like connecting the dots. You must connect the word authority to the words "written Word" , which will show that the written Word is of authority.

For instance, God magnified His Word above his name. < Here, God is the authority. Yet, even here, there is no word "written" mentioned.

You need to connect the dots !

 

[Mysteryman]

One other thing that is erroneous within our bible translations. Are the proper words being translated properly ?

Many times the words "brother" and "brethren" are very easily mistranlsated.

The word "brethren" is the greek word -- "adelphoi"

The word "brother" is the greek word -- "adelpho's"

The words are way too easily interchangable, and the translators translated one "brother" at one time , then "brethren" at another time. Meaning, that "adelphoi" was translated both - brother - and - brethren, and the greek word "adelpho's" was also done likewise.

People who read their bibles make many mistakes in their understanding when reading these two words.

A brethren is a relative or fellow person .

A brother is a relative from the same parent -- a Brother

Many times people read that Jesus had a "brother", and his name was James - Galatians 1:19 and Mark 6:3

The truth is, Jesus didn't have any brothers ! Not literal brothers made of flesh ! Mary didn't give birth to any other sons. She only gave birth to one son . Mary and Joseph had daughters, but no other sons.

This poor transaltion of the word "brother" within certain verses has tricked many people into believing that Jesus had a brother or other brothers. This is not true !

IN Christ - MM

 

[Free]

The truth is, Jesus didn't have any brothers ! Not literal brothers made of flesh ! Mary didn't give birth to any other sons. She only gave birth to one son . Mary and Joseph had daughters, but no other sons.

How do you know they had daughters?

 

[Mysteryman]

The truth is, Jesus didn't have any brothers ! Not literal brothers made of flesh ! Mary didn't give birth to any other sons. She only gave birth to one son . Mary and Joseph had daughters, but no other sons.

How do you know they had daughters?

Hi Free

I am drawing this from Matt. 13:56 and Mark 6:3 and John 11:3

But I also understand that he had these literal sisters, and also figurative sisters as per Matt. 12:50

IN Christ - MM

 

[Free]

I am drawing this from Matt. 13:56 and Mark 6:3 and John 11:3

Okay, just checking.

So why would you then conclude that he has no brothers when a plain reading of the text indicates otherwise?

 

[glorydaz]

glorydaz

You didn't show one verse of scripture that tells us that the written Word is the authority.

Look up the word authority.

All the verses you did gave me, are great verses pertaining to the Word of God. But it is like connecting the dots. You must connect the word authority to the words "written Word" , which will show that the written Word is of authority.

For instance, God magnified His Word above his name. < Here, God is the authority. Yet, even here, there is no word "written" mentioned.

You need to connect the dots !

I need do no such thing. The verses I posted are very clear the Bible is the Word of God. Being the Word of God is authority in and of itself. Unfortunately for you, you're in the minority among God's people ...most of us have no problem at all trusting God to keep His Word in spite of man's efforts to belittle and negate it.

 

[Mysteryman]

I am drawing this from Matt. 13:56 and Mark 6:3 and John 11:3

Okay, just checking.

So why would you then conclude that he has no brothers when a plain reading of the text indicates otherwise?

Hi Free

I will keep this short and to the point.

What you read is not always what God intended . Translators for whatever reason interchanged these two words - brethren - brother

So a false reading occurs when you read that James is the brother of Jesus. Brethren, yes, brother, no.

Now, why do I say this .

There are certain priciples within the Word that never change. For instance, the first shall be last and the last first. Another principle within the Word of God, is the elder shall serve the younger.

We can find this in the OT. I will give you one example, even thought there are others.

Aaron was the older brother of Moses. Aaron served Moses his younger brother. Moses had a speech problem, so God told Moses that he would have his brother Aaron speak for him. So Aaron became the prophet of Moses, and Moses was the prophet of God.

Well, this same principle holds true pertaining to Jesus Christ. If he would have had a younger brother, Jesus would have had to serve him in a similar manner that Aaron served Moses. And there is nothing in the four gospels that would even indicate this, or even hint this.

We can take this even further in dealing with the inheritance as well. The elder son is suppose to receive the inheritance. If the oldest son dies, then the next son in line gets the inheritance. The same holds true with the principle of marriage. As we can read about in the story of Judah and Tamar.

All indications show us, that Jesus didn't have any literal brother or brothers.

In Christ - MM

 

[Mysteryman]

glorydaz

You didn't show one verse of scripture that tells us that the written Word is the authority.

Look up the word authority.

All the verses you did gave me, are great verses pertaining to the Word of God. But it is like connecting the dots. You must connect the word authority to the words "written Word" , which will show that the written Word is of authority.

For instance, God magnified His Word above his name. < Here, God is the authority. Yet, even here, there is no word "written" mentioned.

You need to connect the dots !

I need do no such thing. The verses I posted are very clear the Bible is the Word of God. Being the Word of God is authority in and of itself. Unfortunately for you, you're in the minority among God's people ...most of us have no problem at all trusting God to keep His Word in spite of man's efforts to belittle and negate it.

LOL - Shame on you ! LOL

You didn't look up the word "authority" did you ?

IN Christ - MM

 

[glorydaz]

One other thing that is erroneous within our bible translations. Are the proper words being translated properly ?

Many times the words "brother" and "brethren" are very easily mistranlsated.

The word "brethren" is the greek word -- "adelphoi"

The word "brother" is the greek word -- "adelpho's"

The words are way too easily interchangable, and the translators translated one "brother" at one time , then "brethren" at another time. Meaning, that "adelphoi" was translated both - brother - and - brethren, and the greek word "adelpho's" was also done likewise.

People who read their bibles make many mistakes in their understanding when reading these two words.

A brethren is a relative or fellow person .

A brother is a relative from the same parent -- a Brother

Many times people read that Jesus had a "brother", and his name was James - Galatians 1:19 and Mark 6:3

The truth is, Jesus didn't have any brothers ! Not literal brothers made of flesh ! Mary didn't give birth to any other sons. She only gave birth to one son . Mary and Joseph had daughters, but no other sons.

This poor transaltion of the word "brother" within certain verses has tricked many people into believing that Jesus had a brother or other brothers. This is not true !

IN Christ - MM

This is an example of man "outsmarting" himself.
The same word...just like we use them today.
Yet you insist Jesus had not brothers. No proof, but no brothers.

a brother, whether born of the same two parents or only of the same father or mother
having the same national ancestor, belonging to the same people, or countryman
any fellow or man
a fellow believer, united to another by the bond of affection
an associate in employment or office
brethren in Christ
his brothers by blood
all men
apostles
Christians, as those who are exalted to the same heavenly place

Which means we must read in context...and use our common sense.
We know Jesus was the "firstborn" of Mary.

And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

This is talking about family...siblings. These people knew the entire family of the carpenter, Joseph.

And when he was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works? Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?

Here we see a distinction being made between his "brethern" and his disciples.

After this he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and his brethren, and his disciples: and they continued there not many days.

Again, his disciples are separate from these brethern.

His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest. For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world. For neither did his brethren believe in him.

And from the well-known Messianic Psalm...

Let not them that wait on thee, O Lord GOD of hosts, be ashamed for my sake: let not those that seek thee be confounded for my sake, O God of Israel. Because for thy sake I have borne reproach; shame hath covered my face. I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother's children. For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me.

 

[Free]

I am drawing this from Matt. 13:56 and Mark 6:3 and John 11:3

Okay, just checking.

So why would you then conclude that he has no brothers when a plain reading of the text indicates otherwise?

Hi Free

I will keep this short and to the point.

What you read is not always what God intended . Translators for whatever reason interchanged these two words - brethren - brother

So a false reading occurs when you read that James is the brother of Jesus. Brethren, yes, brother, no.

Now, why do I say this .

There are certain priciples within the Word that never change. For instance, the first shall be last and the last first. Another principle within the Word of God, is the elder shall serve the younger.

We can find this in the OT. I will give you one example, even thought there are others.

Aaron was the older brother of Moses. Aaron served Moses his younger brother. Moses had a speech problem, so God told Moses that he would have his brother Aaron speak for him. So Aaron became the prophet of Moses, and Moses was the prophet of God.

Well, this same principle holds true pertaining to Jesus Christ. If he would have had a younger brother, Jesus would have had to serve him in a similar manner that Aaron served Moses. And there is nothing in the four gospels that would even indicate this, or even hint this.

We can take this even further in dealing with the inheritance as well. The elder son is suppose to receive the inheritance. If the oldest son dies, then the next son in line gets the inheritance. The same holds true with the principle of marriage. As we can read about in the story of Judah and Tamar.

All indications show us, that Jesus didn't have any literal brother or brothers.

In Christ - MM

Short and to the point but yet it gives me absolutely no reason to believe that Jesus didn't have brothers as a plain reading of the texts state.

 

[Godfrey]

I don't believe this. Brother in Gal.1.19 is a singular accusative.

 

[Mysteryman]

I don't believe this. Brother in Gal.1.19 is a singular accusative.

Meaning that this James was "one" of the (plural) brethren ? < Am I understanding you correctly ?

 

[glorydaz]

glorydaz

You didn't show one verse of scripture that tells us that the written Word is the authority.

Look up the word authority.

All the verses you did gave me, are great verses pertaining to the Word of God. But it is like connecting the dots. You must connect the word authority to the words "written Word" , which will show that the written Word is of authority.

For instance, God magnified His Word above his name. < Here, God is the authority. Yet, even here, there is no word "written" mentioned.

You need to connect the dots !

I need do no such thing. The verses I posted are very clear the Bible is the Word of God. Being the Word of God is authority in and of itself. Unfortunately for you, you're in the minority among God's people ...most of us have no problem at all trusting God to keep His Word in spite of man's efforts to belittle and negate it.

LOL - Shame on you ! LOL

You didn't look up the word "authority" did you ?

IN Christ - MM

I don't need to look up "authority" to know it's meaning. :nag

It's a very simple word and I've been using it for years. ;)

In fact, I just had a discussion with my 6 yr. old granddaughter last week in our home-school program concerning authority. We were learning about God's authority versus man's, and how man is so quick to ignore His Creator....thinking more highly of himself than he ought.

BTW...Spiritual understanding versus head-knowledge goes a long way when discussing the Bible.

 

[glorydaz]

I am drawing this from Matt. 13:56 and Mark 6:3 and John 11:3

Okay, just checking.

So why would you then conclude that he has no brothers when a plain reading of the text indicates otherwise?

Hi Free

I will keep this short and to the point.

What you read is not always what God intended . Translators for whatever reason interchanged these two words - brethren - brother

So a false reading occurs when you read that James is the brother of Jesus. Brethren, yes, brother, no.

Now, why do I say this .

There are certain priciples within the Word that never change. For instance, the first shall be last and the last first. Another principle within the Word of God, is the elder shall serve the younger.

We can find this in the OT. I will give you one example, even thought there are others.

Aaron was the older brother of Moses. Aaron served Moses his younger brother. Moses had a speech problem, so God told Moses that he would have his brother Aaron speak for him. So Aaron became the prophet of Moses, and Moses was the prophet of God.

Well, this same principle holds true pertaining to Jesus Christ. If he would have had a younger brother, Jesus would have had to serve him in a similar manner that Aaron served Moses. And there is nothing in the four gospels that would even indicate this, or even hint this.

We can take this even further in dealing with the inheritance as well. The elder son is suppose to receive the inheritance. If the oldest son dies, then the next son in line gets the inheritance. The same holds true with the principle of marriage. As we can read about in the story of Judah and Tamar.

All indications show us, that Jesus didn't have any literal brother or brothers.

In Christ - MM

That's the silliest thing I've ever heard. :biglaugh

 

[Mysteryman]

glorydaz

Search the scriptures to see if those things are so or not " ! < :yes

Now , you don't have to do the Word and will of God, especially if you think you know it all, without checking the scriptures ? !

 

[Godfrey]

I don't believe this. Brother in Gal.1.19 is a singular accusative.

Meaning that this James was "one" of the (plural) brethren ? < Am I understanding you correctly ?

As an Oxford don replied to "Henry Root",

Sir, you are either an extremely ingenious hoaxer or suffering from a massive delusion.