My Vow Concerning Doctrines

[Jethro Bodine]

Oh, and by the way dadof10, I do not observe a literal Sabbath. I personally don't believe the church is required to do so as an expected and obligatory display of saving faith. So that is not my motivation in using the Sabbath as an example of the early churches uneducated and misguided doctrine.

 

[reba]

Are you trying to make the case that because Scripture speaks of different "folds" or singles out some geographical churches for different reasons, that there were denominations in apostolic times, and that these "denominations" taught DIFFERING DOCTRINES like the Protestant churches do? Please (with as little fanfare as possible) show me the verses that back this up. Show me, either in Scripture or on historical documents, where these geographical churches taught differing doctrines and where this was accepted by the apostles or other Church leaders. Please.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

There are many things some churches do that are not found in Scripture. It is not a double standard to ask of one and not our own?

 

[Elijah674]

Are you trying to make the case that because Scripture speaks of different "folds" or singles out some geographical churches for different reasons, that there were denominations in apostolic times, and that these "denominations" taught DIFFERING DOCTRINES like the Protestant churches do? Please (with as little fanfare as possible) show me the verses that back this up. Show me, either in Scripture or on historical documents, where these geographical churches taught differing doctrines and where this was accepted by the apostles or other Church leaders. Please.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

RE/READ the verses! And History alone, is FULL OF PAGON RELIGION'S. And who do you think the Jer. 17:5 one's were made up of?

And AGAIN, Christ has the documentation of John 10:16 + Rev. 18:4.

And AGAIN, you do not answer questions put to your posts! AGAIN: Do you even read the verses supplied???

--Elijah

PS: Let me just add this John 10:16 verse for the ones that do not take the time to look them up, to read them.
[16] And other sheep [I have], which are not of [this fold]: them also [I must bring], and they shall hear my voice; and there [shall be one fold, and one shepherd].

These are in the wrong FOLd! They had to be in the fold where Christ was at! And if He had of been in any of these false folds, why must they leave?? Now go read Rev. 3:9 to find out who took over this fold & notice their false.. 'but do lie' claim!

 

[dadof10]

dadof10,

Your resistance to what I'm saying is not surprising at all. Many, many people in the church think possessing correct, doctrinal facts, and exercising proper worship practices, and being involved in ministry and the right denomination are what it means to 'believe in' and obey God and please him. That is why they can't see the important connection between what a leader does and what he believes.

My resistance to what you are saying is not due to what you list above. It is due to:

1) When Jesus says "by their fruit you shall know them", He does not mean teachers, He is talking specifically about PROPHETS, and only about prophets. Strong's, which is THE standard for Greek to English translation, bears out this fact.

2) 2Pt. 2 NOWHERE says "Lawlessness is the signifying mark of the false prophet", as you claim.

3) Not all false teachers have the attributes listed in 2Pt. 2 and some false teachers have none of them. Some people who teach false doctrine look and act like saints, but that doesn't mean what they are teaching is True, or that what they are saying is even worth listening to.

4) NOWHERE in Scripture does it say "Their [false teachers] lawless fruit is the signifying mark of this agenda."

5) "False prophets" and "false teachers" are not interchangeable terms.

6) "Lawless fruit", "bad behavior" and "signifying mark" are all subjective terms.

7) Four quotes in 300 plus years of writing by hundreds of ECFs, does not translate into "the early church was antisemitic".

8) There were Jewish leaders before Christianity was legalized, who sided with Rome during the persecutions, which could have led to the harsh language during this time.

9) The apostles settled disputes with authoritative councils, not subjectively looking at the individual behavior of each teacher and deciding if the person was worthy of being listened to. (Acts 15)

10) (A new one) Martin Luther and John Calvin both made "antisemitic" comments, yet you have (I'm assuming) no problem with their doctrines of sola-Scriptura (which is not in Scripture), sola-Fide (which is actually taught AGAINST in Scripture), and Invisible church (which is not taught in Scripture). How do you justify dismissing doctrines taught by the ECF's, yet accepting doctrines taught by the Reformers, if "antisemitic" behavior is so important to you?

These are the reasons I disagree with you, not because I believe that any of those things you list above have ANYTHING to do with "obeying God and pleasing Him." Straw man.

Jesus said it very plainly in Matthew 7, "Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes". But the church is so certain that they are. It stems from the belief that what you believe doctrinally and what you do morally are two completely different and unrelated things...the former being the more important thing and the measure of a man! Nothing could be further from the truth.

Please point me to the post where I said any of this. Where does the Catholic Church teach this? Please, Jethro, just respond to what I say instead of what you want me to say.

 

[dadof10]

Oh, and by the way dadof10, I do not observe a literal Sabbath. I personally don't believe the church is required to do so as an expected and obligatory display of saving faith. So that is not my motivation in using the Sabbath as an example of the early churches uneducated and misguided doctrine.

OK. I stand corrected, I apologize for the assumption. I thought you worshiped on Saturday.

 

[dadof10]

There are many things some churches do that are not found in Scripture. It is not a double standard to ask of one and not our own?

What churches DO, or what they teach? Are you saying there are "orthodox" Protestant churches that TEACH things not found in Scripture, or DO things not found there?

 

[dadof10]

PS: Let me just add this John 10:16 verse for the ones that do not take the time to look them up, to read them.
[16] And other sheep [I have], which are not of [this fold]: them also [I must bring], and they shall hear my voice; and there [shall be one fold, and one shepherd].

These are in the wrong FOLd! They had to be in the fold where Christ was at! And if He had of been in any of these false folds, why must they leave?? Now go read Rev. 3:9 to find out who took over this fold & notice their false.. 'but do lie' claim!

John 10:16 refers to GENTILES. What do you think is meant by "ONE FOLD"? Do you think Christ accomplished this? How, if Jesus was OK different churches teaching different doctrines?

 

[CalledToServe]

1) When Jesus says "by their fruit you shall know them", He does not mean teachers, He is talking specifically about PROPHETS, and only about prophets. Strong's, which is THE standard for Greek to English translation, bears out this fact.

I would like to point out something about your statement. Strong's is not the standard for Greek to English translation. That distinction is held by Perseus at Tufts University. Strong's has a lot of definitions that are wrong and suffers from extreme translator bias in favor of certain doctrines that do not appear in the original manuscripts.

 

[dadof10]

I would like to point out something about your statement. Strong's is not the standard for Greek to English translation. That distinction is held by Perseus at Tufts University. Strong's has a lot of definitions that are wrong and suffers from extreme translator bias in favor of certain doctrines that do not appear in the original manuscripts.

Proof please.

 

[CalledToServe]

Proof please.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/

Biblical scholars rarely use Strong's anymore because the Greek and Hebrew lexicons worked on by colleges is much clearer and freer from translator bias.

Now provide your proof that Strong's is the preferred translator tool.

 

[dadof10]

I would like to point out something about your statement. Strong's is not the standard for Greek to English translation. That distinction is held by Perseus at Tufts University. Strong's has a lot of definitions that are wrong and suffers from extreme translator bias in favor of certain doctrines that do not appear in the original manuscripts.

I'm curious. I don't have access to the Perseus database. If you do, can you look up this verse from Matthew and let me know if the word they say is used means "false prophet"? Thanks.

 

[Elijah674]

John 10:16 refers to GENTILES. What do you think is meant by "ONE FOLD"? Do you think Christ accomplished this? How, if Jesus was OK different churches teaching different doctrines?

Hi again. Lovingly 'i' would say that you are dense!:yes (ignorantly sincere) Yet after reading your postings I come to another 1 Cor. 12:10 'spirit discernment' that the post's sound more like 2 Cor. 4:2.. so? Whatever? but when anyone is sincere, great! And when not, I have my personal judgement to make.

2 Cor. 4
[2] But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.
[3] But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
[4] In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

--Elijah

 

[dadof10]

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/

Biblical scholars rarely use Strong's anymore because the Greek and Hebrew lexicons worked on by colleges is much clearer and freer from translator bias.

Now provide your proof that Strong's is the preferred translator tool.

I don't mean proof that Perseus exists, I mean proof that Strong's "has a lot of definitions that are wrong and suffers from extreme translator bias in favor of certain doctrines that do not appear in the original manuscripts."

I'm not married to Strong's. If Perseus is more accurate and available, I'll gladly use it.

 

[CalledToServe]

I don't mean proof that Perseus exists, I mean proof that Strong's "has a lot of definitions that are wrong and suffers from extreme translator bias in favor of certain doctrines that do not appear in the original manuscripts."

I'm not married to Strong's. If Perseus is more accurate and available, I'll gladly use it.

One of the mistranslations concerns the word homosexual. The word wasn't invented until the 1850's and the original Greek and Hebrew word deals with pagan sex worship. That's one of them.

 

[dadof10]

One of the mistranslations concerns the word homosexual. The word wasn't invented until the 1850's and the original Greek and Hebrew word deals with pagan sex worship. That's one of them.

OK. Certainly the Greeks and Hebrews had a word for "homosexual", as there were homosexuals before 1850. Are you saying Strong's defines "pagan sex worship" as "homosexual behavior" and that this definition is incorrect? Could you give me the word so I can look it up?

Also, I went on the Perseus link you posted. I don't see a link to any kind of Bible lexicon. Is it available yet?

 

[dadof10]

Hi again. Lovingly 'i' would say that you are dense!:yes (ignorantly sincere) Yet after reading your postings I come to another 1 Cor. 12:10 'spirit discernment' that the post's sound more like 2 Cor. 4:2.. so? Whatever? but when anyone is sincere, great! And when not, I have my personal judgement to make.

2 Cor. 4
[2] But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.
[3] But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
[4] In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

--Elijah

So, I'm accused of "insulting" you, which I haven't done, and you call me "dense". Is this an insult to you, even if you put the word "lovingly" in front of it? I think it's time to use the "block" feature for the first time.

 

[CalledToServe]

OK. Certainly the Greeks and Hebrews had a word for "homosexual", as there were homosexuals before 1850. Are you saying Strong's defines "pagan sex worship" as "homosexual behavior" and that this definition is incorrect? Could you give me the word so I can look it up?

Also, I went on the Perseus link you posted. I don't see a link to any kind of Bible lexicon. Is it available yet?

Our modern understanding of sexual orientation did not exist back in the time of when the Bible was being written. That understanding originated in the 1850's along with the term. According to Greek, Roman, and other pagan cultures surrounding Israel, it was defined by the masculine and feminine roles.

The word that is used in translations for homosexual is arsenokoit which Paul made up. It does not exist in any other manuscripts from the time of Paul or earlier. At first, Paul did not provide a definition for it, but later he had it defined as shrine prostitution, adultery, pederasty, sodomy, and rape. Other early church fathers also defined it that way.

There is no such thing as a Biblical Lexicon. There is the Greek and Hebrew language that we can use truer translations and definitions to the words that are found in the Bible. When I refer to truer translations and definitions, linguists take all available writings and compare them with the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts of the Bible. It is by this method that they can determine the definition of the word that the ancient writers meant, not what modern theologians wished it to say.

Where's your proof that Strong's is the premiere Greek and Hebrew translation tool? I'd be most interested in it.

 

[Elijah674]

So, I'm accused of "insulting" you, which I haven't done, and you call me "dense". Is this an insult to you, even if you put the word "lovingly" in front of it? I think it's time to use the "block" feature for the first time.

Be my guest!:yes (dense? perhaps that was a weak choice of words? But 'spiritually BLIND' means about the same thing.)

But never have 'i' accused [[anyone]] on this whole site of insulting me! And 'i' have been around here quite a spell! I personally would take that though, as a good sign according to the Master's WORD of Matt. 10:24-25!

If I did do so though, that would be a very good way to know where my 'gift' lies, as is found by some gifts of 1 Cor. 3:10's third gift seen there! Yet, all on my [judgement] lay solely on the Word of God alone. 1 Cor. 6:2-3. (and never another book of the Jer. 17:5 ones which change the ten commandments of God!)

Anyway, by, by, as you say, if your word is good???

--Elijah

 

[dadof10]

Our modern understanding of sexual orientation did not exist back in the time of when the Bible was being written. That understanding originated in the 1850's along with the term. According to Greek, Roman, and other pagan cultures surrounding Israel, it was defined by the masculine and feminine roles.

The word that is used in translations for homosexual is arsenokoit which Paul made up. It does not exist in any other manuscripts from the time of Paul or earlier. At first, Paul did not provide a definition for it, but later he had it defined as shrine prostitution, adultery, pederasty, sodomy, and rape. Other early church fathers also defined it that way.

Here is a plausible explanation of why Strong's might have defined the word as "homosexual", and where Paul got the word. After all, I don't think he just pulled letters out of thin air, joined them together, and just went with it. There was a reason he used this specific word, especially since he used it twice. This might explain it.

Clinical psychologist and theologian Stanton L. Jones10 admits that White effectively invokes “the mystery of arsenokoitai,†the unusual word Paul uses in 1Corinthians6:9 and 1Timothy 1:10 that is commonly translated “homosexual sin.â€11This, however, is not such a mystery, he argues, and its unraveling reveals a more complex picture of Paul’s use of Leviticus. Leviticus18:22and 20:13 forbid a man lying with another man as one would with a woman. Leviticus was originally written in Hebrew, but Paul was a Greek-educated Jew writing to Gentiles in Greek, the common language of the day, and probably was using the Greek translation of the Old Testament available in that day, the Septuagint, or LXX, for his Scripture quotations.
The Greek translation of these Leviticus passages condemns a man (arseno) lying with (koitai) another man (arseno); these words (excuse the pun) lie side-by-side in these passages in Leviticus. Paul joins these two words together into a neologism, a new word (as we do in saying database or software), and thus he condemns in 1Corinthians and 1Timothy what was condemned in Leviticus.
Jones believes, then, that the most credible translation of what Paul is condemning in 1Corinthians6:9 is a person doing exactly what Leviticus condemns: engaging in homosexual sex (a man being a “man-lierâ€). Far from dismissing the relevance of Leviticus, Paul is implicitly invoking its enduring validity for our understanding of sexual sin, and drawing on it as the foundation of his teaching on homosexual conduct. He is saying, “Remember what it said not to do in Leviticus18:22and 20:13? Don’t do that!â€


http://www.equip.org/articles/is-arsenokoitai-really-that-mysterious-/

There is no such thing as a Biblical Lexicon.

Sorry, Greek and Hebrew Lexicon that lists Biblical words and verses, that is searchable.

There is the Greek and Hebrew language that we can use truer translations and definitions to the words that are found in the Bible. When I refer to truer translations and definitions, linguists take all available writings and compare them with the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts of the Bible. It is by this method that they can determine the definition of the word that the ancient writers meant, not what modern theologians wished it to say.

As far as I know, this is the method used by the folks at Strong's.

Where's your proof that Strong's is the premiere Greek and Hebrew translation tool? I'd be most interested in it.

I never called it "premier" or the "preferred translator tool". I simply called it "the standard", which means for our purposes here. It's what people on Forums (not just this one) use to make their points, which makes it the standard for Forums. I have not yet heard of a participant that won't accept it.

I'm very interested in this topic and need your help as I don't have access to the Perseus database. Does Perseus translate the word "pseudoprophētēs" In Matt. 7:15 as anything other than "false PROPHET"? What about the differences in 2Pt. 2:1 where Peter uses the word "pseudoprophētēs" for "false prophets" and the different word "pseudodidaskalos" for "false teachers"? Does this jibe with Perseus?

 

[CalledToServe]

Here is a plausible explanation of why Strong's might have defined the word as "homosexual", and where Paul got the word. After all, I don't think he just pulled letters out of thin air, joined them together, and just went with it. There was a reason he used this specific word, especially since he used it twice. This might explain it.

Clinical psychologist and theologian Stanton L. Jones10 admits that White effectively invokes “the mystery of arsenokoitai,” the unusual word Paul uses in 1Corinthians6:9 and 1Timothy 1:10 that is commonly translated “homosexual sin.”11This, however, is not such a mystery, he argues, and its unraveling reveals a more complex picture of Paul’s use of Leviticus. Leviticus18:22and 20:13 forbid a man lying with another man as one would with a woman. Leviticus was originally written in Hebrew, but Paul was a Greek-educated Jew writing to Gentiles in Greek, the common language of the day, and probably was using the Greek translation of the Old Testament available in that day, the Septuagint, or LXX, for his Scripture quotations.
The Greek translation of these Leviticus passages condemns a man (arseno) lying with (koitai) another man (arseno); these words (excuse the pun) lie side-by-side in these passages in Leviticus. Paul joins these two words together into a neologism, a new word (as we do in saying database or software), and thus he condemns in 1Corinthians and 1Timothy what was condemned in Leviticus.
Jones believes, then, that the most credible translation of what Paul is condemning in 1Corinthians6:9 is a person doing exactly what Leviticus condemns: engaging in homosexual sex (a man being a “man-lier”). Far from dismissing the relevance of Leviticus, Paul is implicitly invoking its enduring validity for our understanding of sexual sin, and drawing on it as the foundation of his teaching on homosexual conduct. He is saying, “Remember what it said not to do in Leviticus18:22and 20:13? Don’t do that!”


http://www.equip.org/articles/is-arsenokoitai-really-that-mysterious-/

I reject this explanation since it doesn't have any real outside sources to back it while the writer is interposing modern cultural norms onto ancient practices. It doesn't work in either archaeology, sociologically, and historically. When researching cultures of the past, even our own, we have to leave our bias and views at the door.

Sorry, Greek and Hebrew Lexicon that lists Biblical words and verses, that is searchable.

Sorry, but that is not what a Greek and Hebrew Lexicon is. A lexicon is all of the words of the language that has been discovered from various ancient documents. The larger the sample of words, ie the more documents, the better the translation and definitions. A Greek and Hebrew Bible Lexicon is an oxymoron since it only uses a very limited sample size that makes it easy to manipulate the translations and their meanings.

As far as I know, this is the method used by the folks at Strong's.

Incorrect, Strong's only uses what their views are regarding the word and ignore other manuscripts from the same time period that correspond to when a Biblical book was originally written. They extrapolate their definitions from only the known copies of the original Greek, Hebrew, and Latin Vulgate. They do not include other documents like Homer's Odyssey.

I never called it "premier" or the "preferred translator tool". I simply called it "the standard", which means for our purposes here. It's what people on Forums (not just this one) use to make their points, which makes it the standard for Forums. I have not yet heard of a participant that won't accept it.

You'd be wrong to call it the standard. There have been Greek and Hebrew Lexicons that were developed from a broader range of documents then Strong's has.

I'm very interested in this topic and need your help as I don't have access to the Perseus database. Does Perseus translate the word "pseudoprophētēs" In Matt. 7:15 as anything other than "false PROPHET"? What about the differences in 2Pt. 2:1 where Peter uses the word "pseudoprophētēs" for "false prophets" and the different word "pseudodidaskalos" for "false teachers"? Does this jibe with Perseus?

Everyone has access to Perseus. You just have to know how to use it. It accepts only the characters of the original Greek words to get the proper definition. If it's a legitimate word then it will appear in Perseus. There is also LexiLogos.

Another example of a mistranslation done by Strong's is where they've translated onoma, which is singular in Greek, as to meaning the trinity ie plural. The Greek word that would have appeared in the original texts to refer to the trinity would have been phrw/numos.

One final example of a mistranslation by Strong's is from Colossians 2:9 KJV where it says, "For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead in bodily form," according to Strong's Godhead's original Greek word is theotēs. However, according to Perseus and other Greek lexicons theotēs means God in the singular and lacks the trinity aspect that they translated it into.