Why do Protestants use The Pharisees Old Testament

[Cepha]

May 10, 2008 23:31:12 GMT -5 jhardin said:

In case anybody missed it...

7=The Number of God
3=The Holy Trinity

Septuagint=70+ Authors

Catholic Bible=73 Books

That's a little esoteric... Here, I've got a better illustration for you.

Lev 24:5 And thou shalt take fine flour, and bake twelve cakes thereof: two tenth deals shall be in one cake.
Lev 24:6 And thou shalt set them in two rows, six on a row, upon the pure table before the LORD.

This is the shewbread on the table in the temple which was to illustrate the Word of God (everything in the Temple was an illustration of something spiritual).

Notice the cakes were set in two rows of 6 cakes. Since it was a symbol of the Word of God.. it seems ironic that there are 66 books in the REAL Christian canon of scripture.





666=Evil

Protestant Bible=66(6?) books?

[/quote]

That's a little esoteric... Here, I've got a better illustration for you.

Lev 24:5 And thou shalt take fine flour, and bake twelve cakes thereof: two tenth deals shall be in one cake.
Lev 24:6 And thou shalt set them in two rows, six on a row, upon the pure table before the LORD.

This is the shewbread on the table in the temple which was to illustrate the Word of God (everything in the Temple was an illustration of something spiritual).

Notice the cakes were set in two rows of 6 cakes. Since it was a symbol of the Word of God..

How is the setting of the two rows of cakes used to illustrate the symbol of the Word of God?

(Can't wait for that answer! )

(Even Alfie has to laugh at that one!)

The whole passage (in context) is talking about The Bread of The Tabernacle as well as The Lamps.

This I have to see!

LOL!

it seems ironic that there are 66 books in the REAL Christian canon of scripture.

Oh, so now, the REAL Christian bible was created in the 16th century.

What was it you said about God and about dispersed revelation?

[jhardin]

May 11, 2008 0:10:33 GMT -5 Cepha said:

How is the setting of the two rows of cakes used to illustrate the symbol of the Word of God?

(Can't wait for that answer! )

(Even Alfie has to laugh at that one!)

The whole passage (in context) is talking about The Bread of The Tabernacle as well as The Lamps.

This I have to see!

LOL!

Do you disagree that the candlesticks in the Tabernacle represent the Holy Spirit?

What about the lamps? Do you disagree that they are illustrative of the life of a saved Spirit indwelt believer... being continually fed by the Olive Oil from the candlesticks (the Holy Spirit)

How can you then disagree that the shewbread would represent the Word of God? And if so... why doesn't it seem plausible that it would represent the 66 books of the Bible?

It makes a whole lot more sense than your 70+3 weirdness.

Oh, so now, the REAL Christian bible was created in the 16th century.

What was it you said about God and about dispersed revelation?

Um... the 66 books of the Canon of scripture was in existence in the middle of the 2nd century with the "Itala Biblia"... Jerome used it when he translated the "Latin Vulgate" because it was a latin version already in existence. It did NOT contain the Apocryphal books by the way.

It also existed in the 3rd century with the Peshitta which was in existence in the beginning of the 2nd century more commonly known as the Diatesseron... but grew to contain the whole canon of scripture (66 books) later.

Looks like the Catholic Church wasn't the first one's to think of a canonized scripture. ;D

[Cepha]

jhardin
This I have to see!

LOL!

Do you disagree that the candlesticks in the Tabernacle represent the Holy Spirit?

Of course I do. The Bible doesn't say that.

Where in scripture have candlesticks "represented" The Holy Spirit?

I've seen it represented as water and as wind and as a Dove, but never as candlesticks .

What about the lamps? Do you disagree that they are illustrative of the life of a saved Spirit indwelt believer... being continually fed by the Olive Oil from the candlesticks (the Holy Spirit)

Uh, yeah. What does The Olive Oil then represent?

J, this is your injecting things that just don't exist there. If you're going to do that, then we might as well stop debating right now. I can never debate a person's personal beliefs and a person's personal interpretations.

I could say that a chicken represents a computer in The Bible and I could take it from there and invent all kinds of crazy (though perfectly acceptable to me) beliefs.

I like to discuss what is actually "there". Not what I think is there.

How can you then disagree that the shewbread would represent the Word of God? And if so... why doesn't it seem plausible that it would represent the 66 books of the Bible?

Easy...there is no scriptural reference for that belief. The Bible doesn't say it. And, The Bible didn't exist when this even took place.

Now, if you want to believe that this is a prophetic verse, then show me the scripture that corresponds to this in the NT? Otherwise, it's another Jim Jones manner of building a believe around a verse completely ignoring reality.

And...6 "next to" 6 do not equal "66". It still only adds up to 12 (which only relates to me to either the Apostles or The Tribes of Israel).

But, I'm still waiting (as I asked you already) for you scriptural "proof" that they represent The Holy Bible. There has to be some reference, some other scripture to support this.

It makes a whole lot more sense than your 70+3 weirdness.

Yeah...6+6=66 ain't wierd (excuse me while I roll on the floor laughing!) .

Plus the whole 7 (not 70) + 3 is a joke! LOL!

Who in their right mind would believe such a thing (oh...judging by your 66 "theory", you believe in such things).

Um... the 66 books of the Canon of scripture was in existence in the middle of the 2nd century with the "Itala Biblia"... Jerome used it when he translated the "Latin Vulgate" because it was a latin version already in existence. It did NOT contain the Apocryphal books by the way.

youtube.com/watch?v=NzlG28B-R8Y

Oh my. Where in "your" history book did you get the teaching that The Holy Bible was canonized before The Council of Nicea?

Who gave you the ideal that Jerome canonized The Bible? Jerome wasn't commissioned (by the Pope mind you) to "canonize" The Bible...He was commissioned to "translate" an already existant Latin version. No canon had been decided by The Catholic Church yet.

By the way...the Vulgate had 76 books in it (not 66).

But I'd love to see where you got your information that it was officially canonized before then.

It also existed in the 3rd century with the Peshitta which was in existence in the beginning of the 2nd century more commonly known as the Diatesseron... but grew to contain the whole canon of scripture (66 books) later.

Uh...the Peshitta was "a" version not canon (and only for a Christian sect known as the Syriac sect...do you know the difference?

But don't take my word for it...I might just be a misindoctrinated Catholic (yeah right)...they to chose to use the Pharisees canon (more proof of my original argument that Protestants reject the Christian Canon; of course, there being no "official" Canon, there was restriction):

The Peshitta Old Testament is the earliest piece of Syriac literature of any length, probably originating in the second century. Whereas the majority of the Early Church relied on the Greek Septuagint, or translations from it, for their Old Testament, the Syriac-speaking church had its text translated directly from the Hebrew.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peshitta

ver·sion
–noun
1. a particular account of some matter, as from one person or source, contrasted with some other account: two different versions of the accident.
2. a particular form or variant of something: a modern version of an antique.
3. a translation.
4. (often initial capital letter) a translation of the Bible or a part of it.
5. Medicine/Medical. the act of turning a child in the uterus so as to bring it into a more favorable position for delivery.
6. Pathology. an abnormal direction of the axis of the uterus or other organ.

can·on
–noun
1. an ecclesiastical rule or law enacted by a council or other competent authority and, in the Roman Catholic Church, approved by the pope.
2. the body of ecclesiastical law.
3. the body of rules, principles, or standards accepted as axiomatic and universally binding in a field of study or art: the neoclassical canon.
4. a fundamental principle or general rule: the canons of good behavior.
5. a standard; criterion: the canons of taste.
6. the books of the Bible recognized by any Christian church as genuine and inspired.
7. any officially recognized set of sacred books.
8. any comprehensive list of books within a field.
9. the works of an author that have been accepted as authentic: There are 37 plays in the Shakespeare canon. Compare apocrypha (def. 3).
10. a catalog or list, as of the saints acknowledged by the Church.
11. Liturgy. the part of the Mass between the Sanctus and the Communion.
12. Eastern Church. a liturgical sequence sung at matins, usually consisting of nine odes arranged in a fixed pattern.
13. Music. consistent, note-for-note imitation of one melodic line by another, in which the second line starts after the first.
14. Printing. a 48-point type.

Ok, hope that helps you sort it out.

Again...proof that these works were considered books that were officially canonized before Nicea?

And now you're saying that a "original" canon had "less than" 66 books?

Kind of having your cake and eating it too there aren't you?

Cafetiriaism at it's finest! LOL!

Source?

A Chrisitan Document?

Something besides "because I say so."?

Looks like the Catholic Church wasn't the first one's to think of a canonized scripture.

Yeah...they were called "The Pharisees". I already proved to you that the Protestants indeed did choose the Pharisees canon and rejected the Christian canon and that even Jesus quoted from The Septugaint (even in His non-Deutero books).

I'm still waiting for your proofs that He used any other version. I listed almost a hundred scriptures (out of the 300 recorded).

Where's your proof besides just saying it?

Wow. This is honestly a first for me...but you'll have every opportunity to provide your proof froma secular source that The Bible was canonized "before" Nicea.

[Cepha]

jhardin
It makes a whole lot more sense than your 70+3 weirdness.

And what I wrote with regards to the number 70 is it's representation (not my spiritual emotional interpretation)
of The Septugaint which the name Sept is literally taken from:

Naming and designation
The Septuagint derives its name from Latin septuaginta interpretum versio, (Greek : ç ìåôÜöñáóç ôùí åâäïìÞêïíôá) "translation of the seventy interpreters" (hence the abbreviation LXX) .

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint#Naming_and_designation

[jhardin]

May 11, 2008 8:49:34 GMT -5 Cepha said:

Uh, yeah. What does The Olive Oil then represent?

Revelation 1:20 illustrates the candlesticks as Churches. Those Churches were "fed" by the oil of the lamps... which is the Holy Spirit.

We are anointed by the Holy Spirit which was illustrated by anointing in the Old Testament...

2Co 1:21 Now he which stablisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, [is] God;
2Co 1:22 Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.

Easy...there is no scriptural reference for that belief. The Bible doesn't say it. And, The Bible didn't exist when this even took place.

Now, if you want to believe that this is a prophetic verse, then show me the scripture that corresponds to this in the NT? Otherwise, it's another Jim Jones manner of building a believe around a verse completely ignoring reality.

And...6 "next to" 6 do not equal "66". It still only adds up to 12 (which only relates to me to either the Apostles or The Tribes of Israel).

But, I'm still waiting (as I asked you already) for you scriptural "proof" that they represent The Holy Bible. There has to be some reference, some other scripture to support this.

Show me where the Bible explicitly states that babies should be baptized.... *waiting*

Oh my. Where in "your" history book did you get the teaching that The Holy Bible was canonized before The Council of Nicea?

can·on 1 (knn)
n.
1. An ecclesiastical law or code of laws established by a church council.
2. A secular law, rule, or code of law.
3.
a. An established principle: the canons of polite society.
b. A basis for judgment; a standard or criterion.
4. The books of the Bible officially accepted as Holy Scripture.
5.
a. A group of literary works that are generally accepted as representing a field: "the durable canon of American short fiction" William Styron.


A Canon is simply an accepted compilation of books called the Bible. The fact that the Itala Biblia, and the Peshitta existed, should be proof enough that they were accepted... maybe not by your so-called Catholic Church Fathers... but they were accepted by the REAL Christian Churches well before the Catholic Canonized bible.

But I'd love to see where you got your information that it was officially canonized before then.

I never said it was officially canonized before then... that's your Catholic preconceptions talking. It was accepted... not officially canonized because the true Churches during that period were not ecumenical.

Uh...the Peshitta was "a" version not canon (and only for a Christian sect known as the Syriac sect...do you know the difference?

But don't take my word for it...I might just be a misindoctrinated Catholic (yeah right)...they to chose to use the Pharisees canon (more proof of my original argument that Protestants reject the Christian Canon; of course, there being no "official" Canon, there was restriction):

The fact that the Peshitta existed as the Syriac version of the Bible in the second century does not negate the fact that it was an accepted canon of scripture... in fact, it proves my point.

Again...proof that these works were considered books that were officially canonized before Nicea?

And now you're saying that a "original" canon had "less than" 66 books?

Kind of having your cake and eating it too there aren't you?

Cafetiriaism at it's finest! LOL!

And that is the statement of the week. I am not a Cafeterian Catholic... but you seem to think you are debating a Catholic. The terms I am using, I am using in the purest sense... you on the other hand use the word "canon" as if it is only a Catholic word...

[Cepha]

May 12, 2008 17:12:32 GMT -5 jhardin said:

May 11, 2008 8:49:34 GMT -5 Cepha said:

Uh, yeah. What does The Olive Oil then represent?

Revelation 1:20 illustrates the candlesticks as Churches. Those Churches were "fed" by the oil of the lamps... which is the Holy Spirit.

We are anointed by the Holy Spirit which was illustrated by anointing in the Old Testament...

You're tieing Lev 24 to Rev 1?

How?

Show me where the Bible explicitly states that babies should be baptized.... *waiting*

Again?

OK:

Infant Baptism
Gen. 17:12, Lev. 12:3 - these texts show the circumcision of eight-day old babies as the way of entering into the Old Covenant - Col 2:11-12 - however, baptism is the new "circumcision" for all people of the New Covenant. Therefore, baptism is for babies as well as adults. God did not make His new Covenant narrower than the old Covenant. To the contrary, He made it wider, for both Jews and Gentiles, infants and adults.

Job 14:1-4 - man that is born of woman is full of trouble and unclean. Baptism is required for all human beings because of our sinful human nature.

Psalm 51:5 - we are conceived in the iniquity of sin. This shows the necessity of baptism from conception.

Matt. 18:2-5 - Jesus says unless we become like children, we cannot enter into heaven. So why would children be excluded from baptism?

Matt 19:14 - Jesus clearly says the kingdom of heaven also belongs to children. There is no age limit on entering the kingdom, and no age limit for being eligible for baptism.

Mark 10:14 - Jesus says to let the children come to Him for the kingdom of God also belongs to them. Jesus says nothing about being too young to come into the kingdom of God.

Mark 16:16 - Jesus says to the crowd, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved." But in reference to the same people, Jesus immediately follows with "He who does not believe will be condemned." This demonstrates that one can be baptized and still not be a believer. This disproves the Protestant argument that one must be a believer to be baptized. There is nothing in the Bible about a "believer's baptism."

Luke 18:15 – Jesus says, “Let the children come to me.” The people brought infants to Jesus that he might touch them. This demonstrates that the receipt of grace is not dependent upon the age of reason.

Acts 2:38 - Peter says to the multitude, "Repent and be baptized.." Protestants use this verse to prove one must be a believer (not an infant) to be baptized. But the Greek translation literally says, "If you repent, then each one who is a part of you and yours must each be baptized” (“Metanoesate kai bapistheto hekastos hymon.”) This, contrary to what Protestants argue, actually proves that babies are baptized based on their parents’ faith. This is confirmed in the next verse.

Acts 2:39 - Peter then says baptism is specifically given to children as well as adults. “Those far off” refers to those who were at their “homes” (primarily infants and children). God's covenant family includes children. The word "children" that Peter used comes from the Greek word "teknon" which also includes infants.

Luke 1:59 - this proves that "teknon" includes infants. Here, John as a "teknon" (infant) was circumcised. See also Acts 21:21 which uses “teknon” for eight-day old babies. So baptism is for infants as well as adults.

Acts 10:47-48 - Peter baptized the entire house of Cornelius, which generally included infants and young children. There is not one word in Scripture about baptism being limited to adults.

Acts 16:15 - Paul baptized Lydia and her entire household. The word "household" comes from the Greek word "oikos" which is a household that includes infants and children.

Acts 16:15 - further, Paul baptizes the household based on Lydia's faith, not the faith of the members of the household. This demonstrates that parents can present their children for baptism based on the parents' faith, not the children's faith.

Acts 16:30-33 - it was only the adults who were candidates for baptism that had to profess a belief in Jesus. This is consistent with the Church's practice of instructing catechumens before baptism. But this verse does not support a "believer's baptism" requirement for everyone. See Acts 16:15,33. The earlier one comes to baptism, the better. For those who come to baptism as adults, the Church has always required them to profess their belief in Christ. For babies who come to baptism, the Church has always required the parents to profess the belief in Christ on behalf of the baby. But there is nothing in the Scriptures about a requirement for ALL baptism candidates to profess their own belief in Christ (because the Church has baptized babies for 2,000 years).

Acts 16:33 - Paul baptized the jailer (an adult) and his entire household (which had to include children). Baptism is never limited to adults and those of the age of reason. See also Luke 19:9; John 4:53; Acts 11:14; 1 Cor. 1:16; and 1 Tim. 3:12; Gen. 31:41; 36:6; 41:51; Joshua 24:15; 2 Sam. 7:11, 1 Chron. 10:6 which shows “oikos” generally includes children.

Rom. 5:12 - sin came through Adam and death through sin. Babies' souls are affected by Adam's sin and need baptism just like adult souls.

Rom. 5:15 - the grace of Jesus Christ surpasses that of the Old Covenant. So children can also enter the new Covenant in baptism. From a Jewish perspective, it would have been unthinkable to exclude infants and children from God's Covenant kingdom.

1 Cor. 1:16 - Paul baptized the household ("oikos") of Stephanus. Baptism is not limited to adults.

Eph. 1:1; Col. 1:2 - Paul addresses the "saints" of the Church, and these include the children he addresses in Eph. 6:1 and Col. 3:20. Children become saints of the Church only through baptism.

Eph. 2:3 - we are all by nature children of wrath, in sin, like all mankind. Infants are no exception. See also Psalm 51:5 and Job 14:1-4 which teach us we are conceived in sin and born unclean.

2 Thess. 3:10 - if anyone does not work let him not eat. But this implies that those who are unable to work should still be able to eat. Babies should not starve because they are unable to work, and should also not be denied baptism because they are unable to make a declaration of faith.

Matt. 9:2; Mark 2:3-5 - the faith of those who brought in the paralytic cured the paralytic's sins. This is an example of the forgiveness of sins based on another's faith, just like infant baptism. The infant child is forgiven of sin based on the parents' faith.

Matt. 8:5-13 - the servant is healed based upon the centurion's faith. This is another example of healing based on another's faith. If Jesus can heal us based on someone else’s faith, then He can baptize us based on someone else’s faith as well.

Mark 9:22-25 - Jesus exercises the child's unclean spirit based on the father's faith. This healing is again based on another's faith.

1 Cor. 7:14 – Paul says that children are sanctified by God through the belief of only one of their parents.

Exodus 12:24-28 - the Passover was based on the parent's faith. If they did not kill and eat the lamb, their first-born child died.

Joshua 5:2-7 - God punished Israel because the people had not circumcised their children. This was based on the parent's faith. The parents play a critical role in their child's salvation.

A Canon is simply an accepted compilation of books called the Bible. The fact that the Itala Biblia, and the Peshitta existed, should be proof enough that they were accepted... maybe not by your so-called Catholic Church Fathers... but they were accepted by the REAL Christian Churches well before the Catholic Canonized bible.

Where is your proof that they were considered Canonical?

And according to the rest of the world, a canon is literally an "official" (not suggested) collection of books.

Look forward to your proof that a canon existed "before" the Christian Canon.

The only officially canonized books were the Old Testament books of The Pharisees.

All other books were only versions.

And I invite the board to compare your personal interpretation of the word canon to the accepted definition of the word canon:

can·on 1 (knn)
n.
1. An ecclesiastical law or code of laws established by a church council.
2. A secular law, rule, or code of law.
3.
a. An established principle: the canons of polite society.
b. A basis for judgment; a standard or criterion.
4. The books of the Bible officially accepted as Holy Scripture.
5.
a. A group of literary works that are generally accepted as representing a field: "the durable canon of American short fiction" William Styron.

I never said it was officially canonized before then... that's your Catholic preconceptions talking. It was accepted... not officially canonized because the true Churches during that period were not ecumenical.

The fact that the Peshitta existed as the Syriac version of the Bible in the second century does not negate the fact that it was an accepted canon of scripture... in fact, it proves my point.

Again...prove that it was accepted by The Christian Church as canon?

It it ain't canonized, it don't count.

Otherwise, you'd have the gospels of Thomas and of Mary Magdelane in there. And the Gnostics' works.

Again...proof that these works were considered books that were officially canonized before Nicea?

And now you're saying that a "original" canon had "less than" 66 books?

Kind of having your cake and eating it too there aren't you?

Cafetiriaism at it's finest! LOL!

And that is the statement of the week. I am not a Cafeterian Catholic... but you seem to think you are debating a Catholic. The terms I am using, I am using in the purest sense... you on the other hand use the word "canon" as if it is only a Catholic word...

As usual, you are misinterpreting the text and seeing things and words that aren't there...no where is the word "Catholic"mentioned in my pointing out that you practice Cafetiriaism.

As you've done with other debates, you inject words in the text to create new beliefs (like when you say that Jesus' undergarments were ripped from his body leaving Him nude when no where in The Bible does it say that).

As for the word canon, you don't even choose to accept the standard definition of the word, re-defining it in your own interpretive way (which is your perogative).

[knuckle]

Hi Cepha-------------

have you studied the significance of numbers in scripture?It is an interesting study.

much love-------------knuckle

[jhardin]

May 12, 2008 19:06:45 GMT -5 knuckle said:

Hi Cepha-------------

have you studied the significance of numbers in scripture?It is an interesting study.

much love-------------knuckle

Here is an interesting site www.kingjamescode.org/

This guy is a friend of mine... He pastors a Church about 3 miles from me. He has done a lot of research on Biblical numerics and speaks around the country on the subject.

[Cepha]

May 12, 2008 19:06:45 GMT -5 knuckle said:

Hi Cepha-------------

have you studied the significance of numbers in scripture?It is an interesting study.

much love-------------knuckle

Nah..I'm still struggling with the Bible.

I know that numbers are used to depict events (like 666 which means Nero showing that he was The Beast and the 1260 days that the woman in Revelation 12 showing Mary's exodus to Egypt when Herod was hunting her to kill Jesus, etc...).