ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Explain Acts 8:37

Online Bible has a verse in Acts I never seen until today. Acts 8:37. It seems it was added to support the 'Sinner's Prayer'. When I looked in my Bible was I was correct. In the fine print it said it was not found in the older manuscripts of Acts. But only in Western Text reading. Is it in your Bible?

Join Our Christian Friendship and Take The Bible History Quiz
 ---Nicole_Lacey on 12/8/18
     Helpful Blog Vote (1)

Post a New Blog



Oh, yes! - and Nicole always striving to bring that religion higher over the true Christian denominations (call it what you want to call it) - it doesn't change what they have been and are under - separated from THE LORD because of their false/heretic idolatrous doctrines and of which is clearly you are a promoter:
"Woe to her that is filthy and polluted, to the oppressing city. She obeyed not the voice, she received not correction, she trusted not in THE LORD, she drew not near to GOD". Her prophets are light and treacherous persons, her priests have polluted the sanctuary, they have done violence to the law". Zephaniah 3: 1,2,4.
---Melody on 1/10/19


nicole said, "I don't remember asking you that this round, but I have been wrong before."

Nicole read prior you asked for sources

Nicole, ame for us all
My challenge to you is name me 1 Church father in context of his writing who believe the apocrypha was Scripture??
---john9346 on 1/7/19


reuben:

"To the same people that rejected he Messiah!"

But didn't Jerome Origen, and Augustine take from the Jews referring to the OT in their writings?

Did any Church Father ever say never to listen or learn from the Jews?

"John read it slowly, he said "even if it were" not that they were not!"

But to which book did he recognize in vs 2 had Apostolic Authority?

Did he say in vs 3 that Maccabees had Apostolic Authority yes or no?
---john9346 on 1/7/19


Nicole:

"And just because you have decided to be a defender of a religion that from the very beginning has decided to profane GOD'S HOLINESS AND WORD, by their trampling upon HIS COMMANDMENTS and into idolatrous and false doctrines - that doesn't mean that you and everyone that follow that, will be absent of what THE LORD says in HIS WORD about it: No doubt, that your spiritual blindness it's obvious and you keep rejecting THE TRUTH and in that to receive what THE LORD admonish in HIS WORD!

It's foolishness, striving to share GOD'S TRUTH to someone like you - and no more - as GOD'S WORD says: "After two or three admonitions - leave".
---Melody on 1/7/19


john9346 * But who were the Oracles of God entrusted to??

To the same people that rejected he Messiah!

john9346 *.

Also, he goes on to say in vs 3 that it shouldn't be believed because its not in The Holy Scriptures that if believed Maccabees was Scripture he wouldn't have made this statement because it would contradict...

John read it slowly, he said "even if it were" not that they were not!

"The whole canon of the Scriptures, however, is contained in these books: the five of Moses . . . and one book of Joshua...such as Job and Tobit and Esther and Judith and the two books of Maccabees(Christian Instruction 2:8:13 [A.D. 397]).
---Ruben on 1/7/19




John: Nicole asked me for sources from the Church Fathers that they rejected the apocrypha//

I don't remember asking you that this round, but I have been wrong before.

//when I provided the sources to her she refused to even look at them//

I looked at your confused answer to my question about circumcision.

You kept giving me crazy answers that even the Bible proved you wrong.

//yet she wants us all to just believe what she says but she cant provide any contextual historical facts to support her claim.//

Are you sure you are not confusing me with someone else?

I gave Scriptures to you.

Scriptures isn't enough for you anymore?

You are Mr. Sola Scriptura
---Nicole_Lacey on 1/7/19


Melody: Enough of your defending things that are not of the original Gospel from THE LORD JESUS CHRIST://

Get something straight young lady. You are NOT my mother.

Just because you can't see that the CC follows Jesus to the T, doesn't mean She is wrong.

Your lack of understanding DOESN'T mean the world has to slow down for you to chance up.

//Martin Luther was (by GOD'S MERCY) delivered from the heresies of a religion//

Will you USE your Common Sense for once.

God NEVER told Luther to remove Books from the Bible.

If the MAN had a 73 Book Bible, the world WASN'T longing for his birth to CHANGE the Bible.

Only ONE Birth did mankind long for and it WASN'T Luther!
---Nicole_Lacey on 1/7/19


Hello Readers:

Nicole asked me for sources from the Church Fathers that they rejected the apocrypha when I provided the sources to her she refused to even look at them yet she wants us all to just believe what she says but she cant provide any contextual historical facts to support her claim.

Ms. Lacy,

My challenge to you is name me 1 Church father in context of his writing who believe the apocrypha was Scripture??
---john9346 on 1/7/19


reuben said, "
The Jews also rejected the Messiah,"

But who were the Oracles of God entrusted to??

Reuben, in vs 2 Augustine states Apostolic Authority to 2 Cor 5:8-10, but not to Maccabees in vs 3.

Also, he goes on to say in vs 3 that it shouldn't be believed because its not in The Holy Scriptures that if believed Maccabees was Scripture he wouldn't have made this statement because it would contradict...
---john9346 on 1/7/19


Enough of your defending things that are not of the original Gospel from THE LORD JESUS CHRIST: Martin Luther was (by GOD'S MERCY) delivered from the heresies of a religion that THE LORD will never accept it, as from the beginning - it has adulterating GOD'S WORD by their heretic teachings and no matter how you defend something that contradicts THE LORD GOD and HIS WORD: Christianity didn't start with M. Luther - but from the time when the souls that were blessed to hear THE TRUTH - they accepted it as THE ONLY WAY to salvation and eternal life, and don't need your non sense examples - keep them to yourself - its' clear where you are - good bye!
---Melody on 1/6/19




Melody, Luther did split the Church. You need a whole to split.

Once you have split the whole, it is easier to split the broken pieces.

Evangelical Christian Churches CAME from those splits that came from Luther's actions

Note how the CC grew bigger, but the split ones has gotten smaller. John 15:5-6

//he left the RCC//

You mean the CC. Luther was a Catholic Priest not a Roman Catholic Priest.

Anywho, that is nonsense. That would be like if the South won, but Georgia broke off from the South also claiming to be their own nation naming themselves Freedom.

You are a Freedomian and claim Robert E. Lee broke off from the Union not the Freedom Nation.

Then you praise Lee for leaving the Union.
---Nicole_Lacey on 1/6/19


"The Jews do not have this Scripture which is called Maccabees, as they do the law and the prophets, to which the Lord bears testimony as to his witnesses."

Augustine
---john9346 on 1/6/19

The Jews also rejected the Messiah,


Augustine - "We read in the books of the Maccabees [2 Macc. 12:43] that sacrifice was offered for the dead. But even if it were found nowhere in the Old Testament writings, the authority of the Catholic Church which is clear on this point is of no small weight, where in the prayers of the priest poured forth to the Lord God at his altar the commendation of the dead has its place" (The Care to be Had for the Dead 1:3 [A.D. 421]).
---Ruben on 1/6/19


"Martin Luther split the church" . . . not the Evangelical Christian Church - but he in obedience to GOD'S SPIRIT LEADING- he left the RCC because he realized where he was - under spiritual darkness and serving a religion that was totally against GOD'S HOLINESS AND TRUTH - because their idolatrous and pagan teachings leading the souls into eternal perdition:

And no matter how GOD'S WORD is ignored by some that are possessed by spiritual darkness: Keep on hearing it: "Those who worship idols and who have added or removed it from GOD'S WORD - they are on their way of eternally separated from THE LIVING GOD and under THE LORD'S PRESENCE in HIS Eternal Kingdom and GOD says it!
---Melody on 1/6/19


Nicole - right you are - but wrong under your meaning:

"If Martin Luther, has not been born again, many still would be under the joke of 'your 73 books Bible" - and as you keep contradicting the original writings of The Bible that are 66 - why do you keep ignoring in what The Scriptures said: "For what relationship is GOD with the idols and false man-made doctrines that challenge THE LORD'S SPIRIT AND ADMONITIONS - with no fear for their eternal souls?" - well, THE LORD HIMSELF talk about it from those in the past and now in the present!
---Melody on 1/6/19


John, you are NOT stupid. You understand LOGIC. So stop acting as if you didn't to win an argument.

For 1000 years the ONLY Bibles that exist HAD 73 BOOKS.

Until Luther was born and CUT off the 7 Books.

Some Bibles after the 16 centuries now have 66 Books.

5th century COMES before the 16th century.

Math is Math and Time is Time.

As I told StrongAxe, common sense isn't Common.

BUT YOU ARE PART OF THE COMMON!
---Nicole_Lacey on 1/6/19


nicole said, "Ridiculous! If Luther wasn't born you would STILL have a 73 Book Bible as me."

False as stated several times to you Jerome, Augustine, Origen, John of Damascus, etc. all rejected the apocrypha if you look at when they were born many centuries before Luther...

So long before Luther Christians knew that the added books decided by Trent in 1546 were arroneous...
see, citations...
---john9346 on 1/6/19


Read These Insightful Articles About Lasik Surgery


""During the same time also those things were done which are written in the book of Judith, which, indeed, the Jews are said not to have received into the canon of the scriptures ...""

"The Jews do not have this Scripture which is called Maccabees, as they do the law and the prophets, to which the Lord bears testimony as to his witnesses."

Augustine
---john9346 on 1/6/19


"St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries...For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books."


(The New Catholic Encyclopedia, on The Canon).
---john9346 on 1/6/19


Nicole_Lacey:

Wikipedia: List of the Dead Sea Scrolls

In addition to fragments from most books of the Hebrew bible, there were some fragments from Ecclesiasticus and the Letter of Jeremiah, but also at least a dozen apocryphal books (that virtually nobody accepts as scripture) like Enoch and the Apocryphon of Moses, and dozens of books that were particular to the Essenes, like Community Rule, War Scroll, etc.
---StrongAxe on 1/6/19


Jerome, Origen, and Augustine all attested that the Jews rejected the apocrypha as not being "Divinely Authoritative.


---john9346 on 1/1/19

On the Church Fathers about the apocrypha.

Origen said "As it is written" on the book of Tobit(12:7)-Origen, Against Celsus, 5:19(A.D. 248),in ANF,IV:551.

Jerome wrote-Does not the SCRIPTURE say: 'Burden not thyself above thy power' [SIRACH 13:2] Jerome, To Eustochium, Epistle 108 (A.D. 404), in NPNF2, VI:207

Even the bible you hold quotes the books you do not have:

James 1:19 Know this, my beloved brethren. Let every man be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger, life.

Sirach 5:11: Be quick to hear, and be deliberate in answering.
---Ruben on 1/6/19


Read These Insightful Articles About Bullion


StrongAxe: Just because a book was in the Dead Sea Scrolls doesn't automatically mean it's scripture.//

Really?

Show me another Jewish Holy Scripture mixed with non-Scripture Books?

That's like mixing letters from St. Augustine into the Bible?

Our Liturgy of the Hours are mixed with Scriptures and Saint's letters/writings.

But we DON'T call it Holy Scriptures/Bible.

The Dead Sea Scrolls have those Books in them because they believed they were part of their Holy Scriptures.

Just because NOT all of those DSS Books are in our Bible doesn't means those Jews DIDN'T believe they were Holy Scriptures.

Your only measure of rule to what is Scripture to us both is if it is in YOUR Bible or not.
---Nicole_Lacey on 1/5/19


Nicole_Lacey:

You wrote: Yes they were. The Dead Sea Scrolls proved they were in the Jewish Cannon Holy Scriptures.

Just because a book was in the Dead Sea Scrolls doesn't automatically mean it's scripture. There were many other books in that library that were particular books of the Essenes that neither Jews nor Christians ever considered scripture.

About Luther: But he didn't! Well, not for your 2nd edition of the KJV.

What? Luther (in Germany) had NOTHING to do with the KJV (in England). I believe even in the first KJV, Apocrypha were kept in a separate section, because they were always considered secondary to scripture, just as Jerome and Jews believed.
---StrongAxe on 1/5/19


John, cite their statements not their names.

//the topic is whether or not the apocrypha is Scripture?//

No it isn't. That's your reasoning for WHY they are not Scripture.

That's like saying the Gospels are not Scriptures because they are Gospels and not letters.

//Luther is actually irrelevant...//

Ridiculous! If Luther wasn't born you would STILL have a 73 Book Bible as me.

He also wanted to axed James, Hebrews, Jude and Revelations but some men stopped him.

Thank goodness because if they didn't you would be arguing with me today why James, Hebrews, Jude and Revelations wasn't Scripture as well.

BTW, I never heard of Romanism? Even my Spellcheck has a red underscoring underneath it.
---Nicole_Lacey on 1/4/19


StrongAxe: You wrote: John, Tobit and Judith are Books in the Canon of Books in the Bible.

StrongAxe: No, they are books in the canon of the CATHOLIC Bible. They were never in the canon of the Jewish Bible,//

Yes they were. The Dead Sea Scrolls proved they were in the Jewish Cannon Holy Scriptures.

Of course they are in the Catholic Church Bible.

All the Apostles were Jewish.

//Luther was a Catholic before he broke away, so it makes sense that he would have used the same Bible.//

But he didn't!

Well, not for your 2nd edition of the KJV.

So what sense does he have now?

Better yet, what sense do you all have for keeping the 2nd edition and NOT the first?
---Nicole_Lacey on 1/4/19


Send a Free Winter Ecard


nicole said, "
John, Tobit and Judith are Books in the Canon of Books in the Bible."

But not according to the ChurchFathers Augustine, Jerome, Origen, and the Glossa Ordinaria...

Nicole said,"Again, you will not Address why Luther had a 73 Book Bible."

first, the topic is whether or not the apocrypha is Scripture? Luther is actually irrelevant...

Nevertheless, to respond to you at what period of Luther's Life are you asking about when he was a monk or after he rejected Romanism??
---john9346 on 1/4/19


Nicole_Lacey:

You wrote: John, Tobit and Judith are Books in the Canon of Books in the Bible.

No, they are books in the canon of the CATHOLIC Bible. They were never in the canon of the Jewish Bible, which is where Christians got their Old Testament. Luther was a Catholic before he broke away, so it makes sense that he would have used the same Bible.
---StrongAxe on 1/3/19


John, Tobit and Judith are Books in the Canon of Books in the Bible.

Again, you will not Address why Luther had a 73 Book Bible but you Can't.

As I have always said. You all love money more than the Word of God.

Because if Luther arrived to you all with $100,000, but after year only presented to you all $75,000 you would questioned the missing money.

You would not take any silly excuses.

Pretend the 7 Books are money and MAYBE you will wake up.

St. Jerome submitted himself to the Catholic Church and not his own ego unlike Luther.

St. Jerome actions kept the Church united for 1000 years.

Luther's action split the Church and now there are over 70,000 different denominations TODAY.
---Nicole_Lacey on 1/3/19


Thank you John. Good scholarship.
---Samuelbb7 on 1/3/19


Read These Insightful Articles About Menopause


John: There are Multiple Historical Sources regarding chanukkah other than Maccabees//

Please Cite them.

Hanukkah isn't the only thing the Jewish people hold as part of their Holy Scriptures.

As Mother and her sons: The Martyrdom of Seven Brothers

2 Maccabees 7

//also the writer of Maccabees didn't consider his own writings to be "Divinely Authoritative."//

You have a quote symbol at the end.

Could you not as well CITED the one who made this Claim?
---Nicole_Lacey on 1/3/19


nicole:

"1. Jerome lived in the 5th century.

Yes, and Jerome wrote that the apocrypha (maccabees and others) were not, "Divinely Authoritative."

2. A sect of Jews came up with cannon of books that Luther adopted."

False, Jerome, Origen, and Augustine all attested that the Jews rejected the apocrypha as not being "Divinely Authoritative."

Also, Josephus and Aquila stated the same that the Jews rejected the apocrypha.

The Glossa Ordinaria and the Catholic Encyclopedia testify that the apocrypha was never Scripture...
---john9346 on 1/1/19


'Here begins the book of Tobit which is not in the canon, here begins the book of Judith which is not in the canon' and so forth for Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, and Maccabees etc.

"the church reads them and permits them to be read by the faithful for devotion and edification. Their authority, however, is not considered adequate for proving those things which come into doubt or contention, or for confirming the authority of ecclesiastical dogma, as blessed Jerome states in his prologue to Judith and to the books of Solomon.
The Glossa Ordinaria

---john9346 on 1/1/19


Ms. Lacy,

There are Multiple Historical Sources regarding chanukkah other than Maccabees also the writer of Maccabees didn't consider his own writings to be "Divinely Authoritative."
---john9346 on 1/1/19


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Penpals


Nicole_Lacey:

Septuagint included 66 Hebrew books, and others that have no evidence they were ever in Hebrew.

The Talmud, the official Jewish commentary on scripture, predates Jesus and never mention the Apocrypha.

Google: Talmud Apocrypha
From Chabad article:
"The 24 books of the Bible were canonized by the Men of the Great Assembly, which included some of the greatest Jewish scholars and leaders of the time, such as Ezra the Scribe, and even the last of the prophets, namely Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi. With the death of these prophets, the age of prophecy came to an end. Any later works are not considered Divinely inspired, and are therefore not included in the 24 books of the holy Scriptures."
---StrongAxe on 12/31/18


Are you sure you have the correct reference? The chapter and verse 8:37 of Acts is dealing with the Ethiopian eunuch. Philip is asking him,"If you believe with all your heart you may" (Dealing with being baptized.) The eunuch replied, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." I looked at 3 different translations an they all stated the same thing!
---WIVV on 12/31/18


StrongAxe: I trust Genesis in Septuagint Greek, English KJV, and many other translations because ALL of those can be traced back to Hebrew Genesis,//

Again, the Septuagint TRANSLATED all 73 Books from the OLD HEBREW.

Why do keep ignoring that?

Jews in the 2nd century A.D dropped the 7 books in the OT AFTER JESUS and the Apostles walked on the earth.

Luther picked the cannon list from those Jews in the 2nd century.

Thus, your Bible

So you are following Jews in the 2nd Century NOT the Jews's cannon of Books Jesus selected to be His Apostles.

//which history attests Jews accepted from the beginning, and Gospels attest Jesus accepted it too.//

As I said, 2nd century is AFTER Jesus
---Nicole_Lacey on 12/31/18


Nicole_Lacey:

I DIDN'T say that. I said THE JEWS, who, after all, were the custodians of scripture for thousands of years, did not consider them scripture. Presumably, they ought to know, right?

It's always a matter of provenance, i.e. where did various versions come from? I trust Genesis in Septuagint Greek, English KJV, and many other translations because ALL of those can be traced back to Hebrew Genesis, which history attests Jews accepted from the beginning, and Gospels attest Jesus accepted it too. Not so with the Apocrypha.

Jews read scriptures in Hebrew ONLY. Go into any synagogue. They know Hebrew like Catholics know Latin - for liturgical purposes. Scripture is in Hebrew, sermons in the vernacular.
---StrongAxe on 12/30/18


Read These Insightful Articles About Accounting


StrongAxe: It contained were no books originally written in Greek.//

So, according to YOUR logic since the Scriptures were NOT written in Greek originally you can reject them. Right?

WHY haven't you rejected your ENGLISH Bible?

Acts 2:5-6
And there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, DEVOUT men, from EVERY nation under heaven. And when this sound occurred, the multitude came together, and were confused, because everyone heard them speak in his OWN language.

1. Do you think to be a DEVOUT Jew you had to have read all Jew's Scriptures?

2. Could these men speak Hebrew?

3. If not would that mean their Holy Scriptures were in their OWN language which was NOT Hebrew?
---Nicole_Lacey on 12/30/18


Nicole_Lacey:

You use the word "rejected", but what you don't seem to get is that it's not entirely lack and white. There are also shades of grey. Jews consider the Torah to be the inviolate Word of God. They also highly revere the Talmud, and don't REJECT it, but do NOT consider it to be the Word of God. They similarly revere Maccabees, but don't consider it the Word of God either.
---StrongAxe on 12/29/18


John,

1. Jerome lived in the 5th century.

2. A sect of Jews came up with cannon of books that Luther adopted.

3. Martin Luther had a 73 book Bible when he was a Catholic Priest before ripping up the Bible.

4. Maccabees was NEVER rejected by the Jews because it's from those BOOKS Hanukkah is celebrated even by Jesus Himself.

*Jesus and Hanukkah: John 10:22-23 HuffPost "It is John's Gospel that reports that Jesus came to Jerusalem for the festival of dedication -- that is, Hanukkah."

So a secular website figures this out but you are in denial?

5. 1546 is in the 16th Century.

The CC compiled the Bible with 46 OT Bible in the 5th century
---Nicole_Lacey on 12/29/18


Nicole_Lacey:

I originally wrote: The Jewish Bible was mostly in Hebrew, with some fragments in Aramaic. It contained were no books originally written in Greek.

Why do you keep bring up the New Testament? I wan't talking about that. What language the NT was written in is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to the language used in the OT.

Also, what does the contents of the KJV matter to canonicity? Books were divinely inspired or not - regardless of the choices of some translators a millennium and a half after the fact.

I'm also not "deeply disturbed" about this. You're projecting.
---StrongAxe on 12/29/18


Read These Insightful Articles About Fundraisers


Nicole said, "
Exactly! The 1st Jews had 46 books."

False,

The Jews rejected the apocrypha this is why Jerome and Origen knew that the apocrypha books such Maccabees and others were never, "Theopneustos."

It wasn't until April of 1546 at Trent that the apocrypha was made "Scripture."
---john9346 on 12/29/18


StrongAxe, I told you this on the 20th: **the New Testament was written in ancient Greek, and long before that the Old Testament was written in ancient Hebrew, along with some Aramaic and Greek (the Old Testament was LATER translated into the Greek Septuagint).--Which Translation of the Bible is the Best?--Trent Horn

Also, you know that the 1st edition of King James Bible HAD ALL SAME 46 Holy Books as the Catholic Bible.

SAME BOOKS!

I know DEEP down this disturbs you.

Stop making excuses.

Truth is the Truth even if it comes from a hellish mouth.
---Nicole_Lacey on 12/28/18


Nicole_Lacey:

You wrote: Phillip was born DURING the Old Testament era.

No. The Old Testament was already finished centuries earlier. Besides, the existence of a person from some other nationality does not change the fact that the Old Testament was written in Hebrew. It's full of names of people of other nationalities. Pharaoh is an Egyptian, not Hebrew name.

Are you claiming Phillip wasn't 100% Hebrew?

I am talking about LANGUAGE, not genetics, nor national origin, nor people's names.

Daniel was written in HEBREW. While dragged to Babylon, Daniel's friends were forced to use Babylonian names, but the ACTUAL TEXT of Daniel is still in HEBREW.
---StrongAxe on 12/28/18


StrongAxe: but that is in the CHRISTIAN New Testament, not the JEWISH Bible, which is the Old Testament only.//

Phillip was born DURING the Old Testament era.

Phillip was named by his parents who were Hebrew.

Are you claiming Phillip wasn't 100% Hebrew?

//I specifically said the JEWISH Bible was entirely in Hebrew (with a few tiny bits in Aramaic).//

Are you now claiming the book of Daniel isn't in the Jewish Holy Scripture?

Daniel 1:6-7 Among those who were chosen were some from Judah: Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah. The chief official gave them new names: to Daniel, the name Belteshazzar, to Hananiah, Shadrach, to Mishael, Meshach, and to Azariah, Abednego.
---Nicole_Lacey on 12/27/18


Read These Insightful Articles About Ecommerce


Nicole_Lacey:

You wrote: Phillip is a Greek name. In fact he spoke both Greek and Hebrew.

Yes, but that is in the CHRISTIAN New Testament, not the JEWISH Bible, which is the Old Testament only. I specifically said the JEWISH Bible was entirely in Hebrew (with a few tiny bits in Aramaic).
---StrongAxe on 12/25/18


StrongAxe: The Jewish Bible was mostly in Hebrew, with some fragments in Aramaic. It contained were no books originally written in Greek.//

Phillip is a Greek name. In fact he spoke both Greek and Hebrew.

John 12:21

That's why the Greek with to Phillip to see Jesus.

//Jude himself quoted from Enoch.//

So? You all made that golden standard not us.

You all made up a ridiculous rule claiming that you can ONLY accept Scripture if it is mentioned in the NT.

But there are 10 Books in the OT not mentioned in the NT.

Judges, Ruth, Ezra, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Obadiah, Jonah, Zephaniah

**10 Old Testament Books Never Quoted in the New Testament By Peter Krol
---Nicole_Lacey on 12/23/18


Nicole_Lacey:

The Jewish Bible was mostly in Hebrew, with some fragments in Aramaic. It contained were no books originally written in Greek. There were some other books written in Greek during the Hellenistic period (e.g. Maccabees), but even though the Jews revered them, they did not consider them to be scripture, any more than a lot of other writings of that period. Jude himself quoted from Enoch. Should that be reason to consider Enoch to be scripture as well? If so, then why isn't it also included in the Apocrypha?
---StrongAxe on 12/21/18


StrongAxe, the Old Hebrew (Bible) was used to when the 70 men translated into Greek

***the New Testament was written in ancient Greek, and long before that the Old Testament was written in ancient Hebrew, along with some Aramaic and Greek (the Old Testament was later translated into the Greek Septuagint).--Which Translation of the Bible is the Best?--Trent Horn

The Protestant's OT is from the Jewish Canon created 2nd Century over 100 years AFTER Jesus' death.

//THEY were the custodians of those scripture from the beginning until 2000 years ago.//

Exactly! The 1st Jews had 46 books.

Then centuries later other Jews REMOVED 7 books.

BTW, the 1st King James edition HAD all 46 books of the OT.
---Nicole_Lacey on 12/20/18


Read These Insightful Articles About Jewelry


What scriptures were Jesus and the apostles teaching from since the new testament was not available? The gospels and the letters of the new testament are only a very small fraction of what was written about Jesus.
---Steveng on 12/20/18


Nicole_Lacey:

The plain fact is that Jews down throughout history, even to this day, hold all of what we consider the Old Testament (without Apocrypha) to be scripture, but don't hold the Apocrypha to be scripture. This is not according to ME. It is according to THEM, and THEY were the custodians of those scripture from the beginning until 2000 years ago.

We Christians also consider other books, i.e. the New Testament, to be scripture, which the Jews do not. However, we do not have the right to change what they consider scripture by adding to it.

The dictionary is just a record of words in popular use, NOT an infallible and inerrant record of Divinely Inspired Words that men cannot change.
---StrongAxe on 12/20/18


Nicole_Lacey:

I have NEVER heard of any Jews (except perhaps some fringe splinter groups) who consider either Macabbees or the Talmud to be scripture. Please show me any that do. I would be greatly interested in hearing it.

You used "inspired", but then assume it means exactly the same as "divinely inspired", which it doesn't. Many people say that Shakespeare's plays are "inspired", but that just means they're works of genius, not that they are Holy Words of Divine Inspiration.

Jews consider may consider Maccabees and Talmud to be inspired, while the Torah is Divinely Inspired. See the difference?
---StrongAxe on 12/19/18


StrongAxe: Still, that's not necessarily proof, as the Scrolls also include many other non-Biblical books.//

It doesn't mean a thing to you but to those Jews it does.

You reject the 7 books in my Bible because ACCORDING to you they are non-Biblical Books.

???

They are non-Biblical to you because they are NOT in Bible you wish to read and hold.

They are in my Bible, thus NOT non-Biblical.

People are making up words everyday that the dictionary has to add many of them every year.

So you can't hold a 1982 dictionary and tell me a word I said isn't a word because it isn't in YOUR dictionary.

I can prove it is a word by using MY 2017 dictionary.
---Nicole_Lacey on 12/19/18


Read These Insightful Articles About Furniture


StrongAxe, can you ACKNOWLEDGE that some Jews DO CONSIDER them Scripture? Sadducee and Pharisee didn't agree on Scripture.

//YOU chose the word "inspired" and are now choking on that gnat.//

WHAT?

Me? You are the one trying split the gnat in order to swallow it not me.

I am saying the words means the SAME and you are choking on it telling me they have different meanings.

Please tell me the difference between the words.

There isn't and that's why you are choking on it not me.

Googling doesn't mean a thing because the search engine will try to direct to the info by guessing.

If you type 'is it raining cats and dogs today?', the engine knows you want to know the weather for the day.
---Nicole_Lacey on 12/19/18


Nicole_Lacey:

Even though Jews revere the Books Maccabees and the Talmud, they DON'T consider them scripture. YOU chose the word "inspired" and are now choking on that gnat.

Yes, the Jews DO call their holy book The Bible. Have you ever actually been to a Jewish book store? You can buy a bible - that includes what we the Old Testament (without Apocrypha).
Google: jewish book store bible

I wasn't aware that any of the Apocrypha were among the Dead Sea Scrolls, but apparently 3 are. Still, that's not necessarily proof, as the Scrolls also include many other non-Biblical books. Jude quoted from the Book of Enoch, and Paul quoted pagan Greek philosophers.
---StrongAxe on 12/18/18


StrongAxe: There is a difference between "inspired" and "scripture".//

Scripture IS the inspired WORD of God.

If not, please tell me who inspired the Writers of Scripture?

Next, what kind of standard of holiness is Scripture if it ISN'T inspired by God?

Seriously, I wish to understand.

Talmud are men's writings from God's Word's which is the Torah.

That's like saying I hold the CCC at the same level as the Bible.

The CCC is BASED from the Bible.

//They don't include Maccabees in their bibles.//

They don't call their Holy Books 'Bibles.

Even the Dead Sea Scrolls has them.

'Jewish Holy Scriptures:The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha' by Michael E. Stone
---Nicole_Lacey on 12/18/18


Nicole_Lacey:

There is a difference between "inspired" and "scripture". Jews also revere the Talmud, but don't place it on the same level as the Torah. They don't include Maccabees in their bibles.

What is the nature of the "direct pipeline to God"? Again, since some people drinking from that pipe claim one thing and others drinking from supposedly the same pipe claim the exact opposite, they clearly BOTH can't be right. At least some of them BELIEVE they have a direct pipeline to God, yet are wrong in that belief. What OBJECTIVE way does a third party have of knowing whose pipeline is the correct one?
---StrongAxe on 12/18/18


Read These Insightful Articles About Laptops


The whole Bible deals with history.

No one really knows who wrote the Epistle of Hebrews.

The Author isn't known.

So to say the author of a book has to known in order to believe it has been approved by the Holy Spirit isn't correct.

Plus we don't know all the Authors of the Psalms.

David wrote most, but not all.

Both Books of Maccabees are inspired Books because the Jewish people hold them as inspired.

Maybe some on CN need to read the Maccabees book if you want to know want happen in the 1st Hanukkah.
'
Remember, the Jews as well think we made up the events with Christmas.

But they acknowledge our Holy Books that point to the 1st Christmas.
---Nicole_Lacey on 12/17/18


StrongAxe, the Holy Spirit is TRUTH. And we do have a DIRECT pipeline to God. Just because you don't LIKE the pipeline doesn't mean the pipeline doesn't exist.

//How can YOU or I OBJECTIVELY determine which is right? We can't.//

Jesus isn't cruel. Please read John 17. The whole chapter.

//ORIGINAL OT manuscripts were in Hebrew,//

No, most of the OT was in Hebrew. When they were in exile they wrote in Greek.

//It's possible for a book to contain truth without being scripture//

Not contain truth, but the WHOLE truth.

Just because you don't have the same scriptures the Jewish people doesn't mean you are right and they are wrong.

You refuse to explain Maccabees because it proves you wrong.
---Nicole_Lacey on 12/17/18


God chose certain people to be His spokesperson, Prophets, major and minor. So anyone can write anything they want, but it doesn't mean it's THE WORD OF GOD, as almost every book in the Bible says. I believe those who were trusted with the scriptures knew what was and wasn't THE WORD OF GOD.

The Maccabees recorded history, mentions no prophets etc. and since there is no proof the author was a prophet or anointed by God, it's just an historical piece of work like others that are man written and initiated by man alone and imbelished in parts without any back up scriptures to support. Just because there is art work with Mary and Jesus, doesn't prove they sat for the painting or even gave approval.
---kathr4453 on 12/17/18


Nicole_Lacey:

HS can objectively determine truth, but unless we have a direct pipeline to God, that doesn't help. Many people believe God guides them to Truth, yet arrive at different and incompatible truths, so some MUST be wrong. How can YOU or I OBJECTIVELY determine which is right? We can't.

ORIGINAL OT manuscripts were in Hebrew, with later translations like Septuagint in Greek. No Apocrypha were ever found in Hebrew. Why not?

I don't say Apocrypha books are lies, only that Jews didn't consider them scripture, and neither Jesus nor gospel writers ever quoted them. It's possible for a book to contain truth without being scripture or being infallible. Otherwise, why have libraries?
---StrongAxe on 12/16/18


Read These Insightful Articles About Lawyer


Cluny, rather than argue or debate here, which always ends badly with you, its easily looked up with many articles online. Some omit, and some have forbidden its reading, and some just have their own interpretation of what it means. Maybe this is news to you, but maybe you are not aware of all the different versions. No different than the issue with Acts 8:37 or any other issue with different versions.
---kathr4453 on 12/16/18


\\ Isaiah 53 is omited from some OT scriptures because some Jewish folks didn't want it in their scriptures. \\

Can you elaborate on this, such as telling us which MSS or printed versions of the
Tenakh omit it?

My understanding is that the standard rabinnic interpretation sees this passage as referring to the Jewish people as a whole, and no one in particular.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 12/15/18


StrongAxe: Who can OBJECTIVELY say which is correct?//

THE HOLY SPIRIT!

You are suggesting that God refuses to guide us to His Truth.

God is a God of Order NOT confusion.

//Of many Hebrew OT manuscripts, NONE include the Apocrypha.//

???

You said 'many' and NOT 'all'.

Anywho, many OT were WRITTEN in Greek not Hebrew. Which many Jewish Community ACCEPTED those texts.

These Books you REJECT has the story of Hanukkah.

So either you BELIEVE Hanukkah HAPPENED or you don't.

If you do believe it happened you have to ACKNOWLEDGE both books of Maccabees.

All these books were DECIDED in the 5th century.

10 centuries LATER no one should ADD or SUBTRACT from the Bible.
---Nicole_Lacey on 12/14/18


Nicole_Lacey:

Two people may arrive at different conclusions based on common sense. Who can OBJECTIVELY say which is correct?

Of many Hebrew OT manuscripts, NONE include the Apocrypha. This suggests it wasn't considered canonical then. Dead Sea Scrolls contain fragments from every non-Apocryphal OT book except Esther, but no Apocrypha.

It's also entirely possible God inspired editors to add to scripture later, and those edits are also considered scripture. For example, the Septuagint includes books not in the Hebrew, and some of those include extra chapters that not in the Hebrew. Might it not also be plausible that certain verses added into the New Testament after the fact may also be legitimate for similar reasons?
---StrongAxe on 12/12/18


Read These Insightful Articles About Dedicated Hosting


I see some omit, but cant find anything where it was added. Isaiah 53 is omited from some OT scriptures because some Jewish folks didn't want it in their scriptures. Yet we see it was these very scriptures in Isaiah 53 that Phillip was explaining to the Eunich in Acts 8:31-40. So this proves omitting something is not the same as adding something.

But the bottom line is....can it be supported by other scripture? YES, Romans 10:9-10 say the same thing. So, in that case, I see no issue here.
---kathr4453 on 12/12/18


StrongAxe: The oldest manuscripts of the Old Testament (i.e. the Hebrew ones, e.g. from the Dead Sea Scrolls) don't include the Apocrypha either, but that doesn't stop the Catholic church from considering it to be authentic.//

???

Some Jewish's Manuscript doesn't either and we consider it authentic.

So if you found a Bible with only 3 Gospels and only 4 letters from Paul you wouldn't think those were authentic?

The CC also believes most Protestant Bibles are authentic as well.

That is authentic but incomplete.
---Nicole_Lacey on 12/12/18


Who cares what or you think!

That's not how the Holy Spirit declares the TRUTH!

If I think 2 and 2 equal 5. You think it equals 7. Does it mean we are right because we believe the Holy Spirit spoke to our hearts?

NO!

The Holy Spirit rejects and is OFFENDED that we INVOLVED Him in our stupidity!

You would be also. Didn't you say you were a Teacher? Or was that Samuel?

Anywho, either you or him would be offended as well if a lad told people it was from your inspiration that he is certainty 4 and 5 equals 10!

Mormons and JW came to my home many times.

My sister and I have fed and comfort the Elders many times and even to this day.

It doesn't mean I leave my common sense at the doorstep.
---Nicole_Lacey on 12/12/18


Nicole_Lacey:

Yes. Unfortunately, what YOU think are the Holy Spirit's words isn't necessarily what I or anyone else does.

Mormons say we should pray to ask the Holy Spirit whether the Book of Mormon is the Word of God. They would all tell you that they received a "Yes" answer. I'm sure you would receive a "No" answer. Just because someone thinks the Holy Spirit told them something, it doesn't mean their interpretations of what they received from the Holy Spirit was, in fact, correct.

The oldest manuscripts of the Old Testament (i.e. the Hebrew ones, e.g. from the Dead Sea Scrolls) don't include the Apocrypha either, but that doesn't stop the Catholic church from considering it to be authentic.
---StrongAxe on 12/12/18


Read These Insightful Articles About Online Marketing


StrongAxe: Exactly, but unless you have the ORIGINAL manuscripts (which no longer exist), how do YOU know which one of two different manuscripts is more accurate?//

Really?

Remember, I said the Holy Spirit gave you common sense.

The Christians in the 5th century DIDN'T have the Original Apostles either, but due old manuscripts, TRADITION and prayer they figure out which Gospels and other books should be in the Bible.

There were several Gospels floating around.

If all OLD manuscripts didn't have V37, but the newest manuscripts were popping up with V37 what would you conclude?

V37 was invented.

Common Sense isn't common, but you don't fool me.

YOU ARE IN THE COMMON!
---Nicole_Lacey on 12/11/18


Nicole_Lacey:

You wrote: The first thing Ones wants in a Bible is ACCURACY.

Exactly, but unless you have the ORIGINAL manuscripts (which no longer exist), how do YOU know which one of two different manuscripts is more accurate?
---StrongAxe on 12/10/18


StrongAxe: There is no clear indication that one of these manuscripts is obviously better or more authentic than the others.//

Better?

Who looks at a Bible to see which is better?

The first thing Ones wants in a Bible is ACCURACY.

I don't want someone's opinion of WHAT he thinks should be in the Bible.

I rather have a Bible in another language for me to translate that is accurate than an English Bible that isn't accurate.

//Which one people think is better is a matter of fallible human opinion, since no Voice from Heaven has come down to earth to tell us.//

The Holy Spirit has blessed us with COMMON SENSE.

If the OLD manuscripts do NOT have V37, WHY would you want it now?
---Nicole_Lacey on 12/10/18


Nicole_Lacey:

When I look on Bible Gateway for "Acts 8:37 in all English translations", there are 24 that include it, and 9 that omit it. It is present in most of them. I didn't check other languages, but that should be easy enough to do.

Whether a verse is included or not depends on which manuscript is used to translate it from. Bible manuscripts are thousands of years old. They are far older than modern Protestant theological practices. There is no clear indication that one of these manuscripts is obviously better or more authentic than the others. Which one people think is better is a matter of fallible human opinion, since no Voice from Heaven has come down to earth to tell us.
---StrongAxe on 12/10/18


Read These Insightful Articles About VoIP Service


You've asked a good question, joseph.

Our English Epistle and Gospel books are based on the RSV, corrected according to the Greek liturgical books, which is yet a third text.

The OT of the Orthodox Church is the Septuagint.

The only modern English translation of it, to my knowledge, is sthe OT of the Orthodox Study Bible.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 12/10/18


Cluny, I usually use Protestant Bibles when using CN. So, as I was speaking to Barb, I was surprised to see V37 the online Biblehub.

I didn't recognize that verse in Bible, but did recognize those words living in the Bible belt.

So, I went to my Bible and it didn't have those words. It had the number 37 in parenthesis next to 38.

My Bible has the Ethiopian Eunuch telling Phillip there is water and jumps to V 38 of the Baptism.

Phillip isn't questioning the Eunuch about his faith in Jesus.
---Nicole_Lacey on 12/9/18


Act 8:37 -is included in The Textus Receptus, The Stephanus' edition from 1550. Which one does the Orthodox Church use Cluny?
---josef on 12/9/18


Copyright© 2017 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.