Does Jesus quote an apocryphal book in Matthew 23?

rakovsky

Well-known member
The version of the LXX that contained the Deuterocanon, which included the Greek additions to Daniel, wasn't until sometime after the first century AD. The version that Jesus & the apostles used did not include it, because the Deuterocanon was not laid up in the Temple, since the Sadducees who were the Jewish sect that was responsible for laying up books there did not accept the Deuterocanon. Also, according to John Martignoni from EWTN, the LXX was completed around 134 BC. Most (if not all) of the Deuterocanon was written or translated after this date. The later Masoretic Text compiled around AD 200 simply reflects the books that were in this BC version of the LXX, what was laid up in the Temple, & the version that Jesus & the apostles used, which all excluded the Deuterocanon.
How would one substantiate that the LXX in Jesus' time lacked the Deuterocanon? The definition of the LXX is malleable. It is technically only the 5 books of Torah translated by the LXX 70 Scribes. But in commonly parlance by scholars it means the Greek version of the OT Bible used in ancient times. So if one says, "The LXX does not include the Deuterocanon because the LXX is only the books of the Bible," then one is using circular reasoning in defining the LXX. You would have to prove that the LXX in particular lacked the Deuterocanon, not just that the Hebrew version or what one considers to be the OT canon lacks the Deuterocanon.

Scholars commonly consider some Deuterocanon books as written before 150 BC. Further, the Greek version does have differences from the Hebrew one when it comes to the same passages, and often the Greek NT uses the Greek version instead of the Hebrew one. Further, Greek was a lingua franca in the Middle East and the apostles knew Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Therefore, the fact that the Hebrew version was in the Temple does not disprove that Jesus and the apostles used the Greek version too.

Further, the NT repeatedly refers to ideas and passages specifically in the Deuterocanon. At the moment, I am listening to lectures on the books of the Deuterocanon, because I am not very familiar with them, and the narrator notes that the story of the widow with 7 dead husbands in Jesus' debate with the Sadducees is in Tobit.

Luther said that the Deuterocanon is useful reading, and I am learning new things that are alluded to in the NT.

The Muratorian Canon from c. 170-200 AD, one of the earliest Christian Bible lists, includes some of the Deuterocanon as being canonical.

If you were living in 50 AD or 200 AD in Italy, you would have a big mass of spiritual Jewish books in Greek, and they differed from the Hebrew OT used then in many of the same verses. The earliest Greek codexes as collections of Greek Bible books include the Deuterocanon. Further, the Greek version of Daniel has chapters called Deuterocanincal.

An early Christian Greek Bible translator, Origen, included some of the Deuterocanon in his translation:
Armin Lange writes in his “Canonical History of the Hebrew Bible” in the Textual History of the Bible Volume 1A (pp. 35–81),
Origen included at least Ben Sira, Wisdom of Solomon, and Judith into his Hexapla.
 

BornAgainRN

Active member
IMO The Masoretic is overall more reliable because it's in the original language, but it can't be said that the LXX is not reliable per se. The DSS have confirmed in numerous important places that the LXX is more reliable than the Masoretic.

One example is in Psalm 22 where the aggressors pierce, gouge, or like a lion my (the narrator's) limbs.

  • Most Masoretic texts say Karu or the ambiguous K'aru, meaning they dig/gouge, or something like that. A few Masoretic scrolls says K'ari, meaning like a lion.
  • Rabbinical translations prefer "like a lion."
  • The LXX has "they dig"/"they gouge"
  • The DSS, discovered in the 1940's, has K'aru.
Another case is Isaiah 53, when it talks about the Servant's experience after undergoing sacrifice. Currently there is a debate whether it says He sees light, implying life, and the Christian side says that it does, taking the chapter to entail resurrection.

  • The Masoretic says that God's servant shall see of his labor of his soul. As I recall, it looks like something could be grammatically missing in relation to the phrase "of the labor of his soul." That is, the phrase "shall see of his labor" sounds awkward, as if another word should be there. מֵעֲמַ֤ל נַפְשֹׁו֙ יִרְאֶ֣ה יִשְׂבָּ֔ע בְּדַעְתֹּ֗ו יַצְדִּ֥יק צַדִּ֛יק עַבְדִּ֖י לָֽרַבִּ֑ים וַעֲוֹנֹתָ֖ם ה֥וּא יִסְבֹּֽל׃
  • The LXX says that God shows the Servant light. "11δεῖξαι αὐτῷ φῶς καὶ πλάσαι τῇ συνέσει, δικαιῶσαι δίκαιον εὖ δουλεύοντα πολλοῖς, καὶ τὰς ἁμαρτίας αὐτῶν αὐτὸς ἀνοίσει."
  • The KJV follows the Masoretic and has: "He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied".
  • The DSS includes the word "light", which fits grammatically:
11 After the suffering of his soul,
he will see the light[1] and be satisfied.
My righteous servant will justify many by the knowledge of himself;
and he will bear their iniquities.

Source:
These have more to do with textual variants, as opposed to the contents of canonical books. While the NT writers utilized the LXX, they did occasionally deviate from it, such in Matthew's & John's Gospels & Revelation. The fact remains, the version of the LXX they used did not include the so-called "Deuterocanon."
 

rakovsky

Well-known member
The fact remains, the version of the LXX they used did not include the so-called "Deuterocanon."
BornAgain,
I don't think that this can be shown, as we do not have any statement from the 1st century of which books exactly the Greek mislabeled "LXX" collection contained. Even Josephus in the 1st century does not give us a book by book exact list of even the 22 Hebrew books that he says were in the Temple.

My guess is that the division between LXX and nonLXX Greek books is somewhat arbitrary and flexible, much like the definition of what the OT entailed for Christians in the 1st to 2nd century. This is because for example the Muratorian canon, one of the very oldest Christian canon lists, from c. 170-200 AD, includes Deuterocanonical books.

Considering that
A) the Greek versions of Psalms, Daniel, and Esther all have Deuterocaninical chapters, and
B) the LXX in common speech means the Greek version of the OT,
it seems most correct to say that the Greek version of the OT has at least some "Deuterocanonical" materials.

By the way, when the DSS were discovered, the Hebrew versions of Deuterocanonical books and materials like Psalm 151 were discovered among them along with the Protocanon.
 

BornAgainRN

Active member
BornAgain,
I don't think that this can be shown, as we do not have any statement from the 1st century of which books exactly the Greek mislabeled "LXX" collection contained. Even Josephus in the 1st century does not give us a book by book exact list of even the 22 Hebrew books that he says were in the Temple.

My guess is that the division between LXX and nonLXX Greek books is somewhat arbitrary and flexible, much like the definition of what the OT entailed for Christians in the 1st to 2nd century. This is because for example the Muratorian canon, one of the very oldest Christian canon lists, from c. 170-200 AD, includes Deuterocanonical books.

Considering that
A) the Greek versions of Psalms, Daniel, and Esther all have Deuterocaninical chapters, and
B) the LXX in common speech means the Greek version of the OT,
it seems most correct to say that the Greek version of the OT has at least some "Deuterocanonical" materials.

By the way, when the DSS were discovered, the Hebrew versions of Deuterocanonical books and materials like Psalm 151 were discovered among them along with the Protocanon.
We know that the books that were laid up in the Temple were laid up by the Sadducees whose canon did not accept the Deuterocanon. According to John Martignoni from EWTN, the LXX was completed by around 134 BC, which was before most (if not all) of the Deuterocanon was either written or translated into Greek (even Sirach wasn't translated until around 120 BC by his grandson). Baba Bathra 14b enumerates the identical list of the second division of "the Prophets" from the Protestant OT, and states this was based on what "the rabbans taught," which the phrase was first borne by Gamaliel I, who was the mentor of the apostle Paul. The Greek additions to Daniel & Esther, as well as Psalm 151, were written centuries later after their Hebrew/Aramaic predecessors were written. The DSS had a huge library, including books not found in Catholic OTs. And they viewed the books from the Hebrew Bible differently from the Deuterocanon.

The concept of a 22 book canon dates back to Jubilees a couple hundred years before Christ, around the time of Judas Maccabeus. The 22 book canon that Josephus speaks of could not include the Deuterocanon, based on how books were combined, but included every book from the Hebrew Bible.
 

rakovsky

Well-known member
We know that the books that were laid up in the Temple were laid up by the Sadducees whose canon did not accept the Deuterocanon.
According to John Martignoni from EWTN, the LXX was completed by around 134 BC, which was before most (if not all) of the Deuterocanon was either written or translated into Greek (even Sirach wasn't translated until around 120 BC by his grandson).
Baba Bathra 14b enumerates the identical list of the second division of "the Prophets" from the Protestant OT, and states this was based on what "the rabbans taught," which the phrase was first borne by Gamaliel I, who was the mentor of the apostle Paul.
The Greek additions to Daniel & Esther, as well as Psalm 151, were written centuries later after their Hebrew/Aramaic predecessors were written. The DSS had a huge library, including books not found in Catholic OTs. And they viewed the books from the Hebrew Bible differently from the Deuterocanon.

The concept of a 22 book canon dates back to Jubilees a couple hundred years before Christ, around the time of Judas Maccabeus. The 22 book canon that Josephus speaks of could not include the Deuterocanon, based on how books were combined, but included every book from the Hebrew Bible.
BornAgain,
I recall discussing with someone about the Deuterocanon/Apocrypha last year here on CARM and the person mentioned Josephus having 22 books listed for the OT. This is good information because Josephus is an important source for information on 1st century Judaism and even Christianity.

I have seen lists of 22 OT books that include Deuterocanonical texts. This is because the "22 books" that you are talking about are not really what Jews or Christians today would normally count as "22 books." Protestants count 39 books in the OT. The rabbis today accept these same books, but number them as 24. The reason is that some of those "books" actually include other books, and this is certainly the case, considering that Jews and Christians normally count much more than 22 books in even the Protocanon of the Protestant OT. Some of the enumerations of the "22 books" that includes other books, as I recall, count multiple books of Jeremiah and Ezra as either just Jeremiah or Ezra. For example, in the Protocanon of the OT, we have both "Jeremiah" and "Lamentations", which is also called the "Lamentations of Jeremiah". Then in the Deuterocanon we have the "Epistle of Jeremiah" and "Baruch", who was Jeremiah's scribe. There is a book called Ezra in the Protocanon, and also a separate Greek-language book in the Orthodox Deuterocanon called "Esdras". On the other hand, Josephus' acceptance of "22 books" suggests that he didn't accept the full Deuterocanon, such as Maccabees, as being canonical.

One issue is whether when we establish the OT "canon", do we need to follow what the Jewish establishment of the 1st century AD followed, or should try to look for what the Christian Church defines as the canon.. I can see arguments both for and against following either. It seems that since we are talking about Christianity, we would actually more precisely look to see how Christianity, especially of Jesus, the apostles, and the NT, defines the canon. To give an analogy, the rabbinical establishment did not consider John the Baptist to be an OT prophet, but Christianity looks at John that way. I find it remarkable that almost all of the NT was written in Greek and quotes quite often from the "LXX"/Greek version of the OT instead of the Hebrew version. This implies to me that the OT authors found the pre-Christian Greek version of the OT to be legitimate.

In general, my impression of the early Church fathers, both in the 1st-2nd century AD, as well as the Church fathers before the Reformation, is that typically they accepted some, but not all of the Deuterocanon. More specifically, the Eastern Fathers typically accepted only some of the Deuterocanon, and which books of the Deuterocanon that they accepted varied between the fathers.

The Muratorian Canon from the 2nd century AD seems to be the first official collective "canon", and it accepts the Deuterocanonical book of Solomon. IIRC, much of the text of the Muratorian canon has been lost where it would talk about the OT books. But my guess is that it just would most likely have just accepted the Protocanon (the TaNaKh). You can read the text here:
bible-researcher.com/muratorian.html

I researched the status of the Deuterocanon more after my conversation with you, and am still learning more about it. I found that before the Reformation, the Christian Church did not have a solid consensus on their status, and that the Orthodox Church still doesn't today. Typically the Greek Church since the Counter-Reformation considers the Deuterocanon to be Canon, whereas the Russian Church tends not to, but still considers it part of "Church Tradition." In contrast, Protestants and Catholics each have a pretty rigid idea of the boundary of the OT canon since the Reformation. Personally, I can see arguments on either side.

Let me address more specifically what you wrote above:
- The Sadduccees put the books in the Temple and they didn't accept the Deuterocanon. This implies that they didn't include the Deuterocanon in their Temple books, as they didn't accept it. However, the Pharisees didn't accept most of the 22 books of the Protocanon either as canon - it's commonly considered that they only accepted the 5 books of the Torah. So in fact, whether the Sadducees accepted something as canon doesn't seem to decide whether they put a book in the Temple with the Torah or not. That is, they also included the Pharisees' TaNaKh (the 22 books).
- I don't see how the completion of the LXX by 134 BC would eliminate the Deuterocanon from the canon, because most of the Deuterocanon has been found in Hebrew form in the Dead Sea Scrolls, together with the Biblical canon. One theory is that the Dead Sea Scrolls were placed at Qumran by Temple priests, and this discovery shows that most of the Deuterocanon was originally made in Hebrew.
- Is Baba Bathra part of the Talmud, written in 200-500 AD? By that time, I think that the Tanakh would have been standard in official Judaism as their canon. I remember hearing a theory that Jamnia (70 AD) didn't establish the rabbis' canon, but I'm inclined to think that the rabbis' canon was rather solid at that point.
- The special sections of Daniel were arguably written in Hebrew and at the same time as the Protocanonical portion. One evidence is that there is an "Old Greek" LXX version of these three sections and a separate 2nd century Greek version included in Theodotion's 2nd century translation of Daniel. These two versions are so different that it implies that both Greek translators were working with a separate Hebrew original, according to the Orthodox Encyclopedia (www.pravenc.ru)
- Psalm 151 was found at the end of the "Great Psalter" at Qumran, put together with the protocanonical Psalms.
- Jubilees doesn't appear to specify 22 books of the OT canon. An article online pointed to Jubilees 2:23 as supporting the idea of 22 OT books, but the verse only says:
"There (were) two and twenty heads of mankind from Adam to Jacob, and two and twenty kinds of work were made until the seventh day; this is blessed and holy; and the former also is blessed and holy; and this one serves with that one for sanctification and blessing."

My expectation is that the official Jewish establishment in the start of the 1st century AD just accepted the TaNaKh that the rabbis in the Talmud did. I recall reading on CARM that some pre-Christian rabbinical source treated just the Protocanon (Tanakh) as canonical. But the issue is not clear to me. We've found versions of the TaNaKh that agree with the LXX in places over the rabbis' most common version of the TaNaKh, and some of these places appear more original and are used in Christian Bibles. One example is the word "light" appearing in the LXX version of Isaiah 53. I also sense that the Christian OT canon in the 1st century was rather fluid on the Deuterocanon topic. There are a decent number of allusions and citations of the Deuterocanon in the NT and 1st-2nd century patristics.

Interesting discussion.
 

GeneZ

Well-known member
I have color-coded the relevant passages here for comparison. If He isn't literally quoting 2 Esdras, it certainly looks like He is alluding to it and assumes His audience would be familiar with it.

2 Esdras 1:30-33

"I gathered you together, as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings: but now, what shall I do unto you? I will cast you out from my face. When ye offer unto me, I will turn my face from you: for your solemn feastdays, your new moons, and your circumcisions, have I forsaken. I sent unto you my servants the prophets, whom ye have taken and slain, and torn their bodies in pieces, whose blood I will require of your hands, saith the Lord. Thus saith the Almighty Lord, Your house is desolate, I will cast you out as the wind doth stubble."

Matthew 23:34-39

"Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord."
Keep in mind.... apocryphal books do contain some truth. Its where they err that designates them to the reject bin.
 

rakovsky

Well-known member
Keep in mind.... apocryphal books do contain some truth. Its where they err that designates them to the reject bin.
GeneZ,
Also keep in mind that some of what Protestants call "apocryphal" might better not be called that way. "Apocryphal" means hidden and has a negative tone, like it contains errors.

However, this is actually not necessarily the case, even by Protestant standards. Luther commended the story of Susanna, one of the special LXX sections of the Book of Daniel, and wrote that it didn't have theological errors. Instead of "hiding" this book from readers, he included what Luther called the "Apocrypha" in his 1534 Bible. One need not even from a Protestant POV have a negative view toward the "Apocrypha's" texts. Just a few days ago I saw the story of Bel and the Dragon, another special LXX Daniel story, being promoted on a "Kosher Kids" Jewish Youtube channel.

The term "apocryphal" probably better applies to really doubtful texts like the "Infancy Gospel of Thomas" that are not part of Christian Tradition. The special sections of Daniel however were deliberately promoted within the official Christian heritage writings for centuries, even if for centuries there has also been debate over whether these sections should be called "Canon".

To be clear, in the EO Tradition, the "Deuterocanon" is not "apocryphal" or called "Apocrypha", but rather EOs have for centuries had opposing views on whether it should be called "canonical" or "noncanonical".

Many people don't think much about it, but Catholics also don't accept the whole "Apocrypha" either. 2 Esdras, which this thread focuses on, is not part of the Catholic "Canon" or "Deuterocanon", for instance. It's in the KJV "apocrypha" though, and at least for a long time the RCs put it in an appendix to their Bible.
 

GeneZ

Well-known member
GeneZ,
Also keep in mind that some of what Protestants call "apocryphal" might better not be called that way. "Apocryphal" means hidden and has a negative tone, like it contains errors.

However, this is actually not necessarily the case, even by Protestant standards. Luther commended the story of Susanna, one of the special LXX sections of the Book of Daniel, and wrote that it didn't have theological errors. Instead of "hiding" this book from readers, he included what Luther called the "Apocrypha" in his 1534 Bible. One need not even from a Protestant POV have a negative view toward the "Apocrypha's" texts. Just a few days ago I saw the story of Bel and the Dragon, another special LXX Daniel story, being promoted on a "Kosher Kids" Jewish Youtube channel.

The term "apocryphal" probably better applies to really doubtful texts like the "Infancy Gospel of Thomas" that are not part of Christian Tradition. The special sections of Daniel however were deliberately promoted within the official Christian heritage writings for centuries, even if for centuries there has also been debate over whether these sections should be called "Canon".

To be clear, in the EO Tradition, the "Deuterocanon" is not "apocryphal" or called "Apocrypha", but rather EOs have for centuries had opposing views on whether it should be called "canonical" or "noncanonical".

Many people don't think much about it, but Catholics also don't accept the whole "Apocrypha" either. 2 Esdras, which this thread focuses on, is not part of the Catholic "Canon" or "Deuterocanon", for instance. It's in the KJV "apocrypha" though, and at least for a long time the RCs put it in an appendix to their Bible.
If you found a pastor who can teach the Bible exegetically and soundly? You would not get to finish in your lifetime what has been canonized.


Men who teach like that are today rare to find. When the Church started out they many spoke and knew the original languages, so finding a good exegetical teacher was more likely.... Then the 'dark ages' started. That is when sound teaching ceased to be found as a norm... Today its an oddity yet can be found if the Spirit opens the right doors..
 

rakovsky

Well-known member
If you found a pastor who can teach the Bible exegetically and soundly?
Have you heard of Dr. Michael Brown, Gene? I like him because he does a good job getting into the Hebrew of Tanakh from a Christian POV and makes it fun. He wrote several volumes titled Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, and the series is well written and detailed.
You would not get to finish in your lifetime what has been canonized.
Maybe a term for the Deuterocanon might be "semi-canonical" scriptures, if one is to speak of their place in Christianity broadly, as well as in the early 1st-2nd century AD Church. A couple 2nd century AD Church fathers and major writings refer to Wisdom of Solomon as canon, for instance. Your words remind me of how much there is in the Bible, and how the Deuterocanon adds even more on top: I'm reading the Wisdom of Solomon in a few translations, and its reference to wood that brings righteousness (Wisdom 14:7) gives me such a hint of the Cross that it makes me think that the author might have been Christian. The other option is that he was pointing to a concept or metaphor/figure that resembles the Christian Cross enough that the NT writers seem to have alluded to the concept in a few places (Acts and Galatians). See message 20 here:

Peace - Shalom
 

GeneZ

Well-known member
Have you heard of Dr. Michael Brown, Gene? I like him because he does a good job getting into the Hebrew of Tanakh from a Christian POV and makes it fun. He wrote several volumes titled Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, and the series is well written and detailed.
Is this whom you speak of?

 

rakovsky

Well-known member
Is this whom you speak of?
I didn't know he does tongues. Oh well. I still find him a good speaker about the Tanakh from a Christian POV. For all I know he could also be an MJ, but it wouldn't stop me from finding value in his explanations.

Right now I am reading translations of the Deuterocanon and listening to audio commentaries. Jewish and MJ POVs I find relevant to learning about them. Can you understand Hebrew?
What percent of observant Jews in America do you think can understand Hebrew's basics, like at the level that regular public school students can understand Spanish or French?
I made a thread asking a Hebrew question:

Daniel is canonical, but it has three special Septuagint sections that are Deuterocanonical/Semi-canonical (whatever the right word should be). There are two quite different ancient Greek translations of these three special sections, so one theory is that they were originally in Hebrew or Aramaic. Most of the Deuterocanon was actually originally written in Hebrew/Aramaic, as the finds in the DSS show. But for very many centuries they were only known in their preserved, Greek form.
 

GeneZ

Well-known member
I didn't know he does tongues. Oh well. I still find him a good speaker about the Tanakh from a Christian POV. For all I know he could also be an MJ, but it wouldn't stop me from finding value in his explanations.

Right now I am reading translations of the Deuterocanon and listening to audio commentaries. Jewish and MJ POVs I find relevant to learning about them. Can you understand Hebrew?
What percent of observant Jews in America do you think can understand Hebrew's basics, like at the level that regular public school students can understand Spanish or French?
I made a thread asking a Hebrew question:

Daniel is canonical, but it has three special Septuagint sections that are Deuterocanonical/Semi-canonical (whatever the right word should be). There are two quite different ancient Greek translations of these three special sections, so one theory is that they were originally in Hebrew or Aramaic. Most of the Deuterocanon was actually originally written in Hebrew/Aramaic, as the finds in the DSS show. But for very many centuries they were only known in their preserved, Greek form.
When I was attending a Bible college the professor of ancient languages gave credit to the following teacher for an excellent teaching of the creation account that he had presented. This professor served as a translator for the military intelligence during WWll and was affiliated with Harvard. This is who he recommended to me one night just before church service. https://rbthieme.org/index.html#tabs-3

My Jewish father found he was the only pastor he would listen to. This is not your ordinary teaching.
 

Gary Mac

Well-known member
I believe God inspired the men compiling the canon as much as he inspired the writing of scripture.
Therefore everything not in the Canon is not in there for a reason.
It is interesting for me that the Bible was assembled by a group of men who took all these documents and said. I like this let’s put on law. Oh no do not like this let’s not put it in there and the real kicker is it was authorized by a king that didn’t even believe in God.

If you took out everything on the book that man wrote from their own experiences and formed opinions and wrote it down as law and said this is the way of God and only quoted that what Jesus said of himself and his God he obeyed and prayed to — you would have a whole different gospel.

Most follow Paul’s doctrine instead of Jesus because they can relate to being the sinner as Paul was but they can’t relate to being perfect even as your Father in heaven is perfect,righteous, holy,pure, and without sin as is the way of Jesus

In that the Bible was assembled by people who saw the need for someone else to teach them his ways such as Paul instead of Jesus in his ways to be like him instead of like Paul who most are like who claim to be of Christ when in fact that are not of Christ they are of Paul instead.

Perspective is everything in Christendom for either you are as the one God sent for you to be like and without sin or you are of the one who was the sinner and said he used trickery to get people to follow him on his ways instead.

These who assembled and put into cannon were of their own beliefs for their god instead of being like the quotes from Jesus. For if they had from God that what Kesus had from Him Paul never would have been mentioned other than trying to get people to follow him on his ways instead of Jesus on his way of the Father.
 

Gary Mac

Well-known member
The fact that two people use the same phrase doesn't mean that one is quoting the other.
That is correct, many times I express God manifest Himself in me and my own experiences and someone will point to me it was a quote from the Bible when in fact it wasn't but only testimonies of how God manifest Himself in me just as He did in Jesus and others we read of.
 

Manfred

Well-known member
who took all these documents and said. I like this let’s put on law.
Shows how ignorant you are.
Do you really, really believe they based it on what they "liked"

You should endeavor to pick up a book and study these things before you make ignorant comments like these.

Prove to us that they picked things based on what they "liked" or on what tickled their ears.

You hate the truth Gary. The truth stands in direct opposition to you. You claim to be a christ, just like jesus was a christ, and cannot find that in scripture. So the logical thing for you to do do would be to question the authenticity of scripture and find some text that agrees with what you "like"
Then you want to say, well now that is scripture, because I Garry a little christ, like what that one says.

You who deny that God came in the flesh, is antichrist and you therefore cannot stand the Word of God.
 

GeneZ

Well-known member
Shows how ignorant you are.
Do you really, really believe they based it on what they "liked"

You should endeavor to pick up a book and study these things before you make ignorant comments like these.

Prove to us that they picked things based on what they "liked" or on what tickled their ears.

You hate the truth Gary. The truth stands in direct opposition to you. You claim to be a christ, just like jesus was a christ, and cannot find that in scripture. So the logical thing for you to do do would be to question the authenticity of scripture and find some text that agrees with what you "like"
Then you want to say, well now that is scripture, because I Garry a little christ, like what that one says.

You who deny that God came in the flesh, is antichrist and you therefore cannot stand the Word of God.
Until I figured out how to use the Ignore feature in this forum? The likes of Gary used to be a discouragement to coming here.
 

Gary Mac

Well-known member
Shows how ignorant you are.
I see' so you do not believe that 110 scholars king James assembled to go through all the writings and put into cannon and you accuse me of ignorance? LOL.
Do you really, really believe they based it on what they "liked"
Absolutely. and authorized by a king that didn't even believe in God . And you call me ignorant?
You should endeavor to pick up a book and study these things before you make ignorant comments like these.
I would suggest that to you all. Search how the KJV came about and see for yourself how it came about.

I have read the book of Enoch -- Tell me why the Book of Enoch was not added it is as valid about God as any that is in there, and in some cases closer to the ways of God then Paul ever was. ,
Prove to us that they picked things based on what they "liked" or on what tickled their ears.
I just did.
You hate the truth Gary.
It is more like you are ignorant of the truth isn't it?
The truth stands in direct opposition to you.
No' only the creed you are chained to is in opposition to the ways of God. .
You claim to be a christ,
Nope' I have the mind of Christ, received Gods mind, Gods anointing who Christ is, so did Jesus in Matt 3:16. You just never have met the Christ. You cant relate to being anointed of God yourself, which is Christ in you, or is supposed to be in you. You dont haver a clue who Christ is. That is so obvious in your rejection to have the Christ and be Gods anointed yourself.
just like jesus was a christ, and cannot find that in scripture.
You cant find where Jesus was Gods anointed? Man and you come here trying to teach me about the Christ? Typical for religious minds who dont have a clue who Christ is from lack in being Gods anointed by His same Spirit be in you who was in Christ Jesus. He was anointed of God as well.
So the logical thing for you to do do would be to question the authenticity of scripture and find some text that agrees with what you "like"
Then you want to say, well now that is scripture, because I Garry a little christ, like what that one says.
I dont go by what man says. All I have to go by is what someone quoted of Jesus and wrote it down, anything else from anyone else such as Paul, or you, has their own religious take on who Jesus was, who Christ is, who God is, and where heaven is.

And in that Jesus was clear that in that day I will ask Jesus noting but go to the Father for myself and He will give it me. I obeyed and did just as Jesus did in Matt 3:16.
You who deny that God came in the flesh, is antichrist and you therefore cannot stand the Word of God.
You who believe that God became a man hasn't a clue that God is a Spirit and He came to that man by His Spirit and opens who He is and all of His heaven to Jesus. Matt 3:16.

You haven't read the book have you for had you you would know that God is a Spirit and never has changed from day one, But you have changed your gods to be in your image is all and is antichrist.

You haven't learned yet that God is a Spirit and man is the temple of Him, He comes into mans flesh He is not flesh.

And Jesus was clear that Spirit doesnt have flesh and bone as you see me. You see his flesh you dont see the Spirit that was in that man and the reason you make all these false assessments from a mind that is depraved.

You dont even read the book do you to see these things in there. If have read it it is very clear that you dont believe it.

And that my friend is antichrist if you have not come to that day Jesus spoke of where God Himself will give you His will just as He did in Jesus. You dont follow Jesus at all, you make Jesus follow you in your laws you have made up to govern your religious beliefs, which is antichrist and you have no intent of being that person of Christ that God outs into man by His Spirit to be anointed of Him.
 

Manfred

Well-known member
I see' so you do not believe that 110 scholars king James assembled to go through all the writings and put into cannon and you accuse me of ignorance? LOL.
Not talking about the King James Gary. Talking about the Canon of scripture.
I said they did not pick anything based on what tickled their ears or what they liked.

Your ignorance keeps shining through.

Your belief that you and jesus are equals and that God did not become flesh is what tickles your ears. So you fo and look for support outside of Scripture and then claim the men that were used of God to compile the Canon of scripture were not inspired but purely went on what they liked, or what tickled their ears.

Time to pick up a book and learn something useful Gary
 

Gary Mac

Well-known member
Not talking about the King James Gary. Talking about the Canon of scripture.
I said they did not pick anything based on what tickled their ears or what they liked.
Sure they did for had they not Pauls writing never would have made it in there if it came to Jesus compiling the book.
Your ignorance keeps shining through.
I know, so was Jesus accused of ignorance and blasphemer as well for the same things.
Your belief that you and jesus are equals and that God did not become flesh is what tickles your ears.
You dont understand, that is not a belief. God came to me just as He did in Jesus in Matt 3:16, just as He did in Adam and he became like God to know this difference, it is that He is not come to you that you may know that difference is all. He came to Abraham the same, He came to Moses the same, He came to Jesus the same Matt 3:16, He came to 120 in an upper room the same as He does in all who will receive Him.

You just refuse to do the same that you may know Him as all of these learn of Him. it is any My Spirit says the Lord.
So you fo and look for support outside of Scripture and then claim the men that were used of God to compile the Canon of scripture were not inspired but purely went on what they liked, or what tickled their ears.
Exactly just as all denominations do today.

Read what the Catholics put in their according to their beliefs.
Look what the Mormons put in their according to their beliefs.
Look what Baptiasts, Methodists, COCs, AOGs, and you name it pout in there.

Can you not see the opinions of all of these editing the book to suit what they like in it? If you cant see mans inclusions then you are blinded by it.
Time to pick up a book and learn something useful Gary
Actually it is better for me to put on Gods mind and let Him interpret His ways Manfred.

I follow Jesus and here is what he said for me to do, that in that day I shall ask him noting but go to the Father for myself and He will give it me. Obviously you have not made it to that point of following Jesus in that and is confined to what others has to say about their beliefs for a god. And you can hear these beliefs from all these different pulpits.

I dont mean to sound rude or heady, or egotistical, it is just better for me to receive from God Himself His will just as Jesus made that same choice in Matt 3:16.

Jesus was confined to these very lawyers even at a young age and taught these very laws in the temples but the moment God came to him and opened up a new heaven and earth in that man the very lawyers he once was are the very pones who had him crucified for blaspheme did they not?

And this is exactly how you are viewing me. I am a blasphemer to you for the very same way Jesus was to the same who had to rely on Law that he once was of, and mind you the book is law. And man established the law.

But in the event when God comes and opens up who He is and all of His heaven to you the law changes. It goes from trying to follow the law of dont kill, dont steal, dont chase the neighbors wife, to Be as I Am, walk as He walks in His same light as Jesus did, Be ye therefore perfect even as your Father in heaven is perfect, holy, pure, and without sin. It is who we become it is who I Am in Him. Same mind, same light, same everything that He is.

Do you know what that is to be exactly like Him as He commands of us? I do' the same way Jesus did,Matt 3:16, the same way, Adam, Moses, Abraham, the same way 120 did in an upper room no different at all.

It is God Who does the educating and by sanctification the son of God is formed in me where I transform my natural life into a spiritual life by obedience to God just as Jesus was transformed through obedience.

Most do not put God first literally they have their own reservations for beliefs about a god. But when faith is actually achieved it is something further than sanctification, we become like Him.

Not many know what it is to be like Him as He commands of us all if we are to be of His will. Do you know what it is to be like Him? I do, I have His same mind, or Spirit the book calls the mind. I can tell you what the simplicity of having is if you are interested.
 
Top