The Allah Of The Quran And The God Of The Bible Are Not The same

Fly · January 14, 2015

As was stated earlier I think by Markinsa, bible teachings harmonize from Gen to Rev, when a teaching or text is found not to harmonize with the bibles theme, it’s most likely false. The KJV and KJ 1611 can be used to gain true bible understanding just as well as any, for some it could be more difficult when not uses to reading old English, but still a good translation.

I prefer translations that have Gods name restored as well.

Fly · January 14, 2015

Keep in mind the apocrypha are not inspired so not part of bible canon.

The internal evidence of these Apocryphal writings weigh heavily against their canonicity. They are completely lacking in the prophetic element. Their contents and teachings at times contradict those of the canonical books and are also contradictory within themselves. They are rife with historical and geographic inaccuracies and anachronisms. The writers in some cases are guilty of dishonesty in falsely representing their works as those of earlier inspired writers. They show themselves to be under pagan Greek influence, and at times resort to an extravagance of language and literary style wholly foreign to the inspired Scriptures. Two of the writers imply that they were not inspired. (See the Prologue to Ecclesiasticus; 2 Maccabees 2:24-32; 15:38-40, Dy.) Thus, it may be said that the best evidence against the canonicity of the Apocrypha is the Apocrypha itself.

Djorgie · January 14, 2015

Keep in mind the apocrypha are not inspired so not part of bible canon.

The internal evidence of these Apocryphal writings weigh heavily against their canonicity. They are completely lacking in the prophetic element. Their contents and teachings at times contradict those of the canonical books and are also contradictory within themselves. They are rife with historical and geographic inaccuracies and anachronisms. The writers in some cases are guilty of dishonesty in falsely representing their works as those of earlier inspired writers. They show themselves to be under pagan Greek influence, and at times resort to an extravagance of language and literary style wholly foreign to the inspired Scriptures. Two of the writers imply that they were not inspired. (See the Prologue to Ecclesiasticus; 2 Maccabees 2:24-32; 15:38-40, Dy.) Thus, it may be said that the best evidence against the canonicity of the Apocrypha is the Apocrypha itself.

Absolutely agree!

Sorry, didn't mean to imply that I thought the Apocrypha was actually a part of Scripture. It just happens to be included in the 1769 edition APP that i use. i have probably only read it twice just because it was there LOL...

Definitely pagan Greek influenced as you said. Oddly so are many of the traditions of Modern Christianity.

I also agree with the fact that the Bible completely harmonizes, interprets and proves itself. There are no other writings in history that can do what it does. There is no other book that contains hundreds of prophasies that have been fullfilled just as they were told they would be... The Scriptures were written over a couple of thousand years or so by many men who never knew one another and yet the words they wrote tell the same story because they were all divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Well, I guess i departed slightly from the original topic of this thread (allah not being God and a truine gohead) so, I guess before anyone gets technical about that i will end with this...

If anyone reading this has never given YHWH/God a chance please just reconsider and open your heart... Yahushua/Jesus paid the only price that could have been paid for what we really deserve and he did it out of love and because His Father, our Creator loves us so much that he couldn't stand to see us die an eternal death he made this possible.

We can live forever. We can have an eternal life that has no hate or pain, no killing, no sorrow, no sickness and no evil period. You don't have to go to a church, or put a label on yourself or make a spectacle of yourself...

All you have to do is open your heart to him and ask for him to come to you and he will. Ask that he help you to see your sinful nature for what it really is so that you may be able to truly repent for your sins. Pray to him, talk to him... and start reading his Word.

You WILL know his presence and you will shed many tears as that old man is peeled away. Ask him for forgiveness of the sinful life you have lived and ask that he free you from those shackles, whatever they may be. Whatever you have done in the past doesn't matter. He will forgive you and make you new in Yahushua/Jesus. You will become a new creature. You wil no longer desire the things of this world and you will litterally see things through the new eyes he has given you and it is undescribably wonderful and fulfilling if you surrender yourself to him.

Love and blessings in Yahushua HaMashiach

pluMmet · January 14, 2015

There was no "editing" of the Bible mss by those at Nicea. There were some minor corrections made after 1947 and time had been given to studying the Dead Sea Scrolls, but again these were minor and did not effect the teaching and doctrines of the body of Christ.

I can see that you have read some type of information concerning this... I can also see that you have not read the Gnostic Scriptures yourself.

If you had there is no way you could downplay the numerous, major and minor alterations to the works that are the Bible.

My favorite minor change that I like to convey to help people understand the gravity of how different the Bible is from the original texts is the Herder Story.

It goes something like this:

Bible - A man had 100 sheep... 1 sheep went astray and he left the 99 to go find it.

Original- A man had 100 sheep... His best sheep went astray so he left the 99 to go find it.

The impact of that 'minor' change is the difference between a rational decision and an emotional one.

If you or anyone wishes to dive head long into the original Genesis from The Apocryphon of John I would be glad of it.

http://gnosis.org/naghamm/apocjn-davies.html

For those with light fortitude (I'm talking to you Fly) who will read the first few words and say this is not about Christ and quit be assured that if you march forward you will see that it is...

ie. "Twelve realms stand before the Son of the Powerful

The autogenes

The Christ

Through the intention

And the grace

Of the Invisible Spirit

Twelve realms belong to the Son of the autogenes."

This is the information that the The Council of Nicea thought was too hard to understand... at first it can be overwhelming but that is no excuse for what they did IMHO.

Nelg · January 14, 2015

I can see that you have read some type of information concerning this... I can also see that you have not read the Gnostic Scriptures yourself.

If you had there is no way you could downplay the numerous, major and minor alterations to the works that are the Bible.

My favorite minor change that I like to convey to help people understand the gravity of how different the Bible is from the original texts is the Herder Story.

It goes something like this:

Bible - A man had 100 sheep... 1 sheep went astray and he left the 99 to go find it.

Original- A man had 100 sheep... His best sheep went astray so he left the 99 to go find it.

The impact of that 'minor' change is the difference between a rational decision and an emotional one.

If you or anyone wishes to dive head long into the original Genesis from The Apocryphon of John I would be glad of it.

http://gnosis.org/naghamm/apocjn-davies.html

For those with light fortitude (I'm talking to you Fly) who will read the first few words and say this is not about Christ and quit be assured that if you march forward you will see that it is...

ie. "Twelve realms stand before the Son of the Powerful

The autogenes

            The Christ

Through the intention

                        And the grace

            Of the Invisible Spirit

Twelve realms belong to the Son of the autogenes."

This is the information that the The Council of Nicea thought was too hard to understand... at first it can be overwhelming but that is no excuse for what they did IMHO.

Thanks for responding. I have read all the all the Gnostic writing that we have. All the "translations" of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the history behind them. My limited answer was because of the limited space we have here, and, it can be "dusty" writing if there is little interest. Plus, it can be extensive in the "supposed" changes and how the translators and committee came to their decisions on the text under consideration.

But if one is looking for a exactness in points that make little or no difference to what the texts are teaching, then it is going to be a "hunt" that I am not interested in considering. Now if it makes a major difference to what is being taught, then we can discuss it. I understand your concern with the "one" sheep or the "favorite" sheep in the parable, but again it makes little difference to the teaching. The Great Shepherd has loving concern for the sheep no matter which sheep is lost or in danger.

Nelg · January 14, 2015

One more point.

There are good reasons for what is left out of the Bible. The material written after the 1st century and without the necessary qualification of being written by the apostles and prophets, those writings were not considered; The Apocryphon of John does not fall into that category.

(I went in to add this to my post above, but couldn't.)

pluMmet · January 14, 2015

@ Nelg

A little history of the Dead Sea Scrolls is in order to put your words into prospective.

The Dead Sea Scrolls were found in a cave by a young fellow and by the time any academics became aware of them the fellows mother had burned several of them in place of wood as she saw no value in them.

When the academics made a report of the find the Vatican hastily took possession of them and hid them away.

Some years later another cache of Gnostic Scripture was found but these academics having been burned by the Vatican in that last discovery digitally scanned and released the documents before anyone could hide the evidence.

Now we have that entire set of Scripture the Nag Hammadi Library which was never pre-scanned and reviewed for release.

The Vatican was now stuck. No lie about what had been hidden would do... just the best possible planned approved release of the Dead Sea Scrolls could have a chance to keep the charade up.

We also have people (apparently like you) who only study the Dead Sea Scrolls that are "Vatican Approved."

So when I hear you say that the differences are small and make no real difference I just laugh at the Naivety of it.

1. The differences are very important.

2. The real way to see what has been hidden is not to look to the people who did the hiding in the first place.

Who knows how many of the Dead Sea Scrolls were lost to fire or how much has been suppressed from the Vatican?

What we do know is what we have in the Nag Hammadi Library that could not be hidden.

I'm sure I can guess why you have not mentioned it...

pluMmet · January 14, 2015

One more point.

There are good reasons for what is left out of the Bible. The material written after the 1st century and without the necessary qualification of being written by the apostles and prophets, those writings were not considered; The Apocryphon of John does not fall into that category.

(I went in to add this to my post above, but couldn't.)

Well then since the Bible was compiled well after that why would that be your cut off date?

1 a.d.... are you suggesting that the apostles wrote the first 4 books of the new testament before that?

You are just choosing not to believe The Apocryphon of John arbitrarily along with any other Gnostic Scriptures that do not fit the Gnoistic Edit I suppose.

Nelg · January 14, 2015

I have three Bible classes to teach today and do not have the time to fully answer your post. I do want to say that I try to read all the material I can research and verify. I, nor you, have access to anything that was destroyed. Speculation, maybe, but not assurance.

There are many, many, texts that are available for reading. However, there are reasons not to accept them as Scripture. That is the basis from which I read. IF anything contradicts the major teachings of the already established and verified texts, and is of a date beyond the apostles and prophets of the first century, then it is not from God, but a writing of man trying to find meaning apart from revelation. Basically that is what the Gnostic writings are all about. Results: rejection from being considered Scripture.

I'm leaving for my studies, but yes, the gospels were written before the end of the 1st century.

Markinsa · January 14, 2015

Plummet, I don't think your logic is sound.

From my limited understanding:

1. What is currently in the Bible was verifed by the Dead Sea Scolls.
2. What is currently in the Bible was widely discussed withing 100 yrs of Jesus lifetime and can be reproduced through other writings, ie letters.between believers
3. Anything that was written after that 100 yrs was excluded because they were believed to be not inspired, and they contradicted what was included in the bible.
4. So it doesn't really matter what was hidden by the vaitican or anyone else, because what is in the Bible has already been verified, anything that was "hidden away" is irrelevant.

And to answer your question.

Well then since the Bible was compiled well after that why would that be your cut off date?

1 a.d.... are you suggesting that the apostles wrote the first 4 books of the new testament before that?

You are just choosing not to believe The Apocryphon of John arbitrarily along with any other Gnostic Scriptures that do not fit the Gnoistic Edit I suppose.

When were the gospels written and by whom?

by Matt Slick

Dating the gospels is very important. If it can be established that the gospels were written early, say before the year A.D. 70, then we would have good reason for believing that they were written by the disciples of Jesushimself. If they were written by the disciples, then their reliability, authenticity, and accuracy are better substantiated. Also, if they were written early, this would mean that there would not have been enough time for myth to creep into the gospel accounts since it was the eyewitnesses to Christ's life that wrote them. Furthermore, those who were alive at the time of the events could have countered the gospel accounts; and since we have no contradictory writings to the gospels, their early authorship as well as apostolic authorship becomes even more critical.

Destruction of the temple in A.D. 70, Luke and Acts

None of the gospels mention the destruction of the Jewish temple in A.D. 70. This is significant because Jesus had prophesied concerning the temple when He said "As for these things which you are looking at, the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down." (Luke 21:6, see alsoMatt. 24:1; Mark 13:1). This prophecy was fulfilled in A.D. 70 when the Romans sacked Jerusalem and burned the temple. The gold in the temple melted down between the stone walls; and the Romans took the walls apart, stone by stone, to get the gold. Such an obvious fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy most likely would have been recorded as such by the gospel writers who were fond of mentioning fulfillment of prophecy if they had been written after A.D. 70. Also, if the gospels were fabrications of mythical events, then anything to bolster the Messianic claims--such as the destruction of the temple as Jesus said--would surely have been included. But, it was not included suggesting that the gospels (at least Matthew, Mark, and Luke) were written before A.D. 70.

Similarly, this argument is important when we consider the dating of the book of Acts which was written after the gospel of Luke and by Luke himself. Acts is a history of the Christian church right after Jesus' ascension. Acts also fails to mention the incredibly significant events of A.D. 70, which would have been extremely relevant and prophetically important and would require inclusion into Acts had it occurred before Acts was written. Remember, Acts is a book of history concerning the Christians and the Jews. The fact that the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple is not recorded is very strong evidence that Acts was written before A.D. 70. We add to this the fact that Acts does not include the accounts of "Nero's persecution of the Christians in A.D. 64 or the deaths of [the apostle] James (A.D. 62), Paul (A.D. 64), and Peter (A.D. 65),"1 and we have further evidence that it was written early.

If we look at Acts 1:1-2 it says, "The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach, until the day when He was taken up, after He had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles whom He had chosen." Most scholars affirm that Acts was written by Luke and that Theophilus (Grk. "lover of God") "may have been Luke's patron who financed the writing of Luke and Acts."2 This means that the gospel of Luke was written before Acts.

"At the earliest, Acts cannot have been written prior to the latest firm chronological marker recorded in the book - Festus's appointment as procurator (24:27), which, on the basis of independent sources, appears to have occurred between A.D. 55 and 59."3
"It is increasingly admitted that the Logia [Q] was very early, before A.D.50, and Mark likewise if Luke wrote the Acts while Paul was still alive. Luke's Gospel comes (Acts 1:1) before the Acts. The date of Acts is still in dispute, but the early date (about A.D. 63) is gaining support constantly."4

For clarity, Q is supposedly one of the source documents used by both Matthew and Luke in writing their gospels. If Q actually existed, then that would push the first writings of Christ's words and deeds back even further lessening the available time for myth to creep in and adding to the validity and accuracy of the gospel accounts. If what is said of Acts is true, this would mean that Luke was written at least before A.D. 63 and possibly before 55 - 59 since Acts is the second in the series of writings by Luke. This means that the gospel of Luke was written within 30 years of Jesus' death.

Matthew

The early church unanimously held that the gospel of Matthew was the first written gospel and was penned by the apostle of the same name (Matt. 10:2-4). Lately, the priority of Matthew as the first written gospel has come under suspicion with Mark being considered by many to be the first written gospel. The debate is far from over.
The historian Papias mentions that the gospel of Matthew was originally in Aramaic or Hebrew and attributes the gospel to Matthew the apostle.5

"Irenaeus (ca. A.D. 180) continued Papias's views about Matthew and Mark and added his belief that Luke, the follower of Paul, put down in a book the gospel preached by that apostle, and that John, the Beloved Disciple, published his Gospel while residing in Asia. By the time of Irenaeus, Acts was also linked with Luke, the companion of Paul."6

This would mean that if Matthew did write in Aramaic originally, that he may have used Mark as a map, adding and clarifying certain events as he remembered them. But, this is not known for sure.
The earliest quotation of Matthew is found in Ignatius who died around A.D. 115 A.D. Therefore, Matthew was in circulation well before Ignatius came on the scene. The various dates most widely held as possible writing dates of the Gospel are between A.D. 40 - 140. But Ignatius died around A.D. 115, and he quoted Matthew. Therefore Matthew had to be written before he died. Nevertheless, it is generally believed that Matthew was written before A.D. 70 and as early as A.D. 50.

Mark

Mark was not an eyewitness to the events of Jesus' life. He was a disciple of Peter and undoubtedly it was Peter who informed Mark of the life of Christ and guided him in writing the Gospel known by his name. "Papias claimed that Mark, the Evangelist, who had never heard Christ, was the interpreter of Peter, and that he carefully gave an account of everything he remembered from the preaching of Peter."7 Generally, Mark is said to be the earliest gospel with an authorship of between A.D. 55 to A.D. 70.

Luke
Luke was not an eyewitness of the life of Christ. He was a companion of Paul who also was not an eyewitness of Christ's life. But, both had ample opportunity to meet the disciples who knew Christ and learn the facts not only from them but from others in the area. Some might consider this damaging to the validity of the gospel but quite the contrary. Luke was a gentile convert to Christianity who was interested in the facts. He obviously had interviewed the eyewitnesses and written the Gospel account as well as Acts.

"The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach, until the day when He was taken up, after He had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles whom He had chosen. To these He also presented Himself alive, after His suffering, by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over a period of forty days, and speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God." (Acts 1:1-3).

Notice how Luke speaks of "them," of those who had personal encounters with Christ. Luke is simply recounting the events from the disciples. Since Luke agrees with Matthew, Mark, and John and since there is no contradictory information coming from any of the disciples stating that Luke was inaccurate and since Luke has proven to be a very accurate historian, we can conclude that Luke's account is very accurate.

As far as dating the gospel goes, Luke was written before the book of Acts and Acts does not mention "Nero's persecution of the Christians in A.D. 64 or the deaths of James (A.D. 62), Paul (A.D. 64), and Peter (A.D. 65)."8Therefore, we can conclude that Luke was written before A.D. 62. "Luke's Gospel comes (Acts 1:1) before the Acts. The date of Acts is still in dispute, but the early date (about A.D. 63) is gaining support constantly."9

John

The writer of the gospel of John was obviously an eyewitness of the events of Christ's life since he speaks from a perspective of having been there during many of the events of Jesus' ministry and displays a good knowledge of Israeli geography and customs.

The John Rylands papyrus fragment 52 of John's gospel dated in the year 135 contains portions of John 18, verses 31-33, 37-38. This fragment was found in Egypt, and a considerable amount of time is needed for the circulation of the gospel before it reached Egypt. It is the last of the gospels and appears to have been written in the 80's to 90's.

Of important note is the lack of mention of the destruction of the Jewish temple in A.D. 70. But this is understandable since John was not focusing on historical events. Instead, he focused on the theological aspect of the person of Christ and listed His miracles and words that affirmed Christ's deity.

Though there is still some debate on the dates of when the gospels were written, they were most assuredly completed before the close of the first century and written by eyewitnesses or under the direction of eyewitnesses.

-

pluMmet · January 14, 2015

and is of a date beyond the apostles and prophets of the first century, then it is not from God, but a writing of man trying to find meaning apart from revelation.

I'm leaving for my studies, but yes, the gospels were written before the end of the 1st century.

Because BC is the English abbreviation for Before Christ, it is sometimes incorrectly concluded that AD means After Death, i.e., after the death of Jesus. However this would mean that the ~33 years commonly associated with the life of Jesus would not be present in either BC or AD time scales.^[8] There is consensus^[9] among modern scholars that the historical year of the birth of Jesus was around 6–4 Before Chris

1. You have no idea what you are saying.

2. You are suggesting that after Jesus died (even though you have no idea when that was in our calendar system) that God never spoke to anyone ever again. Forget that The Revelation of Saint John the Divine (a.k.a. Revelations from The New Testament) was written well after Jesus had ascended back to Heaven.

3. You have neatly seared truth from your mind... It makes compete sense now that I see that you teach preachers.

"In the end days preachers will be as empty wells." -Jesus (Nag Hammadi Library)

You can dance around all you want with your fellow Argonauts...

I call you Argonauts (followers of Hera) due to what I'm sure is your reluctance to preach even the Bible's parts that are not popular. (ie. 1 Corinthians 7 & 3:9~John 10:34, Mathew 11:14~Mark 9:11-13~Revelation 12)

Plummet, I don't think your logic is sound.

From my limited understanding:

1. What is currently in the Bible was verifed by the Dead Sea Scolls.

Think about what you are saying...

The Vatican after years of suppressing the Dead Sea Scrolls (and only after threat of people seeing the original texts elsewhere) released exactly what best supported the Bible that they (as a group) created with the counsel of Nicea.

Markinsa · January 14, 2015

Think about what you are saying...

The Vatican after years of suppressing the Dead Sea Scrolls (and only after threat of people seeing the original texts elsewhere) released exactly what best supported the Bible that they (as a group) created with the counsel of Nicea.

So which books that weren't included in the Bible do you think should be? This is your argument correct?

-

pluMmet · January 14, 2015

So which books that weren't included in the Bible do you think should be? This is your argument correct?

-

No actually it's not...

My Argument is that no Bible should have been created... All the Gnostic Scriptures should have been preserved.

Now I do understand the the trepidation that one might not know the validity of any given Scripture and that is part of the false pretense of the counsel of Nicea's reasoning.

The events unfolded like this:

Gnostic Scriptures were written Before, During and After Jesus's life.

So in come the Roman Scribes... they call all priests to a "Meeting" in Nicea and ask them to bring their scrolls for the sake of "Discussion."

Some priests being wiser than others realize that something just does not jive and they bury their scrolls.

Good thing too because once the counsel was over they seized the priests scrolls and burned them so this Bible they just created would not have any opposition.

In order to get the other faiths to follow this bible they incorporated the Roman fertility festivals Meal of rabbit and eggs and the Druid festival of seasons with their Pine Tree.

The newly established "Roman Catholic Church" began indoctrinating priests and insuring that none of them ever let anyone read or own a Bible... The priests were the way to God. However they interpreted the Bible was Law.

People began noticing inconsistencies in what one "Father" said compared to another and questioning them... as it turned out there were plenty of artifacts from and older faith tucked away here and there so in comes the Spanish Inquisition to acquire and destroy them.

Then one day in Scotland there was a bright idea that people should be allowed to decide for themselves what this Bible said and the Protestants were born.

More fighting as people started to realize that the "Fathers" had taken great liberties with their interpretations.

In come the Dead Sea Scrolls and from there this thread has that info.

I would rather have never seen the Gnostic Scriptures subverted to met the needs of Rome...

Fly · January 14, 2015

Apocrypha–Evidence Against Canonicity. While in some cases they have certain historical value, any claim for canonicity on the part of these writings is without any solid foundation. The evidence points to a closing of the Hebrew canon following the writing of the books of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Malachi in the fifth century B.C.E. The Apocryphal writings were never included in the Jewish canon of inspired Scriptures and do not form part of it today.

The first-century Jewish historian Josephus shows the recognition given only to those few books (of the Hebrew canon) viewed as sacred, stating: “We do not possess myriads of inconsistent books, conflicting with each other. Our books, those which are justly accredited, are but two and twenty [the equivalent of the 39 books of the Hebrew Scriptures according to modern division], and contain the record of all time.” He thereafter clearly shows an awareness of the existence of Apocryphal books and their exclusion from the Hebrew canon by adding: “From Artaxerxes to our own time the complete history has been written, but has not been deemed worthy of equal credit with the earlier records, because of the failure of the exact succession of the prophets.”—Against Apion, I, 38, 41 (8).

Inclusion in “Septuagint.” Arguments in favor of the canonicity of the writings generally revolve around the fact that these Apocryphal writings are to be found in many early copies of the Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, which translation was begun in Egypt about 280 B.C.E. However, since no original copies of the Septuagint are extant, it cannot be stated categorically that the Apocryphal books were originally included in that work. Many, perhaps most, of the Apocryphal writings were admittedly written after the commencement of the translation work of the Septuagint and so were obviously not on the original list of books selected for translation by the translating body. At best, then, they could rate only as accretions to that work.

Additionally, while the Greek-speaking Jews of Alexandria eventually inserted such Apocryphal writings into the Greek Septuagint and apparently viewed them as part of an enlarged canon of sacred writings, the statement by Josephus quoted earlier shows that they were never brought into the Jerusalem or Palestinian canon and were, at the most, viewed as only secondary writings and not of divine origin. Thus, the Jewish Council of Jamnia (about 90 C.E.) specifically excluded all such writings from the Hebrew canon.

The need for giving due consideration to the Jewish stand in this matter is clearly stated by the apostle Paul at Romans 3:1, 2.―”What, then, is the advantage of the Jew, or what is the benefit of circumcision? ² A great deal in every way. First of all, that they were entrusted with the sacred pronouncements of God.”

Again the final authority is and should always be Gods word.

Fly · January 14, 2015

Absolutely agree!

Sorry, didn't mean to imply that I thought the Apocrypha was actually a part of Scripture. It just happens to be included in the 1769 edition APP that i use. i have probably only read it twice just because it was there LOL...

Definitely pagan Greek influenced as you said. Oddly so are many of the traditions of Modern Christianity.

I also agree with the fact that the Bible completely harmonizes, interprets and proves itself. There are no other writings in history that can do what it does. There is no other book that contains hundreds of prophasies that have been fullfilled just as they were told they would be... The Scriptures were written over a couple of thousand years or so by many men who never knew one another and yet the words they wrote tell the same story because they were all divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Well, I guess i departed slightly from the original topic of this thread (allah not being God and a truine gohead) so, I guess before anyone gets technical about that i will end with this...

If anyone reading this has never given YHWH/God a chance please just reconsider and open your heart... Yahushua/Jesus paid the only price that could have been paid for what we really deserve and he did it out of love and because His Father, our Creator loves us so much that he couldn't stand to see us die an eternal death he made this possible.

We can live forever. We can have an eternal life that has no hate or pain, no killing, no sorrow, no sickness and no evil period. You don't have to go to a church, or put a label on yourself or make a spectacle of yourself...

All you have to do is open your heart to him and ask for him to come to you and he will. Ask that he help you to see your sinful nature for what it really is so that you may be able to truly repent for your sins. Pray to him, talk to him... and start reading his Word.

You WILL know his presence and you will shed many tears as that old man is peeled away. Ask him for forgiveness of the sinful life you have lived and ask that he free you from those shackles, whatever they may be. Whatever you have done in the past doesn't matter. He will forgive you and make you new in Yahushua/Jesus. You will become a new creature. You wil no longer desire the things of this world and you will litterally see things through the new eyes he has given you and it is undescribably wonderful and fulfilling if you surrender yourself to him.

Love and blessings in Yahushua HaMashiach

It is your thread and a very good one as well.

Prophecy: An inspired message; a revelation of divine will and purpose or the proclamation thereof. Prophecy may be an inspired moral teaching, an expression of a divine command or judgment, or a declaration of something to come.

“With that I heard a loud voice from the throne say: “Look! The tent of God is with mankind, and he will reside with them, and they will be his people. And God himself will be with them. And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away.” (Rev 21:3,4)

Pain and death is to be no more where is the fulfillment to take place?

“You were taught to put away the old personality that conforms to your former course of conduct and that is being corrupted according to its deceptive desires. And you should continue to be made new in your dominant mental attitude, and should put on the new personality that was created according to God’s will in true righteousness and loyalty.” (Ephesians 4:22-24)

pluMmet · January 14, 2015

Apocrypha–Evidence Against Canonicity. While in some cases they have certain historical value, any claim for canonicity on the part of these writings is without any solid foundation. The evidence points to a closing of the Hebrew canon following the writing of the books of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Malachi in the fifth century B.C.E. The Apocryphal writings were never included in the Jewish canon of inspired Scriptures and do not form part of it today.

The first-century Jewish historian Josephus shows the recognition given only to those few books (of the Hebrew canon) viewed as sacred, stating: “We do not possess myriads of inconsistent books, conflicting with each other. Our books, those which are justly accredited, are but two and twenty [the equivalent of the 39 books of the Hebrew Scriptures according to modern division], and contain the record of all time.” He thereafter clearly shows an awareness of the existence of Apocryphal books and their exclusion from the Hebrew canon by adding: “From Artaxerxes to our own time the complete history has been written, but has not been deemed worthy of equal credit with the earlier records, because of the failure of the exact succession of the prophets.”—Against Apion, I, 38, 41 (8).

Inclusion in “Septuagint.” Arguments in favor of the canonicity of the writings generally revolve around the fact that these Apocryphal writings are to be found in many early copies of the Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, which translation was begun in Egypt about 280 B.C.E. However, since no original copies of the Septuagint are extant, it cannot be stated categorically that the Apocryphal books were originally included in that work. Many, perhaps most, of the Apocryphal writings were admittedly written after the commencement of the translation work of the Septuagint and so were obviously not on the original list of books selected for translation by the translating body. At best, then, they could rate only as accretions to that work.

Additionally, while the Greek-speaking Jews of Alexandria eventually inserted such Apocryphal writings into the Greek Septuagint and apparently viewed them as part of an enlarged canon of sacred writings, the statement by Josephus quoted earlier shows that they were never brought into the Jerusalem or Palestinian canon and were, at the most, viewed as only secondary writings and not of divine origin. Thus, the Jewish Council of Jamnia (about 90 C.E.) specifically excluded all such writings from the Hebrew canon.

The need for giving due consideration to the Jewish stand in this matter is clearly stated by the apostle Paul at Romans 3:1, 2.―”What, then, is the advantage of the Jew, or what is the benefit of circumcision? ² A great deal in every way. First of all, that they were entrusted with the sacred pronouncements of God.”

Again the final authority is and should always be Gods word.

I like your point if only for that it requires such a conversation of knowledge to answer...

On these i must differ to the world before the Great Cataclysm a.k.a Flood.

Much of my knowledge in that area (thought not all) comes from

.

If one is not familiar with this concept than there is no further conversations to be had though it does tie back into why all this Bible stuff came to be in the first place and also the Gnostic description of the "flood" as told be Jesus...

Nelg · January 15, 2015

Plummet, I will try to give you a reasonable answer to you comments. Actually, I started to ignore them. They indicated that you had no idea what I said and certainly didn't care, but I answer anyway.

All the gospels, epistles, letters, revelation from the pen of the apostles and prophets were written AFTER CHRIST ASCENDED to the right hand of the Father and had poured forth the Holy Spirit on Pentecost. The writings of the apostles and prophets ceased after the end of the first century. According to the mss and materials we have that period was from a.d. 40 (earliest Mss about 55) to a.d. 100.

abbreviation for Before Christ, it is sometimes incorrectly concluded that AD means After Death, i.e., after the death of Jesus. However this would mean that the ~33 years commonly associated with the life of Jesus would not be present in either BC or AD time scales.^[8] There is consensus^[9] among modern scholars that the historical year of the birth of Jesus was around 6–4 Before Chris

Where did you get the idea that AD means After Death? Please consult a good dictionary or any encyclopedia for the correct meaning. Any one who studies history knows what the AD means and I am certainly not going to look up something that simple for you.

1. You have no idea what you are saying.

O.k., if I don’t know, that means that you do know since you are so sure of my ignorance. Therefore, WHAT do I not know?

2. You are suggesting that after Jesus died (even though you have no idea when that was in our calendar system) that God never spoke to anyone ever again.

Where in the world did you get the idea that I had said that “God never spoke to anyone ever again after the death of Jesus”? That would certainly be defeating the purpose, now wouldn’t it?

The authority and validity of all the books of the NT revolve around the revelation and inspiration of the Holy Spirit giving the apostles and prophets the words that spoke and wrote. The Spirit was given to them to indwell and a special gift was given to the apostles of revelation and inspiration.

Jesus in his lifetime trained disciples, of whom twelve in particular were given a place of special importance. He called them to follow him, appointed twelve to be with him in a special sense, gave them private instruction, ordained them with authority, and sent them out to preach and heal (Mark 1:17; 3:14; 4:35;5:37; 6:7)The term “apostle” is applied by Jesus to the twelve when He sent them out on an assignment to preach during their training (Mt 10:1ff; Mk 3:14-15; 6:30), and later, after the election of Matthias (Acts 2: 37, 42-43).

Later Paul successfully contends for his apostolic rating (1Co 1:1; 9:1; 15:9-10; Gal 1:1, 19; 2:7; etc.). James was also counted among the apostles (1Co 15:7; Gal 1:19).

On the evening of Christ’s arrest before His crucifixion Jesus met with the disciples to eat the Passover. It is in this private environment that Jesus tells them that they will be equipped with His Presence, the Holy Spirit. The Spirit will empower them with the message they need to complete the task for which they had been called. This Passover event recorded in John 13 – 17. (These passages are sometimes taught as applying to all Christians. They are not. They are addressed to the apostles who would receive revelation and inspiration from the Holy Spirit.)

Jesus says at the beginning, “If you ask me anything in My name, I will do it. If you love Me, you will keep My commandments. And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; that is the Spirit of truth, who the world cannot receive, because it does not behold Him of Know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you, and will be in you. I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you” (Jno 14:14-18).

The apostles were to receive the Helper, Comforter, and Counselor, who would be the Spirit of truth.

He is at the present abiding “with” the apostles giving them some wisdom and understanding (cf. Mt 10:19-20; Lk 10:16). But when the “Spirit of truth” comes, he will dwell “in” them. That is, He shall take up permanent residence in the apostles. (The indwelling is for all saints, but not for the purpose of inspiration and revelation as it is explained to the apostles.)

Latter Jesus states, “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.” The Father is sending the Holy Spirit to instruct` the disciples in two dynamic ways:

“Teach you all things” That is, the Spirit will instruct them in things that Jesus has not yet taught. It is the continuation of the apostles training.

“Bring all things to your remembrance.” That is, the Spirit will bring to mind what Jesus has already said and done. Therefore they would have total recall of all that Jesus did while they were in His company. “He would help them know what to say in tight situations and help them recall the instructions Jesus had given them before his departure.”

This continuation of teaching is seen in John 16:12-13. “I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. He shall glorify Me; for He shall take of Mine, and shall disclose it to you.”

Verse 12 brings out the point that Jesus wanted to say much more but the disciples at this time were not ready. They could not, as yet, understand.

It is patently clear that the “Spirit of Truth” and the “Holy Spirit” are one and the same. The Holy Spirit will guide them “into all truth.”

These verses are used to show that the Holy Spirit in the speaking and writing the Scripture guided the disciples. The Spirit would lead them into all truth and enable them to explicate the gospel in new circumstances and in answer to new questions.

The Gospels: ‘The Holy Spirit…shall…bring to your remembrance all that I said unto you’;

The Acts: ‘He shall bear witness of me; and ye also bear witness’ (cf. Acts 1:8);

The Epistles: ‘The Spirit of truth…shall guide you into all the truth: for he shall not speak from himself….He shall glorify me: for he shall take of mine, and shall declare it unto you…He shall teach you all things’;

Revelation: ‘He shall declare unto you the things that are to come.’”

Thus we recognize that whatever the apostles of the NT spoke and wrote, those words were from God. Jesus said, “The words which Thou gavest Me I have given to them: and they received them, and truly understood that I came from Thee…(14) I have given them Thy word; and the world has hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world… (18) As Thou dist send Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world…I do not ask in behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word” (Jno 17:8, 14, 18, 20).

Christ, after giving his apostles His Word, sent them out “into the world” to preach and teach the Words that they had been given.

Jesus sent the apostles with the authority to proclaim and teach the words He gave to them through the Holy Spirit. When one receives them (that is, receives the apostles teaching), one receives the words of Christ and God (Jno 13:20).

Thus the authority of Jesus and the Father also belongs to the words of the apostles and writers of the New Testament.

Today, when we receive the written word we are receiving Christ. The words of the apostles are just as authoritative as the directly quoted words of Christ.

The authors claim that they are writing God’s words are strong.

Note the statement made in 2 Peter that the recipients were to “remember the words spoken beforehand by the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior spoken by your apostles.” This seems to underscore the authority of apostolic writings for it makes the commandment of the apostles parallel in form to the OT prophets.

Further support for this view can be found in 2 Peter 3:16. There the author shows not only an awareness of the existence of written epistles from Paul but also a clear willingness to classify ‘all of his epistles’ with ‘the other scriptures [tas loipas graphas].’ Since graphe in the New Testament always refers to the Old Testament Scriptures, which both Jews and Christians held to be the authoritative words of God, it is noteworthy that Peter here classifies all of Paul’s epistles as graphai. This indicates that very early in the history of the church Paul’s epistles were considered to be God’s written words in the same sense as the Old Testament texts.

It is further stated by Paul to the Thessalonians, “…when you received from us the word of God’s message, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe” (1Thess 2:13). Paul here declares that what he presented…

· Was the “word of God.”

· Was received by the Thessalonians as the “word of God.”

· That it did the work of “God’s word” in those who believe.

Therefore he could write to the Corinthians, “If any one thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord’s commandment” (1Co 14:37).

This verse emphasizes the authority of Paul’s writings and in principle the writings of the other inspired men who contributed to the New Testament.

All of these writings were after Jesus, death and resurrection. Pentecost and the giving of the Spirit did not happen until after the ascension of Jesus.

Forget that The Revelation of Saint John the Divine (a.k.a. Revelations from The New Testament) was written well after Jesus had ascended back to Heaven.

The writing of the Revelation by John was at the close of the first century, around a.d. 90-100.

3. You have neatly seared truth from your mind... It makes compete sense now that I see that you teach preachers.

Thank you. One of the reasons I taught them (I’ve retired) is so that would know how to deal logically with the Scriptures and not be carried away by emotion, speculations, and unfounded teachings of teachers who don’t know the difference between a text and a pretext; between what is Scripture and what is pseudographa.

"In the end days preachers will be as empty wells." -Jesus (Nag Hammadi Library)

You can dance around all you want with your fellow Argonauts...

I call you Argonauts (followers of Hera) due to what I'm sure is your reluctance to preach even the Bible's parts that are not popular. (ie. 1 Corinthians 7 & 3:9~John 10:34, Mathew 11:14~Mark 9:11-13~Revelation 12)

I see that you are quick a passing judgment on what you don’t know. Typical. But just so you know, I have preached and taught all those passages IN THEIR CONTEXTS and by doing a THROUGH EXEGESIS of those passages. When you pull passages out of their context, you can make them mean just about anything you want. But if you teach them in context and with a through understanding of what is being taught, then they make perfect and important sense. Have you ever done that, are do you take what someone else has said?

Nelg · January 15, 2015

No actually it's not...

My Argument is that no Bible should have been created... All the Gnostic Scriptures should have been preserved.

The Bible was not created, it was recognized. Gnostic Scriptures have been preserved, but they are not recognized as Scripture for good reason. They are not inspired by the Spirit, were written after the end of apostolic revelation and inspiration, they contain contradictions to the verified and confirmed word of God (and God does not contradict Himself), and that contain things that are down right silly.

Now I do understand the the trepidation that one might not know the validity of any given Scripture and that is part of the false pretense of the counsel of Nicea's reasoning.

The events unfolded like this:

Gnostic Scriptures were written Before, During and After Jesus's life.

You are combining the Apocryphal books with the Gnostic books. Gnosticism did not exist until the Second Century, but some of their teaching was beginning to creep into the church during the last few years of the First Century.

No one knows when Gnosticism had its origin, but it was from the fringe of Judaism and Christianity. But no Gnostic document that we possess can be dated earlier than the rise of Christianity. It was a movement within the church, and was a perversion of the faith by speculation and philosophy of the mystics.

So in come the Roman Scribes... they call all priests to a "Meeting" in Nicea and ask them to bring their scrolls for the sake of "Discussion."

Some priests being wiser than others realize that something just does not jive and they bury their scrolls.

Good thing too because once the counsel was over they seized the priests scrolls and burned them so this Bible they just created would not have any opposition.

In order to get the other faiths to follow this bible they incorporated the Roman fertility festivals Meal of rabbit and eggs and the Druid festival of seasons with their Pine Tree.

Where in the world did you get this malarky (above)?

The newly established "Roman Catholic Church" began indoctrinating priests and insuring that none of them ever let anyone read or own a Bible... The priests were the way to God. However they interpreted the Bible was Law.

The Bible was the word of God nearly 200 years before Nicea!! RCC had NOTHING to do with forming the Bible. They simply affirmed that the Bible ALREADY BEING USE by the church was what was revealed by the apostles.

People began noticing inconsistencies in what one "Father" said compared to another and questioning them... as it turned out there were plenty of artifacts from and older faith tucked away here and there so in comes the Spanish Inquisition to acquire and destroy them.

Then one day in Scotland there was a bright idea that people should be allowed to decide for themselves what this Bible said and the Protestants were born.

More fighting as people started to realize that the "Fathers" had taken great liberties with their interpretations.

In come the Dead Sea Scrolls and from there this thread has that info.

I would rather have never seen the Gnostic Scriptures subverted to met the needs of Rome...

Again, the Dead Sea Scrolls did nothing more than confirm the OT Scriptures. But NO new Scriptures were found. There were ten complete Scrolls and the thousands of fragments belonging originally to almost six hundred mss covering the Hebrew Bible, other religious compositions, and works particular to the Qumran community.

The Q-fragments of the Pseudepigrapha (non-biblical religious compositions) and Apocrypha (considered non-biblical by Jews and some Christian groups, but accepted as secondarily or fully canonical by other churches) have also been helpful in learning of the teachings and customs of the time.

pluMmet · January 15, 2015

Well Nelg you got me on the 1st Century thing for sure. 1 a.d. to 100 a.d. the apostles had written their versions. I was wrong in that and I blew by the word century.

Lets see if I was wrong about the rest, shall we.

"I see that you are quick a passing judgment on what you don’t know. Typical. But just so you know, I have preached and taught all those passages IN THEIR CONTEXTS and by doing a THROUGH EXEGESIS of those passages. When you pull passages out of their context, you can make them mean just about anything you want."

I'm also quick to say that the color red is the color red....

And I'm sure that that statement is not at all true... Let me show you:

Revelation 12 is about the second coming of Jesus and him being born of woman AGAIN...

But wait... Jesus never really died so how can he be born of woman again..

Quite a conundrum isn't it. Must be Because he is Gods Son. Unless there is another example of this happening in the Bible that you have taught so well...

Hmmm

Mathew 11:14

And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come,

Mark 9:11-13

And they asked him, saying, Why say the scribes that Elias must first come?

And he answered and told them, Elias verily cometh first, and restoreth all things; and how it is written of the Son of man, that he must suffer many things, and be set at nought.

But I say unto you, That Elias is indeed come, and they have done unto him whatsoever they listed, as it is written of him.

So Nelg what CONTEXT THROUGH EXEGESIS of those passages have you used to teach those?

I'll tell you... the Context that has been dictated by your fellow thumpers...

You see even though you have the pieces right there in your mind you don't see what is not comfortable to see.

The Jews Currently are still waiting for Elijah and in fact to this day on the eve of Passover they open their doors physically as a gesture and hope for his return.

You see there were signs that had to be met so people would know who he was... A Nazarene for one... possessions sold for 30 pieces of silver being another of them.

But the Jews don't believe in Jesus as Messiah because of just 1 of them. You should know this and I imagine that you do, that to them Elijah never came.

Jesus tells us clearly that he in fact did come and that he was John the Baptist.

I had started to write a long thing on this but so much is already available I'll just link and paste it:

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/rebirth01.html

There are many passages in scripture where Jesus affirms the reality of reincarnation. Here we will examine some of them.

The episode in the Bible where Jesus identified John the Baptist as the reincarnation of Elijah the prophet is one of the clearest statements which Jesus made concerning reincarnation.

"For all the prophets and the law have prophesied until John. And if you are willing to receive it, he is Elijah who was to come." (Matthew 11:13-14)

In the above passage, Jesus clearly identifies John the Baptist as the reincarnation of Elijah the prophet. Later in Matthew's gospel Jesus reiterates it.

"And the disciples asked him, saying, 'Why then do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?'

"But he answered them and said, 'Elijah indeed is to come and will restore all things. But I say to you that Elijah has come already, and they did not know him, but did to him whatever they wished. So also shall the Son of Man suffer at their hand.'

"Then the disciples understood that he had spoken of John the Baptist." (Matthew 17:10-13)

In very explicit language, Jesus identified John the Baptist as the reincarnation of Elijah. Even the disciples of Jesus understood what Jesus was saying. This identification of John to be the reincarnation of Elijah is very important when it comes to Bible prophecy. By identifying the John with Elijah, Jesus identified himself as the Messiah. The Hebrew scriptures mentions specific signs that would precede the coming of the Messiah. One of them is that Elijah will return first.

"Behold I will send you Elijah the prophet, before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord." (Malachi 4:5)

The above Bible verse is one of the major Messianic promises from God that is found in the Bible. And these John is Elijah references clearly demonstrate the reality of reincarnation. So there are two important conclusions we can draw from this:

1.

The Old Testament prophesied that Elijah himself - not someone like him or someone in the same ministry as him - but Elijah himself would return before the advent of the Messiah. (Malachi 4:5)

2.

Jesus declared John to be Elijah when he stated that Elijah has come. (Matthew 17:10-13)

Now, based on the passages 1. and 2. alone, either 3. or 4. must be true:

3.

John was the reincarnation of Elijah the Prophet; therefore, reincarnation must become once again a part of Judeo-Christian theology. It also means the current concept of resurrection - the "reanimation of corpses on judgment day" - can be discarded and replaced with "the reanimation of spiritually dead LIVING people." In other words, becoming "born again," or receiving "eternal life," or becoming free from the slavery of the birth-death-rebirth cycle. or ...

4.

John the Baptist was not Elijah himself, meaning that Elijah himself had not returned. But if this is true, then we must conclude the following:

a.

The Old Testament prophecy about Elijah returning before the advent of the Messiah failed to come to pass (meaning that Biblical prophecy is fallible), or...

b.

Jesus was not the Messiah.

So based upon the above logic, only one of the following can be true:

(1) Reincarnation is a reality or... (2) Jesus was not the Messiah or... (3) Bible prophecies are not reliable.

But because Jesus' declaration of John as Elijah was overt and direct, then the only logical option is option (1) Reincarnation is a reality. Jesus explains in clear language that John is the reincarnation of Elijah:

"After six days Jesus took Peter, James and John with him and led them up a high mountain, where they were all alone. There he was transfigured before them. His clothes became dazzling white, whiter than anyone in the world could bleach them. And there appeared before them Elijah and Moses, who were talking with Jesus ...

"As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus gave them orders not to tell anyone what they had seen until the Son of Man had risen from the dead.

"They kept the matter to themselves, discussing what 'rising from the dead' meant.

"And they asked him, 'Why do the teachers of the law say that Elijah must come first?'

"Jesus replied, 'To be sure, Elijah does come first, and restores all things.'

"Why then is it written that the Son of Man must suffer much and be rejected?"

"But I tell you, Elijah has come, and they have done to him everything they wished, just as it is written about him." (Mark 9:9-13)

The passage above describes the disciples seeing the spirit of Elijah and wondering again about Elijah's role. Jesus again identifies John to be the reincarnation of Elijah.

The description of Jesus shining with light as the sun and clothes as white as the light is remarkably similar to descriptions of Jesus in many near-death accounts. This transfiguration of Jesus event in the Bible is just one of many events in the Bible that corresponds with near-death experiences.

Another point to make is that the appearance of Elijah and Moses in spirit with Jesus refutes the concept of people sleeping in graves until the last day. In other words, it refutes the concept of resurrection.

Skeptics of reincarnation like to quote the following Bible verse in an effort to refute Jesus' clear teaching of the reincarnation of Elijah as John the Baptist.

"And he [John the Baptist] will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah." (Luke 1:17)

Skeptics claim that the above Bible verse affirms John to be merely a prophet who performed the same ministry as Elijah - not that John was actually the reincarnation of Elijah. But this is not what the verse actually says. In fact, the verse gives a perfect definition of reincarnation: the return of a person's spirit and power into another body. It is the spirit and power that reincarnates. Therefore this verse clearly states that John the Baptist had the spirit and power of Elijah. And this is exactly what reincarnation means. It does not get much clearer than this.

Although John carried the living spirit of Elijah he did not carry his conscious mind and memory. Reincarnation involves only the higher consciousness of the spirit. Because John did not have the conscious mind and past-life memories of Elijah, John denied being Elijah. With very few exceptions, nobody has a conscious memory of past lives. The following is the Bible passage that shows John denying that he is Elijah.

"They asked him, 'Then who are you? Are you Elijah?'

"He said, 'I am not.' 'Are you the Prophet?' He answered, 'No.'

"Finally they said, 'Who are you? Give us an answer to take back to those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?'

"John replied in the words of Isaiah the prophet, 'I am the voice of one calling in the desert, 'Make straight the way for the Lord.''

"Now some Pharisees who had been sent questioned him, 'Why then do you baptize if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?'

"I baptize with water," John replied, "but among you stands one you do not know. He is the one who comes after me, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie." (John 1:21-27)

Notice that the Pharisees questioning John were expecting the reincarnation of an Old Testament prophet. And John did not refute the concept of reincarnation when he stated his ignorance about having a past life as Elijah. But Jesus was not ignorant about John. Jesus knew better and said so in the plainest words possible:

"This is the one ... there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist ... And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come. He who has ears, let him hear." (Matthew 11:11-15)

Jesus revealed John to be Elijah; but John denied it. Which of the two people are right - Jesus or John? The answer should be very clear. John's denial of his own past identity as Elijah does not mean he did not have a past life as Elijah. This is especially true when Jesus claimed that John was indeed Elijah.

The following is another Bible passage which describes other people who believed John to be Elijah or some other prophet:

"Now Herod the tetrarch heard about all that was going on. And he was perplexed, because some were saying that John had been raised from the dead, others that Elijah had appeared, and still others that one of the prophets of long ago had come back to life." (Luke 9:7-8)

Perhaps it was the appearance of Elijah at the Mount of Transfiguration that led some to believe that John was still alive even after he was killed by Herod. This would also explain the rumor going around then that Elijah was raised from the dead.

Even when we compare the physical description of John with Elijah we find a striking similarity.

John the Baptist: "John's clothes were made of camel's hair, and he had a leather belt around his waist." (Matthew 3:4)

Elijah the prophet: "He was a man with a garment of hair and with a leather belt around his waist." (2 Kings 1:8)

The similarity between John and Elijah should not be dismissed as a coincidence. Believers of the concept of reincarnation know that personality traits can be passed on from one life to the next - even though conscious memories are not passed along.

Another interesting parallel between John and Elijah has to do with karma. The Bible describes how Elijah had the priests of Baal killed with the sword because their sacrifice failed to catch fire whereas his did. Here are the two Bible verses that describe it:

"Then Elijah commanded them, "Seize the prophets of Baal. Don't let anyone get away!" They seized them, and Elijah had them brought down to the Kishon Valley and slaughtered there." (1 Kings 18:40)

"Now Ahab told Jezebel everything Elijah had done and how he had killed all the prophets with the sword." (1 Kings 19:1)

Having all the priests of Baal beheaded seems like an incredible injustice on Elijah's part. This may explain why Elijah had to pay the karmic debt for this injustice by reincarnating as John the Baptist and having his own head cut off:

"Prompted by her mother, she said, "Give me here on a platter the head of John the Baptist." The king was distressed, but because of his oaths and his dinner guests, he ordered that her request be granted and had John beheaded in the prison." (Matt. 14:6-10)

Because Elijah had people beheaded, the law of "eye for an eye" and "reaping what we sow" demanded that Elijah be beheaded. This is a good example of how those who live by the sword will die by the sword - if not in the same lifetime then in another.

The Bible does not limit the reincarnation of Elijah to John the Baptist either. The Bible suggests that another reincarnation of Elijah will occur around the time of Jesus' second coming. And not only does Elijah appear again at this time, but Moses is reincarnated as well. In the same way that John and Elijah appeared together on the Mount of Transfiguration so they will appear together at Jesus' return. Here is the Bible passage:

"And I will give power to my two witnesses, and they will prophesy for 1,260 days, clothed in sackcloth. These are the two olive trees and the two lamp stands that stand before the Lord of the Earth. If anyone tries to harm them, fire comes from their mouths and devours their enemies.

"This is how anyone who wants to harm them must die.

"These men have power to shut up the sky so that it will not rain during the time they are prophesying; and they have power to turn the waters into blood and to strike the Earth with every kind of plague as often as they want. (Revelation 11:3-6)

While this verse does not specifically identify these two witnesses as Elijah and Moses, the miraculous powers they perform suggest it is them. Just like the two witnesses in the Book of Revelation, Elijah had the power to prevent rain from occurring (1 Kings 17:1; Jam. 5:17) and Moses is shown having the power to turn water into blood and to bring plagues (Exod. 7-12). The Bible passage in Revelation describes two prophets who have these identical powers as Elijah and Moses. Is this a mere coincidence? You be the judge. But if Elijah and Moses are to appear again at the second coming of Jesus then the only realistic way for this to occur is through reincarnation.

With the appearance of Elijah and Moses at the first coming of Jesus, it is not a stretch to believe that Elijah and Moses will appear again at the second coming of Jesus. Also, the Malachi prophecy may actually be a reference to both of these incarnations of Elijah.

"Behold I will send you Elijah the prophet, before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord." (Malachi. 4:5)

There are two comings of Jesus to the world and it would be logical to assume that God will send Elijah at the second coming as he did at the first coming.

During his first coming, the Bible records people wondering if Jesus was the resurrection of John the Baptist or a reincarnation of Elijah or some Old Testament prophet. Here is the verse:

"When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"

"They replied, 'Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.'" (Matthew 16:13-14)

First of all, in the above Bible passage Jesus actually asks his disciples the identity of the person he was in a past life. Notice that the disciples knew exactly what Jesus was talking about and their answer to Jesus referred to people who died a very long time ago. Notice also that there is no Bible passage that shows Jesus refuting the concept of reincarnation whenever the concept is brought up. Instead Jesus teaches reincarnation.

The next Bible passage shows Jesus telling his disciples that they don't know the spirit they possess. This is an important statement coming from the lips of Christ concerning one particular fact concerning reincarnation. People did not have a conscious awareness of the spirit they possess from a past life. Because of this people do not know who their spirit previously incarnated. The following passage demonstrates this:

"And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, 'Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?'

"But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, 'Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them.'

"And they went to another village." (Luke 9:54-56, KJV)

The above passage shows the disciples asking Jesus if they should call down fire upon a city just as Elijah did. Jesus responded by telling them that they don't know what spirit they have to be able to accomplish this. The spirit of Elijah can call down fire but this does not mean the disciples can.

Jesus tells us that people are born as new people and that And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come but that's just it. It's not just he Jews that don't' believe it. It's you!

It's the same circular and tired logic that you are using to throw out the Gnostic Scriptures that were already thrown out by your predecessors.

"In there context" more like in what ever context you have chosen to believe which just happens to be the one narrative that counsel of Nicea created all those years ago which is about as narrow a context as one could imagine.

Now tell me once more that I am wrong and that you in fact do teach about reincarnation.. that you prepare young men not to marry in your preaching of 1 Corinthians 7... Do you make it clear to your perish that they themselves are Gods John 10:34 and that Heaven is a cube Revelation 21:16...

You tell me that and I will tell you I was wrong!

Fly · January 15, 2015

Revelation 12 is about the second coming of Jesus and him being born of woman AGAIN...

This understanding of the second coming of Jesus is a misunderstanding, acquiring and excepting many other basic bible teaching first is needed before understanding truths of Revelation let alone believing them.

Revelation was given to John as a panoramic vision in signs that represent the massage, only the anointed (Jesus’ brothers) are provide with the insight (Holy Spirit) to decode its secrets (massage) to mankind.

“In reply the King will say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.” (Matt 25:40)

See the post I shared; THE sacred secret of God has been unlocked. http://dinarvets.com/forums/index.php?/topic/194229-revelation-12v12/#entry1479080

But wait... Jesus never really died so how can he be born of woman again..

“But I tell you this, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit God’s Kingdom, nor does corruption inherit incorruption. Look! I tell you a sacred secret: We will not all fall asleep in death, but we will all be changed,” (1cor 15:50,51)

You do agree that Jesus was placed at the right hand of the Father don’t you, it is only possible for spirit beings to enter into heaven, Flesh and blood (physical) cannot enter heaven. The ‘we’ Paul speaks of here are of the anointed Nelg spoke of, which there are a limited number.

“Have no fear, little flock, for your Father has approved of giving you the Kingdom. (Luke 12:32)

There is another calling, so there two distinct callings. Rev 7:9― “After this I saw, and look! a great crowd, which no man was able to number, out of all nations and tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, dressed in white robes; and there were palm branches in their hands. And they keep shouting with a loud voice, saying: “Salvation we owe to our God, who is seated on the throne, and to the Lamb.”

I don't think Nelg is hoping to prove one is right and one is wrong, but simply pointing out there is substantial evidence to have faith in that the bible is from God and completely intact as his message (letter) to mankind.

Building trust (having faith) in that fact is the first step to acquiring its true understanding or message.

I believe Nelg's focus is not on the question of right and wrong, but in building trust in the bible as Gods word.

Nelg · January 16, 2015

DeJorgie, I read through the material below and I am still convinced that a study of the context and a through exegesis of the passages are essential elements to understanding the Bible. The logic of the article you posted is way out of whack. The author assumes a belief to be true and then sets out to find proof through twisting the passages to coincide with the interpretation by adding, unsuccessfully I might add, his doctrine of incarnation into the meaning. He then concludes with illogical conclusions. The author does not understand the after life, the resurrection, death, or salvation. I suspect that he would say that Jesus was not God come in the flesh, did not die for mankind’s sin. Again, that is what I see in his theology as he writes.

I really got tired of reading such gibberish and just stopped. Why continue on when the material is so bad?

I’m sure that you will not agree with my evaluation. From what you have already said, you are not really concern with seeking to find “truth,” but with promoting the Gnostic position of reincarnation.

Well Nelg you got me on the 1st Century thing for sure. 1 a.d. to 100 a.d. the apostles had written their versions. I was wrong in that and I blew by the word century.

Lets see if I was wrong about the rest, shall we.

"I see that you are quick at passing judgment on what you don’t know. Typical. But just so you know, I have preached and taught all those passages IN THEIR CONTEXTS and by doing a THROUGH EXEGESIS of those passages. When you pull passages out of their context, you can make them mean just about anything you want."

I'm also quick to say that the color red is the color red....

And I'm sure that that statement is not at all true... Let me show you:

Revelation 12 is about the second coming of Jesus and him being born of woman AGAIN...

Undoubtedly the Revelation is a difficult book and has been the playground for anyone with a theory they wanted to promote and find some type of figurative that could be used to justify their position. Therefore what I am writing may not be what others would say.

Chapter 12 is NOT speaking about the “second coming of Jesus” but His first coming into this world. It recounts the spiritual and physical battle of Satan to destroy the Seed, Jesus.

There is no AGAIN. Christ has already destroyed the power of Satan and will thrown him into Hell at the judgment.

This chapter also emphasizes the victory of the saints over Satan (12:11). We still war with Satan, but he is a defeated enemy.

But wait... Jesus never really died so how can he be born of woman again..

Why do you say Jesus never really died? He did die a physical death at the cross, but was raised with an immortal body, one fit for eternity.

You’re laboring under the view that Jesus is going to be born flesh again. Not so. The incarnate body was a one-time journey. His “second coming” will be in His glorified, imperishable, spiritual body (1Cor 15:38-48).

Quite a conundrum isn't it. Must be Because he is Gods Son. Unless there is another example of this happening in the Bible that you have taught so well...

Jesus is the only one who has been resurrected with an immortal body (1Tim 6:16). We will not receive ours until his “second coming” (1Cor 15:49-54).

All other resurrections in the Bible are a return to life in a physical body. Only Jesus was raised with an immortal body. He is unique in the universe. Therefore, there is no other example. None. Nada.