Posted on 11/04/2007 5:26:37 PM PST by blam
Paul was right, all may be saved, but not all will be saved. God definitely wants all mankind saved, but all are able to reject His salvation if they so desire. Christ founded a plan (religion) by which salvation was guaranteed and it was toe Catholic church....to kid yourself into thinking any road leads to heaven is to deny the Bible itself....read it carefully, take nothing out of context, and it is very clear what Jesus intended.
No, thank you, I meant exactly what I said about Dan Brown’s book. Labeling a book a novel does not mean the author does not pretend to offer any factual* content. Yes, it’s fiction, but Dan Brown and millions of his acolytes think that he provides accurate historical revisionism embedded in a fictional story. Look, he had a statement in the front which asserted that the book was completely factual about its treatment of art, religion, etc. He has millions and millions of people believing that he has offered a fictional story within a background of factual accuracy about Leonardo’s work, Mary Magdelene and a supposed “Holy Grail” etc. It certainly can be said that Brown offered all sorts of factual claims which as been discredited as either (1) obviously untrue, or (2) completely unsubstantiated in the historical record.
*I also maintain that one of the worst aspects of much fictional literature, even by some very good writers, is that it takes no responsibility for seriousness when it comes to treatments of historical matters. It’s too easy an out to say “well it’s just fiction” when an author has offered material that is obviously intended to be taken seriously as historically accurate, but it’s not.
It other works, they were trying to peddle the same crap in a new wrapper and the Councils knew it.
Might I respectfully suggest that you re-read John 3:16.
I've probably written more on this than any other subject on FR.
I killed Him. My sin was why He died. I accept His sacrifice for MY sin. God now accepts me because all He can see is Jesus in Me. I'm covered by His blood.
This is the most nonsensical argument I've ever heard Christians make about if the Jews or Romans killed Christ. He says emphatically that no one takes His life, He freely gives it. As a Christian I have been adopted, or grafted in to the Family of God. Hating Jews would be hating my family. Hating Romans in my heart would be equal to murder, according to Christ.
There is a slight problem with what you wrote however, You must accept the free gift to be covered by His sacrifice. His blood is sufficient to cover all sin of all people, but all people are not saved. If Jesus dies for the sins of ALL mankind, then ALL mankind would be saved. That is error. If a person chooses to reject the free gift Jesus gave, then they stand before a perfect God with self righteousness. Since the Bible tells us that our righteousness is as filthy rags and a stench to Him, I wouldn't want to take the chance that I was "good" enough to get to heaven on my own. He clearly states, you won't.
As far as this thread goes, the Gnostics weren't highly thought of by the Apostles and there is no "gospel" of Judas or Thomas. I could write a gospel of Pilot today, but I doubt it would affect the Christian church much. The Discovery channel may give it a slot though.
Fish Hawk speaks with straight tongue.
Let us also remember that it was the Romans who crucified him. The Jews wanted Him dead, but the romans carried out the act. God used Judas to help fulfill Christs’ purpose here on earth.
Paul was pretty clear about the Gnostics; they were heretics.
There is a whole cottage industry generated by the interest in the gnostics. But the main interest in discrediting orthodox Christianity by pointing out the existence of these other ‘gospels” which are, as it says, parodies of the real things.
Mark may not be the first gospel. I know that is the consensus of Biblical scholars, but Markan priority is a premise that is necessary to sustain a certain philsophic view point. Very good arguments can be made for Mark as a kind of summary of Matthew and Luke.
Could you answer a question for me? Are there different versions of Greek? If so, do they teach these different versions?
English usage has changed greatly over the years. Compare modern English with the language of the King James Bible, which was finished in 1611. The epic poem Beowulf, composed about 700 A.D. and considered a literary classic, is written in Old English. The only manuscript extant dates from about 1000 A.D. and, written in the language of its time, is absolutely unreadable, even unrecognizable as English, to a modern reader. Even the letters in the alphabet in use then are different.
I would presume that all languages, including Greek and Arabic, would undergo such transformations over lengthy periods of time.
Latin, of course, is different because it is a "dead" language. No one speaks it anymore, and no one has for many centuries. So it is stable; it doesn't change, or at least changes much more slowly. This, in fact was its advantage during the Middle Ages. People from different areas who spoke different languages could communicate with each other using Latin. The Roman Church was basically the only international organization in Europe at the time, so they became its main users.
So my question about Greek is: Has it changed over the years, and how much? Does it use the same alphabet? Can you read both modern Greek and the Greek of the New Testament?
If anyone knows about changes in other languages, especially Arabic, I'd like to know about those as well.
I claim no expertise but my understanding is that modern Greek has evolved quite a bit from ancient (especially literary) Greek, as might be expected. Some verb tenses lost or added, much change in vocabulary, etc. But I think there is still considerable intelligibility among different dialects of Greek both ancient and modern.
Similar situation with Arabic, multiplied by the much larger populations and varieties of peoples who have used Arabic compared to Greek..... with an older literary Arabic and many local/regional variants as dialects that are more colloquial and informal compared to literary or Koranic Arabic.
But maybe someone who actually knows something about it will comment!! :^)
“Could you answer a question for me? Are there different versions of Greek?”
I’d be interested to know if the different forms of Greek, Athenic, Spartan, Macedonian and so forth survived Alexander, seems that he is kind of reponsible for that which we call the Greek language of today.
The Gnostic Gospels were written to further the cause of those who were followers of this particular type of cult Christianity. The same types are now trying to use it to further their own purposes.
Mel
This is extra-Scriptural materials ~ Gnostic stuff in fact. It really hasn’t got anything to do with Christianity.
The fact that it’s called *gospel* is what’s dangerous.
Judging by what I’ve seen people fall for, there’d likely be a chunk of people who think simply because it’s got that title, it’s valid enough to belong in the Bible and be called Scripture.
Many early documents from the period of American discovery and exploration are written in what might be called a “Latin dialect” ~ essentially Latin grammar and French words. You have to study this language to translate the materials, and not all the documents have been translated.
If I am correct in understanding, Coptic is not Greek.
Coptic is Egyptian, transliterated with a Greek alphabet.
That said, some Greek words, as AK will attest, are incredibly close in spelling, yet startlingly different in meaning.
Denos and Dinos come to mind for instance, as do the verbs to go and to be.
Of course, there is no way to know exactly what was meant, without other texts to give full exegetical comparison to.
Regardless, a scholarly debate is worthwhile in this. Should prove to be interesting.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.