Posted on 10/08/2017 12:28:07 PM PDT by SVTCobra03
In America today, there are roughly 300,000 churches claiming to represent Jesus Christ, that’s an average of 6,000 churches per state. That’s a lot of churches. So why are so many professing Christians ignorant about the main theme of the Bible? Because there is not one in a thousand that preaches Bible doctrine, and not one in ten thousand that believes the book of Revelation is a road map of the future.
(Excerpt) Read more at nowtheendbegins.com ...
Because it doesn't exist...
Why do you spell your screen name like you are posting from a backward town in China?
A “Noachide” is just a self hating fundamentalist Christian.
I think you’re confusing politics with theology ... Dispensationalism is mostly fairly new and pops up around 1830 with a theologian-lawyer named Darby, predating all that political identity nonsense that’s so popular among the anticapitalist crowd.
Dispensationalism didn’t take root deeply in the US until after the publication of the Scofield reference bible in the early 1900s.
Poor old John Nelson Darby. He gets all the blame. But I'm not a "dispensationalist." I'm a Noachide, which means I'm not a chrstian at all.
What you folks don't seem to realize is that there is a beautiful and simple logic to discarding chrstianity for Noachidism or Judaism. As a fundamentalist Protestant I was taught that J*sus had taken our place in hell so we didn't have to go. There was no ceremonial, no rituals, not commandments . . . nothing. The "old testament," I was taught, was just there to prove that all human effort was utterly vain. The problem with Fundamentalist Protestantism is that there are a zillion different versions and "your opinion is as good as mine." It's utter and total chaos, and I was also well aware that it didn't have the historical roots of the "baptized heathenism" of the ancient churches. So I investigated Roman Catholicism and eventually (believe it or not) converted.
Immediately I was hit with cognitive dissonance for a very good and logical reason: if G-d demands human effort, commandments, rituals, holidays, and ceremonies, what in the sam hill was wrong with the ones G-d directly gave Israel in the Bible??? None of the ancient churches (who constantly invoke the "old testament" to justify their own post-Biblical rituals and laws) are able to answer that question.
Then in addition to all the problems with Catholic orthodoxy is the fact that Catholicism (and all the ancient "apostolic" churches) are eaten up with liberalism and ethnic identity politics (you know, like those awful Jews "palaeos" hate so much?). So here we have all these "unchanged and unchanging" ancient churches who subscribe to evolution and Biblical criticism. Between this and the inconsistencies and illogic of their orthodoxy I experienced enough cognitive dissonance to make me physically ill.
So next I investigated Eastern Orthodoxy. And at this point a clear pattern began to emerge. You see, while Catholicism doesn't believe in innate total depravity, Eastern Orthodoxy doesn't even believe in original sin. Furthermore, from the Eastern Orthodox perspective all western chrstians (including Catholics) are Calvinists who don't realize it.
At this point a very clear pattern was emerging. As one moves backward into chrstian antiquity, from Protestantism to Catholicism to Orthodoxy, the less that's wrong with us and the more it's up to us to save ourselves. This leads quite naturally to the question: why did we need a new religion in the first place?
But my "epiphany" really came when while I was reading an Eastern Orthodox polemic against original sin that was fulminating against the "arch-heretic" Augustine and the "pagan Greek" notion of original sin. It actually said "the true doctrine of human nature is to be found in the Talmud." Yes, it actually said that! So what else was I to conclude? This was an admission that chrstianity was absolutely unnecessary and groundless!
Now, anybody want to hit me with John Nelson Darby? Or C.I. Scofield? Or the "International Jewish Conspiracy?"
Furthermore there is another factor at work here of which "palaeos" and liturgical chrstians seem to be totally ignorant: Biblical sentimentalism. While fundamentalist Protestants reject any and all rituals, ceremonies, and "works righteousness," there is a tremendous fascination for and pull towards the Biblical ritual and ceremonial (and holidays) because they are Biblical. I suppose this is something else "palaeos" can't understand.
We Bible-thumping rednecks have no use for Constantine or Theodosius or Justinian or Tiridates or Menelek or Arthur or Roland or El Cid. We don't want your medieval Europe. We don't want your chrstendom. Don't you get it? We want the Biblical world! There now, does that sound like the sinister Rothschilds at work? Is that Oxford University Press printing Scofield on the orders of the International Jewish Conspiracy? If you can't understand this, then you're simply mentally deficient. I'm sorry.
Therefore, why in the world would we exalt the chromosomes of Western European Man over the Word of G-d? Your racialism is not only idolatrous and stupid, but it has no roots in the ancient chrstian past you "palaeos" so worship. I have news for you: your "blood and soil" nationalism is a very recent creation, dating back no sooner than the late nineteenth century (wow . . . that's even younger than dispensationalism!). The ancient and medieval chrstians you so idolize were universalists who believed the entire human race was a single unit, and would gladly have copulated with any pygmy who was willing to be baptized. So you "palaeos" aren't even really "palaeo." Your racialism is a pitiable, pathetic infant with no roots in your idolized chrstian past.
I doubt this penetrates anyone's skull, but these are the facts that no one seems to consider. At any rate, the opinion of me held by "palaeos" is of no concern to me. I'm concerned with G-d, not any of you, and not with anybody's chromosomes.
You prove my point once again. You are self hating.
Because it doesn’t exist...
***
....
...
...
WHAT?
A single Internet search proves you wrong, as well as a single glance at the bookshelf next to me.
Your KJV was drawn entirely from Greek and Hebrew sources, more of which have been discovered since the 1600s; why not use the original source instead of a translation?
Why? Because nobody could possibly love a book that much? And by the way, thank you for discounting my entire spiritual journey, which I revealed to you in full sincerity. But since you're an atheist chromosome worshiper to whom all theological issues are nonexistent, what did I expect?
You don't even know traditional historical chrstianity, much less American Fundamentalist Protestantism (which, by the way, includes all those Blacks who vote for the most far Left candidate they can find in every election; did you think "fundamentalist" was an ethnic description?).
Come down to the Bible Belt sometime, "Achtung." We'll teach you the Prayer of Jabez. No European liturgical chrstian ever prays the Prayer of Jabez, I'll bet.
Down with the post-Biblical world! Put everything back the way it was three thousand years ago! Now that, my friend, is "right wing" . . . not your pathetic late nineteenth century "blood and soil" garbage.
Since our first grade teacher read Bible stories to us rather than sagas of "Nordic man," I'm afraid there's very little "European" in me to hate.
I don't need to be scolded by a Bible-hating atheist racialist evolutionist. Go back to the John Birch Society, Julius Evola.
That's the end of the story, not its theme.
Because none of those sources are the 'original' sources...The original sources do not exist...Whatever new sources found since 1600 are not original sources...Every bible out there is a 'translation' and none are original...
But if a bible was translated from the original sources, which one is it, cause I need to get me one of them???
Two thirds of the bible is prophecy of the end of the story...It's all about God's chosen people and the land he gave them for a kingdom, which is fulfilled at the end of the story...
So what you’re telling me is that all Bible writings are equal unless I can present you with the original text that the prophet or the apostle wrote?
Pbbth.
And now you’re telling me is that the KJV is best... why then?
It’s not ‘original,’ so you can’t claim that. It’s not even as old as the oldest sources that we have, so you can’t claim age either. It’s not in the original language of Scripture either.
Personally, I’ll take the Greek and Hebrew copies that we’ve assembled; we have enough old sources that are nearly identical to each other that we can rest assured of, say, 99% accuracy.
You can have your 1600s Anglican translation if it makes you feel good, but I have yet to hear any points beyond that about why it should be considered the best.
That’s still plot (timeline events that don’t necessarily directly point to motivations). The theme is along the lines of man’s separation from God and our reconciliation through God’s mercy.
You’re a joke and a disgrace.
For all the professions of Caths that they understand Scripture according ot the "fathers" - which is an error (rather than the weight of Scriptural substantiation) - it is really what their church chooses from among them that is determinitive of Truth.
Nice of you to admit there are no original texts after you tried to convince people you had access to them...That's a common, deceptive practice put out there by a lot of people...
I don't care which bible you or anyone else reads or even promotes...But when they try to dupe people into believing 'they' have access to the original Greek, I call 'em out on it...
Personally, I’ll take the Greek and Hebrew copies that we’ve assembled; we have enough old sources that are nearly identical to each other that we can rest assured of, say, 99% accuracy.
Go for it...Doesn't matter to me...
Sure...Sinaiticus and Vaticanus...However there's over 3 thousand disagreements between them...And they've been changed numerous times over the years...I know about your 99% accuracy...
You can have your 1600s Anglican translation if it makes you feel good, but I have yet to hear any points beyond that about why it should be considered the best.
I have my reasons and I don't push those on anyone else...But here's a few of them...
Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Psa 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
Either God preserved his words, or he lied...
There are two lines of bible manuscripts...One line is the Catholic line...It originated in Africa...Those manuscripts you love were created in Africa...And they are the basis for every English language bible out there except for one, the King James Bible...
The manuscripts for the KJV and KJV alone originated around Antioch, Syria, where people were first called Christians, not Egypt, where one of the last things God told his people, the Jews to get on up out of Egypt and get back to Jerusalem (2nd book of Chronicles)...
Another reason is that God's chosen people, the Jews, used manuscripts for their scriptures that are practically identical to those that the KJV translators used...Those Jews wouldn't be caught dead with one of your Catholic bibles...And neither would Jesus...
Luk 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
What, no Tobit or Wisdom??? Jesus tells us what the approved OT scriptures are and they don't include the Catholic revisions...
And talk about old age of manuscripts...The only complete book found in the Dead Sea Scrolls is the book of Isaiah and the Hebrew in that book matches pretty much exactly what was used to translate the book of Isaiah in the KJV...
Those are just a few reasons I believe the King James Bible is the word of God for the Church Age...
I’m not Catholic; stop mind-reading.
The Masoretic text that you tout so much was compiled in the 7th to 10th centuries. On the other hand, the Scripture that Jesus used...? I don’t think that Jesus would have read from Scripture that came around 700 years AFTER he ascended into heaven.
And that’s just the OT.
And none of your words (all of which you give without evidence) answer the question as to why we should keep your precious KJV instead of the Greek and Hebrew from which it was translated anyways.
As I said; keep your KJV if you want. It’s not like it preaches a blasphemous Gospel. Keep your opinions if you like.
But drop the holier-than-thou pontificating and condemning everyone else who reads a different translation or even the original languages.
That's a false accusation...I didn't condemn anyone for reading any translation...And I don't and haven'tcondemned anyone for researching Greek and Hebrew...
They come to the USA they should learn English and assimilate.
Any immigrant coming to the U.S.A. should learn English.
If your talking about those countries that you have spoken about they have already rejected Christ and embraced Islam.
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.