Jump to content

slippy

Members
  • Content count

    120
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

19 Good

About slippy

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  1. slippy

    Why I do not trust the N.T.

    I ישהק Sorry for that, I have to go now, but there is a grose misunderstanding now, because as I stated it was a non topic question. I was wondering about this forum and the thing that if I write a verse in Bible, it pops up when the comment is posted and ready. That site is the site I was talking about. Those questions do belong in that environment. sorry, igf this comment is a mess but it is written so quickly.
  2. slippy

    Why I do not trust the N.T.

    I'll see, if I take time to read those. Anyway, Paul said For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. The evidence you have now kindly showed me twice only affirms that the changes, in godhead and in rejecting the origin of the 'Gospel' (I do put it like that, because I do not see that being a Tanachic word but a Greek title for this whole new relegion that ended up to have The father in stead of the Heavenly father, The Holy See in stead of the seat of the G-d of Israel in the Heavens, etc.) were - as Paul said him to know in advance - made right after his departure. Seems to me that the non-Jewish believers did not swallow the whole bread and fish.
  3. slippy

    Why I do not trust the N.T.

    Is it automatic that the Bible verses do show up? And the second not topic-relevant question is, is it true that this site do not have Hebrew Scriptures. At least I did not find. Why is that? I do not understand it, that people have translated the Tanach from Septuagint and not from the original texts. That, for me, is one extra point in denying (?) some Scriptures. Of course should one be able to have acces to the original texts, unless the intention is to let readers understand that the Septuagint is the original text of Tanach, which is no way true. As I stated some elsewhere, after reading only some sentences in Bereshit, I was like What? How is this book translated to Greek.
  4. slippy

    Why I do not trust the N.T.

    We are not talking about 'obvious', we are talking about biblical matters.
  5. slippy

    Why I do not trust the N.T.

    I mean that people who write there do have the accepted views, no controversial ones. I do not say that I agree with them. But I thaught that you do. You do believe in the new formula of godhead that is not stated in the Scriptures, as well as in baptism in the name of that new godhead and in that theology presented in Wikipedia. I don't see any variation between your beliefs and the Wikipedians' beliefs. I am wrong?
  6. slippy

    Why I do not trust the N.T.

    And the point is?
  7. slippy

    Why I do not trust the N.T.

    My laughs are to be placed before O's last comment.
  8. slippy

    Why I do not trust the N.T.

    LOL :) :) :) :) and one in writing hahaha. Thanks.
  9. slippy

    Why I do not trust the N.T.

    Yes, I do. There is quite a strict control in doing or trying to do changes. Though Wikipedia lines up with the current understanding of theology, world, science etc. This is one funny thing, this that the newest and latest knowledge is the best one. It does not line up with what Yahweh says ---- the ways of old.
  10. slippy

    Why I do not trust the N.T.

    I do add something :) My aim, my goal is not to make you angry. I apologize for that. I'd like to show you the way. What do we read here, in these 5 verses of this NC we are arguing: Mark 12:29, 1 Chor 8:6, Eph 4:6, 1 Tim 2:5 and James 2:19? And, if you do not take me to be trusworthy, by all means, do not. Let those verses testify. Please, let me continue a little, still. I do want to say something about disciples. They knew the Scriptures, they did know that a Messiah was promised to them, they did know what was written in Jer 31 about the new covenant to be. Then Yeshua came and just like that asked them to follow Him. And they did! (For me that in itself is a mystery, not many people do answer G-d's call and invitation the way they did :)) So, they followed Him, listened, learned, had the power to heal people, which they exercised while "being on tour" - and then Yeshua dies. He had said that all this is going to happen, but - did they understand. No, they did not. Only after Yeshua Himself opened their hearts to understand all of this and so they become to be the 1st and only witnesses of all that happened. My claime is that because they believed Yeshua being the One whom their G-d had sent and because their belief came true in the things they saw, they were trusted witnesses by G-d. This principal things about Yeshua, that I said are stated in the NC Scriptures, when believed will lead the believer to take the next needed steps. And when a person has come to faith in Yeshua, is baptized in the name of Yeshua and has got the Spirit of the Holy, he will recieve also understanding. This baptismal wording is now drawn in. If, Yeshua had said as the end of Matthew now reads, we will have a bunch of holy writings that do deny it. NOwhere in the NC (I use NC for NT, cause we are talking about a covenant and not about a will which G-d's son left after him and now all the ones who claime themselves to be heirs, do guarrell about as to whom the huge inheritance belongs) did anyone baptise anyone according to that end of Matthew. Why not? Because it just was not to be done so. And, secondly, baptism per se is not the way of becoming a disciple. No, the procedure is in Acts, hearing the word, believing it, repenting, being baptised in the name of Yeshua in His death (Romans 6. That is a must, because every single one is sentenced to death, Gen. 2:17. Death is the thing that every one has to deal with.), being resurrected in Him, and after a gooooood daaaaaaaaay walk, saved in and after physical death (in normal death or by being transformed when Yeshua comes, in a nanosecond). So seems to me that when and if I omit certain additions or alterations, I have to say that the NC is truthfull. Happy? Yeshua is in any case the one to believe in, not the writings, only. How is it written? You read the Scriptures and think that you have life in them but ---- and the rest I do not remember. Got to check it. :) Seems to me that we may be on the same side exept the strong barrier that seems to exist between Israel and other nations. Some early writer (200 or 300 AD) described the resurrection to be the Creation of the Earth. For me this clearly states that everything, exept nice blessings, before Christ is denied and the counting of days started in His resurrection because in that event the Earth was created. What does it tell me? It tells that a group of people who are willing to eat it up, that description, can not and do not understand what is this all about. I may be WRong, though.
  11. slippy

    Why I do not trust the N.T.

    Origen. Part of the problem might be my English which is not perfect amongst many other unperfections in me :) I try to explain my view again (all though MY view is not the important one). Even in this newest Encyclopedia that is called Wikipedia we do read that certain verses are disputable. Comma Johanneum is one. Secondly Eusebius who clearly cites and quotes the end of Matthew only in a let's say 'short form' - and this in his writings before the first Greco-Roman council, gives us some thought too in this matter. What do these two verses have in common? The new formula of godhead. The wording that is found nowhere in the Scriptures other than those. So, for me it is obvious that the texts have been altered or to be literal, this new formula is added. You may read your bible as that, I do not.
  12. slippy

    Why I do not trust the N.T.

    What I want to point is that Christ is the Only offer that pleases G-d. There is no (other) salvation than the Salvation in the name of Yeshua. He is the one whose blood gives life. He is the Salvation that is from Jews. He is the only mediator, no one else. He is Abraham's seed, He is David's seed.
  13. slippy

    Why I do not trust the N.T.

    Should we have this conversation in some other thread, or do we just quit and let this thread be for 'mary'. I do not see NT the way you see it. First because their is so much (enough to doubt that alterations are made in favour of the non-Israelite dogmas that are dealt in the thread about Easter and Passover) doubtfull and controversial (not all 'gospels' agreeing) content in verses, terms etc. Secondly, as you theo#22 said Peter (is it not funny that exactly this letter was not whole heartidly accepted to be 'in') pointed out that Paul is a Tanach observing teacher and is thus being valued as a teacher. This we can see in the beginning of this passage where he writes to the attendees of that Tanachic faith and Tanach word observance with him. 1 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in [both] which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour: What is the commandment that the apostles had given to gentiles? Is it not the one in Acts 15, where too this same "procedure" of G-d creating everything from or in the beginning and then the whole "story" of righteous people and the nation of Israel and finally Yeshua, is referred to. This same history is shared with Peter here. So, the ground, the foundation, the solid rock on which the apostles stood (or stand, being "more" alive now than they were at that time) and on which also Peter here stands and says Paul is standing - is Moses, the writings that were given by G-d through him to the sons of Israel. They allways start from the beginning and continue the straight and safe path (or Way) that was instructed to them to be followed by Moses and the prophets untill the last prophet (!) Yeshua. (Did not Yahweh say to Moshe that He will send His people a prophet like him (Moshe) from among his brethren and that the one who will not hear that prophet will be cut off of his people.) The controversiality here is, for me, that these canonizers did not - according to their own words - stand on that foundation. And, by the way, Paul's teachings a-r-e being twisted. The one clear example being the flat out say that people who do celibrate Sabbath, new moon, and other feasts of Yahweh are to be condemned or judged. Every English speaking person understands that sentence a-s i-t i-s w-r-i-t-t-e-n and not as it is twisted. This is not a bully speaker talking here but a person who understands a little English and other languages a little more :). G-d bless. Thirdly, the Mashiah haSheker has come already. He changed the laws and dates (no more the absolute continuity of the Tanachic commandments that are placed in the hearts of believers in the New Covenant, which the G-d of Israel made with the tribe of Israel and the tribe of Judah; Jer. 31:31 to the end of that chapter.; no more Pesach 1/14, no more Sabbath) and he entered the congrecation saying him to be god and taking the seat of G-d which is in Heavens and placing it on the earth (did not Paul say For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. So quickly, right away after he departed, he knew it. The new age entered the congregation in that much that as a result there is a vicarius filii dei who sits on the holy see and says that his words and laws are the ones to obey, placing himself in the place of G-d Himself, giving no true honor and glory to G-d.) Do I have to continue? Ok, our witness Eusebius, describes already the emperor C. with Jesus-like terms. and so on and so on and ... here comes the fruit. Rome, church of Rome, said that they do not want to celebrate their resurrection day, the day of the Lord (about which Paul wrote to the same Thessalonians to whom he wrote the above cited lines ...To the effect that the day of the Lord is already here. Any day of the Lord is still to come. Sun day is not the day of the Lord nor is the resurrection any feast day, no. The Pesach 1/14 is the only day to be commemorized) on the same day than those horrible Jews who killed Jesus and then they, the church of Rome, went and killed the Jews. Is it not funny that these strange things do happen. Did not Yeshua say that judging your brother you judge youself committing the exact same sin (freely memorized :)). Do not judge and - especially do not change G-d's commandments by judging the people of Yahweh even if they did wrong, your 'time' is near. Am I judging? Seeing similarities between Scriptures and history? Is it not enough to have these Scriptures that we already have, Tanach and NC. Do some one need some more evidence? Yeshua again said, if you do not belive what is said in the Scriptures = Tanach, you won't believe if some one rose from death (freely memorised :)). Ok, he also wanted to show these hearers in beforehand that after He died and rose from death, would they not believe in, not even then. If the bible is not enough why do people need some one to mediate between them and G-d.
  14. slippy

    Why I do not trust the N.T.

    So, we are no more discussing e.g. 'our lord'?..
  15. slippy

    Why I do not trust the N.T.

    Again: this thread is about "our lady". But you may move this conversation somewhere else. You said that the scholars that are still alive (?) or have lived 100 years ago have more credibility than people before them, am I right.
×