Scholarship of Chapel Detractors

[smyrna]

I wish to illustrate the irresponsible claims and quite flimsy "scholarship" of Chapel dectractors.
In this case I will rebut the following post which can be found in the Cultbusters.com.au site thread titled, The Captain's Lounge:

Please download the following on each member's computer: http://www.companionbiblecondensed.com/OT/Genesis.pdf. This will be used in conjunction with our Holy Bible in order to make comparisons. Let me correct an assumption now, if I may. The Shepherd's Chapel doctrines did not come from the Companion Bible. They came from a number of ancient texts and mythology, none of which are considered inspired of God by orthodox Christianity. E.W. Bullinger was a British Israelist. This shows in his works. He was not the original author of the 1611 KJV. He used the 1611 to create his own version which you will find is added to. Upon his death, others completed this book. This makes more than one author for a book he is credited with. Later, I will compile a list of others who believed in these false doctrines before Bullinger. Two examples are "Sargon the Magnificent" (mythology and opinion combined) and the Book of Enoch, whose authorship is questionable. Rule: Books must be confirmed by the Holy Bible, not the Holy Bible confirmed by men's books.

Rebuttal to Follow

[smyrna]

That post is really full of ignorant claims, as what we usually get from these arm chair scholars. Like this one:

"He used the 1611 to create his own version which you will find is added to. Upon his death, others completed this book. This makes more than one author for a book he is credited with."

Now compare this from the Introduction to the Companion Bible: "The human element is excluded, as far as possible, so that the reader may realize that the pervading object of the book is not merely to enable him to interpret the Bible, but to make the Bible the interpreter of God's Word, and will, to him."

"To the same end this Edition is (caps mine)NOT ASSOCIATED WITH THE NAME OF ANY MAN: so that its usefulness may neither be influenced nor limited by any such consideration; but that it may commend itself, on its own merits, to the whole English- speaking race."

Seems to me that Bullinger was not looking for his name to be placed on the credits to this edition. And these people are fools to believe Bullinger did not have a staff of very knowlegeable people on his team, those same people carrying on when he passed away, rather than, as they seem to imply, that a brand new staff came in to finish the work.

Now let's look at this quote: "The Shepherd's Chapel doctrines did not come from the Companion Bible. They came from a number of ancient texts and mythology, none of which are considered inspired of God by orthodox Christianity."

That is a blanket accusation that really needs specifics. In its present form, that
claim is totally irresponsible. It implies that ALL SC doctrine comes from those sources listed,which also are too vague to lend any value whatsover to it. An empty allegation, which deserves no merit worthy of any rebuttal beyond what I have already given.

Cont'd

[smyrna]

Cont'd

And this: "E.W. Bullinger was a British Israelist."

All I have to say to that is anyone who is not a "British Israelist" is denying volumes of history.


This one had me laughing and shaking my head "Later, I will compile a list of others who believed in these false doctrines before Bullinger. Two examples are "Sargon the Magnificent" (mythology and opinion combined)...

I have to stop right there,I believe Bullinger died in 1913, or close enough to that year. Mrs. Sindney Bristowe, wrote Sargon the Magnificent in 1927!

now let's move on: ...and the Book of Enoch, whose authorship is questionable."

The first question: WHICH book of Enoch? The one that the BIBLE quote in Jude 14, or the fake that has been known and kept separate from the former.

For the former, the Ethiopian Church DOES include it in their Canon, so in at least one Church it has canonical status.

I like they way they just dismiss this book of Enoch out of hand. Read this page and tell me where they are off the deep end on this one:

http://reluctant-messenger.com/enoch.htm

Now the post also points out that "...the author ship of the BoE is questionable."

So what? So is the Book of Hebrews! (even though I believe it to be Pauline)

So is parts of Isaiah!
Have any of you ever heard the term 'II Isaiah', and what entails that term?

[smyrna]

Another point about Enoch: Scholars question it's authorship, but it is not questioned by Jude, that is, in the book of Jude. It calls the reference to the book, The Prophecies of Enoch."

Lest any be confused, like I said, there is at least one fake book of Enoch floating around. But the one I am referencing, as well as the one quoted in Jude, we have many assembled fragments from the Daed Sea Scrolls, as well as much more information in the form of references from texts that are contemporaneous, or nearly so, in the works of the early Doctors of the Church.

Which brings me to a question for the detractors:

Do you also dismiss with the same condemnation, other non-canonical boks that are mentioned in Scripture? Like Jasher, for instance?
Or how about Psalm 151 (and others) found among the DSS, and 151 is also included in the Ethiopian Canon.

Better do some more homework,because subjects like these are well within my scope of expertise.

One more thing about the Ethipoian Canon before you criticize it, which I am sure you will try: you don't want to disrespect the Canon of a predominantly black Church, do you?

[kimberlyfredrick]

What a joy it would be if everyone 'tried' to have their facts straight before they try to run something in the ground as false.

When we are studing our Fathers Word we should be damn careful before we start pointing the finger at who and what we deem false.

[terluvire]

<font color="0000ff">Smyrna, thanks for bringing to our attention their statements of ignorance. This helps to see where they are coming from. Their accusations are coming from their own minds and not the facts.


Kim, that's their problem! They hear something from hearsay, or just assume things and run with it. They do no research to check anything out. They have little knowledge on the things they try to use against us. Yet...they think they are right!

When did Jesus ever say to accuse your brethren with unsubstantiated claims?</font>

[smyrna]

You are welcome,

See how the detractors operate? Look at the time of my post. They are all over the Cultblunders and SC thread, playing silly games.

Do we see any of them here, answering my questions? Rebutting my posts? Of course not. Why, They can't.

But they think they are qualified to challenge SC teachings. They are a bunch of clowns.

[smyrna]

Well, I think we found their weak spot. You delve into a level of theology that is so far beyond them, using the words and terms scholars use, and they can't particpate, they can't criticize, because they know they have no clue.

They were here all day, on the Cultblunders and SC thread. They were even told about this new thread twice.

So it is clear they can't refute what is clearly and example of their flimsy, weak, childish understanding of Scripture.

God gave us intelligence to go beyond what children would be able to understand, to that which our talents have been given.

It is an insult to God, therefore, to indulge in childish role playing games, and at the same time fuse that with attcking another's theology. We have studied. We have tested the spirits.

The detractors are hecklers, false accusers, and they can't mind their own business.

So don't expect them here soon.

With that being said, we can have discussions among ourselves or those who can participate, like Dave, without using lies, tricks, and deceptions, and without trying to bring stuff up that we have already discussed literally hundreds of times.

We really should do a study on the recently discovered Psalms, as well as Psalm 151. I think it is an excellent start. Anybody game?

[smyrna]

PSALM 151

1 I was small among my brothers,
and youngest in my father's house;
I tended my father's sheep.
2 My hands made a harp,
my fingers fashioned a lyre.
3 And who will declare it to my Lord?
The Lord himself; it is he who hears.
4 It was he who sent his messenger
and took me from my father's sheep,
and anointed me with his anointing oil.
5 My brothers were handsome and tall,
but the Lord was not pleased with them.
6 I went out to meet the Philistine,
and he cursed me by his idols.
7 But I drew his own sword;
I beheaded him, and removed reproach from
the people of Israel

[terluvire]

Hey, I'm in Smyrna!!

[terluvire]

<font color="0000ff">Smyrna, after not being able to post all day, I was so happy, I just had to let you know I was back on..lol

Here are some notes I found by Adam Clark on Psalm 151:</font>

PSALM cli

Besides these hundred and fifty Psalms, there is one additional in the Syriac, Septuagint, AEthiopic, and Arabic, of which it will be necessary to say something, and to give a translation. 1. The Psalms is not found in the Hebrew, nor in the Chaldee, nor in the Vulgate. 2. It is found, as stated, above, in the Syriac, Septuagint, AEthiopic, and Arabic; but not in the Anglo-Saxon, though Dom. Calmet has stated the contrary. But I have not heard of it in any MS. of that version; nor is it in Spelman's printed copy. 3. It is mentioned by Apollinaris, Athanasius, Euthymius, Vigilius, Tapsensis, and St. Chrysostom. 4. It has never been received either by the Greek or Latin Church; nor has it ever been considered as canonical. 5. It is certainly very ancient, stands in the Codex Alexandrinus, and has been printed in the Paris and London Polyglots. 6. Though the Greek is considered the most authentic copy of this Psalm, yet there are some things in the Syriac and Arabic necessary to make a full sense. The Arabic alone states the manner of Goliath's death. The title is, "A Psalm in the handwriting of David, beyond the number of the Psalms, composed by David, when he fought in single combat with Goliath." I shall make it as complete as I can from the different versions.

I WAS the least among my brethren; and the youngest in my father's house; and I kept also my father's sheep. My hands made the organ; and my fingers joined the psaltery.3 And who told it to my LORD? [Arab.: And who is he who taught me?] The LORD himself, he is my Master, and the Hearer of all that call upon him. He sent his angel, and took me away from my father's sheep; and anointed me with the oil of his anointing. [Others, the oil of his mercy.] 5 My brethren were taller and more beautiful than I; nevertheless the LORD delighted not in them.I went out to meet the Philistine, and he cursed me by his idols. [Arab.: IN the strength of the LORD I cast three stones at him. I smote him in the forehead, and felled him to the earth.] 8 And I drew out his own sword from its sheath, and cut off his head, and took away the reproach from the children of Israel.

<font color="0000ff">http://www.piney.com/Psalm151.html</font>

[angie0401]

Smyna, I remember hearing about another Psalm that had been found, but can't remember the details. Can you give me a brief synopsis?

Thanks!

[terluvire]

<font color="0000ff">Hey Angie, are you talking about this:

Tehillim, found at Qumran.

http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/deadsea.scrolls.exhibit/Library/psalms.html</font>

[smyrna]

I knew that because of our talented little group. we would be able to find some very interesting and also edifying things to discuss along the lines of Judeo-Christian manuscripts, and other topics related to Biblical study.
It is a much more noble thing to do then to keep plying Merry-go-round with a bunch of detractors that apparently know everything already, and thus have authorized themselves to be their own self declared canonical authorities.
You have noticed already they have not dared to come here, and if or when they do, they will not act any differently than they have been. They will find some way to criticize this new direction we are taking. I say let 'em, but we should just ignore them.

With that being said, we should try and address the question as to why PS. 151 has never been included in the major canons of the Churches. It certainly has been known for centuries. I've never heard anyone comment on that question, or even heard it asked.

I don't want to install myself here as the sole director of these discussions, so if any of you have any ideas for further study, hey, bring it on!

[angie0401]

smyrna,
Why do you think it wasn't included in the canon? I know there were specific requirements for canonization, but don't recall off the top of my head what they are. Did/does Psalm 151 meet the criteria?
Is it quoted in any other Books of the Bible? I did find it a very interesting read. Thanks!

[kimberlyfredrick]

Hi guys, I did not want to disrupt the discussions but I need to tell you guys a few things.

I may not be able to post or post as much starting tomorrow evening. You see.....boy this is hard. OK here goes. 6 weeks ago me and the kids lost a 2 year battle to save our house. My husband, there father abandoned us 2 days before Halloween 2004. Dylan was just 7 at the time and "Tay" was just 5 months. My husband had comepleted his 'mission'. He had spent every dime we had and ran up all the credit cards past there limits, lost my busisness and the family car while I was in the hospital giving birth to our Daughter Taylor etc. etc. etc. Anyway after there was'nt anything else to take he left us for dead and has not sent 1 penny for support. Well, I did everything I could to save the house and I failed. We have been homeless for 6 weeks. But, God has heard my prayers and I got confirmation for a visit to RCV in Selmer, TN. I have researched the place and cannot find anything wrong with it. They are an intended living Community but the are no tSabbatarian but they don't shun others for their different Religious beliefs. There only requirements is to acknowledge that YHWH is God and Yashua is the son of God and to die unto yours old self opick up your cross and serve the rest of your days in fellowship with others who are trying to live as a modern-day Church of Acts. I know that some of you will be concerned for us so I want you to check it out. PLEASE you guys at CB. Please do not bash these good people. I am not saying that you will just asking that you do not OK? They are trying to take care of the modern-day widows and orphans which is me and the kids.


Here's the info:

www.rosecreekvillage.com (http://www.rosecreekvillage.com)

I love you ALL very much
Sorry I was no nasty at times

[kimberlyfredrick]

Hey, check out my post #....looks like God washes sins away even on Factnet.....hahaha

[terluvire]

<font color="0000ff">HI Angie,

Quote:
smyrna,
Why do you think it wasn't included in the canon? I know there were specific requirements for canonization, but don't recall off the top of my head what they are. Did/does Psalm 151 meet the criteria?
Is it quoted in any other Books of the Bible? I did find it a very interesting read. Thanks!

From what I gather from my post above, it says:</font>

Besides these hundred and fifty Psalms, there is one additional in the Syriac, Septuagint, AEthiopic, and Arabic, of which it will be necessary to say something, and to give a translation.
1. The Psalms is not found in the Hebrew, nor in the Chaldee, nor in the Vulgate.

2. It is found, as stated, above, in the Syriac, Septuagint, AEthiopic, and Arabic; but not in the Anglo-Saxon, though Dom. Calmet has stated the contrary. But I have not heard of it in any MS. of that version; nor is it in Spelman's printed copy.

3. It is mentioned by Apollinaris, Athanasius, Euthymius, Vigilius, Tapsensis, and St. Chrysostom.

4. It has never been received either by the Greek or Latin Church; nor has it ever been considered as canonical.


5. It is certainly very ancient, stands in the Codex Alexandrinus, and has been printed in the Paris and London Polyglots.

6. Though the Greek is considered the most authentic copy of this Psalm, yet there are some things in the Syriac and Arabic necessary to make a full sense. The Arabic alone states the manner of Goliath's death. The title is, "A Psalm in the handwriting of David, beyond the number of the Psalms, composed by David, when he fought in single combat with Goliath

<font color="0000ff">Smyrna, what is your take on this. You have studied this much more than I have. Why do you think it wasn't cannonized?</font>

[david_munson]

<font color="000000"><font face="arial,helvetica"></font>
Kim,
And I qoute from the Lord's words,"I will never leave you nor forsake you."

Dave
</font>}

[kimberlyfredrick]

David....He never did. We should have never been able to live in that house as long as we did. What he taught me there was priceless and he made an out for us just when we needed one.

You have no idea just how awesome God is until he carries you through a life of Hell....

[david_munson]

<font color="000000"><font face="arial,helvetica"></font>
Makes Romans 8:28 pop right out at you doesn't it?
Thank the Lord,
Dave
</font>}

[smyrna]

I don't know Terluvire. I can only speculate. I suspect that there was a time that the exegetes relied very heavily on Hebrew affirmation of Greek, as in the time the Septuagint was developed. In other words, I suspect they would have considered 151's inclusion in the canon had they had an actual Hebrew version of it. As we now know, we do have a copy now that the DSS have been discovered.

As for canonical status, I do know that one consideration undertaken by the Councils was keeping the sacred texts manageable. Because critics may be troubled by that fact, I can only refer to one comment from a book I have on my shelf that covers the Apocrypha, hwich I have to paraphrase, since a quick scan of my bookshelf here didn't produce the work I am referring to: Basically, there were many texts that were extant during the formation of the Canon as we know it, that were highly respected by the Doctors of the Church, yet were not included not because of anything detrimental or negatively found in contrast to the texts that were highly favored candidates for the Canon, either had material that was redundant, or material that the Councils judged as being not important enough to include in the canon.
Obviously that covered quite a bit of material, otherwise we would not have both Old and New Testament duetero-canonical books, and in the case of the New Testament Apocprypha, their importance was enough for the KJV scholars to include them in the 1611 version.

[terluvire]

<font color="0000ff">Kimberly, I am so sorry to hear of your hardships. Do remember that God will never allow more than we can bear, and He always gives a way out.

I will be keeping you and your family in prayer.

Oh, but you will be sorely missed if you cannot post. If you are able, please let us know how you are doing from time to time.</font>

[plow_deep]

Kim,

I'm sorry to hear of your troubles and hope all works out well with you. Please be cautious in making your move. Sometimes things can seem like a great thing when a person is in a desparate situation. If at all possible, you should visit Rosecreek several times, before making a final decision.

Make up a list of questions. I dont know your family situation but keep them in mind. Can you visit your relatives when you want? Or do you have to go thru an authority figure at Rosecreek? Dont let a group come between you and family.

Theres lots of Government and private programs that assist single mothers. I hope you take advantage of them and dont make a rash move.

If I were you, I would line up every assistance program I could find, and take the time to explore Rosecreek without being under stress to make a quick move.

Peace

[smyrna]

Kimberly,

I will and am already praying for you. Your faith will carry you. Please get in touch with us when you can. Also, if you want to contact me, please use my
("anyone can write me here account, it's not my real name")at cephasalpha@yahoo.com

I use it so even my enemies can write me there, if they want. Not too many do, unless they ahve their own similar account. Anonymity is a plus on the web, you you may know.

Hope to hear from you again soon.

[terluvire]

<font color="0000ff">Hi Smyrna,

Thanks for your explanation. I do know the apocrypha books were included in the 1611 KJV. I know that the apocrypha books were later taken out, but this proves nothing to the non cannonical value of these books. There was a man by the name Robert Barker, which in 1616, omitted the entire Old Testament from his printing of KJV.

There were also some printings of the 1629 KJV which contained the apocrypha books, And the 1630 printing of the KJV which also included the apocrypha books.</font>

[kimberlyfredrick]

Plow,

The state of Mississsippi went broke I think March 2004. I have been unable to get any assistance other that a bit of food for Taylor(the 2 year old) froma Govt. program called WIC.
Nothing else!


And as for relatives, we are at my parents house now. It is a very abusive place(my mom is mentally ill and very mean to us)Shye hit my son with her fist yesterday when she went thru the dishweasher and found a butterknife he put in there without washing it off first. You know, people say only things like that happen to people living in trailer parks and such. Well, my parents are probably in the top 10 richest families here in Mississippi. Go figure! people who drive by the house have no idea it is a house of horrors on the inside.

[terluvire]

<font color="0000ff">Kim, you can email me also at terluvire@hotmail.com</font>

[smyrna]

The improtant thing to realize is that the detractors are going completely against most mainstream Bible scholars,(who they normally agree with) who hold the Apocrypha in high esteem, and even strongly suggest that those writings are a very important resource in anyone's quest to understand both Judaism as well as Christianity. Many of the writings were written during the inter-testamental period, after the close of the OT and before the NT.

Therefore, it is obvious that an incredible amount of historical and spiritual knowledge is contained in them, and it's too bad the detractors dismiss them without even studying their history and contributions to Christian thought, simply because some Church they don't agree with happens to appreciate them! How ignorant is that?

[kimberlyfredrick]

Thanks everyone for your love and support. Got your emails in my address book. Had to delete 88 messages from Factnet! Whats up with that???

[terluvire]

<font color="0000ff">Good kim! LOL 88 messages!</font>

[plow_deep]

Kim,

I know about abusive parents and I sympatise with you. I also know government programs will blow you off and mislead you whenever possible. Sometimes in order to get help, you have to go thru the private sector to get help with the government sector.

Since you are a mom w/kids in abusive situation, theres more help out there for you than for most. Have you checked with the United way? Also check with Catholics, they are some of the nicest people you can run across when you are down and out. Unlike most any other group, they will not take advantage of your situation to push a religious view.

I'm just trying to give you some ideas that might help your situation.

Peace

[terluvire]

<font color="0000ff">Kim, If there is anyway I can personally help you, just email me. I don't know what I can do but I will try my best.</font>

[kimberlyfredrick]

Thanks Plow,

I live in a very rural area. There is'nt anything remotely like that here. There is not even a Salvation Army or a Goodwill. very remote, but Mississippi is dotted with tiny little farming towns. Not much here in my neck of the woods.

Don't despare.God told me about RCV months ago. I'm not in this by myself you know.

[plow_deep]

Kim,

I see, you gotta have a good size town for most any kinda prepared help. Country folks always get the short end of the deal in the "help program" department.

[kimberlyfredrick]

They do indeed Plow. But i've got friends on the 'inside' at RCV not to mention a few trying to get in. ('Naba' is a personal friend of mine)

[plow_deep]

Thats good. I will say I'm intrigued with RCV and have asked a few questions. I dont think its for me, due to I know my own nature. I truly love my solitude at times, and can get grouchy when I dont have my space. From the little I know, RCV seems to have some good points.

I dont feel the same at all about the Twelve Tribes.

Grrrr!
http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/lol.gif

[kimberlyfredrick]

Good point Plow! I felt the same way about the TT.

I too can be a loner at times. My undersdtanding of RCV is that at least for me(a single woman with kids), I will be able to have my solitude as well as fellowship. Course I won't 'know' anything until I get there and stay ahwile. I will keep you posted and if you do decide you would like a 'visit' I'll be there to welcome you with big open arms! That will be cool, huh!

[terluvire]

<font color="0000ff">HI Smyrna,

You said:
Therefore, it is obvious that an incredible amount of historical and spiritual knowledge is contained in them, and it's too bad the detractors dismiss them without even studying their history and contributions to Christian thought, simply because some Church they don't agree with happens to appreciate them! How ignorant is that?

It is really sad.</font>

[smyrna]

Well, as we have seen so far, the detractors have no desire to come here to this thread. I know they have seen it, but since they have no clue about what we are talking about (do they ever?) we can keep our references to them situated only in the beginning.
Because I can assure you that the subjects we can and hopefully will discuss, are way beyond their ken.

If they do show up here, and start their heckling or try to divert the discussions in any way, I say we ignore tham, and from here on out, on this thread, we make this a "detractor free zone."

Can we get a vote on this?

I vote and vow Yes, for making this thread a "detractor free zone", and will not respond to their posts here in any way.

[kimberlyfredrick]

Count me in Smyrna....I'm all in for peace.

The tactics they use is too much of a stumbling block for me. After a while of 'playing' with them I re-read some of my posts and I don't like myself too much. Its like playing with the 'wrong crowd.' You find yourself wallowing in the 'sty' after awhile.

[terluvire]

<font color="0000ff">I'm in also Smyrna!

Ok, let me know if I'm wrong here Smyrna. I think the last printing of the KJV with the Apocrypha was in 1899. In between the time of 1611 and 1899, there were many different Publishers which produced the KJV along with the Apocrypha.

If I'm not mistaken, it was the Protestant church which decided to omit the Apocrypha from the Old Testament. The Roman Catholics have listed the extra books called the Deuterocanonical.

It depends on who you talk to. Some see those books as inside books, such as the Roman Catholics; and some call them "outside" books, meaning outside of the Cannon, such as the Protestants.

We should never limit our opinion to only what our church (whatever church one may belong to) says.</font>

[godchild]

An answer for the 'detractor's motivation' thread which is not accessible at the moment:

Quote: But also, the Companion Bible footnotes compare I Thess. ch. 4:15-17 with Acts 8:39,II Corinthians 12:2-4, Rev. 12:5, <u>none of which relate any physical trips to heaven, ala the Rapture.</u>

Acts 8:39 ...the Spirit of the Lord caught Phillip away, so that the eunich SAW HIM NO MORE.

The Bible tells us we will be changed in an instant. If the reference is to 'physical' this is easily explained. But the verse does not say Phillips spirit was caught away, but Phillip physically so that the eunuch saw him no more. Either way, this verse does refer to rapture, defined as being 'caught up'.

2 Cor.12:2-4 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body I cannot tell; or whether out of the body I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven. vs.4 How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.

Revelation 12:5 ...and her child was caught up unto God, and to His throne.

Also, see Rev. 11:12 And they heard a great voice from heaven saying unto them, come up hither. And they ascended up to heaven in a cloud; and their enemies BEHELD them.

bullinger was correct in comparing these verses that reference a rapture, or 'catching away'.

[terluvire]

<font color="0000ff">godchild, I copied your post to the appropriate thread so that it may be discussed there.http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif</font>

[smyrna]

The Catholic Church, and correctly so, includes certain books that the protestant oriented Bibles do not. But you are correct that they are non-canonical.

It really is a minor pint, looking at the big picture, because the Apocryphal books have always been in print and available to english readers whwther included in a particular Bible version or not.

What is truly more important than the history of the placement of these books, is their content.
To this end I recommend Goodspeed's Apocrypha, which is readily available from many religious book distributors, as well as the Chapel.

Another book I'd like to mention is a book called "The Other Bible" Harper Collins by (edited by Willis Barnstone) an unfortunate choice for a title, that covers other ancient texts related to the early Church and Judaism, as well as the Dead Sea Scroll material.


You wrote: "If I'm not mistaken, it was the Protestant church which decided to omit the Apocrypha from the Old Testament. The Roman Catholics have listed the extra books called the Deuterocanonical."

Please keep in mind there is a OT as well as a NT Apocprypha and that the term Dueterocanonical is almost synonymous with Apocrypha. By the way, Aprocrypha means "hidden."

One more reference: The Oxford Companion to the Bible- Not to be confused with the Companion Bible, covers in depth all the subjects we have been discussing, as well as many others, especially includes a very detailed account of the history of many Bible versions, and the construction of the Canons.

[godchild]

Thank you.

[terluvire]

<font color="0000ff">You're welcome godchld.

Smyrna, I have Goodspeed's Apocrypha. But I would really like to read "The Other Bible" and the Oxford Companion Bible to the Bible.

Are there any links online that you would recommend?

I do agree that the Apocrypha should not be dismissed just because some decided to omit it from the cannon.</font>

[smyrna]

Yes,

History of OT NT canons:

Very brief but importnat events in the history of canon development:

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/canon.html

A more thorough treatment can be found here:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm

A very extenisve site of Biblical manuscript and early Church history

http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/canon.php

Happy Reading!

[kimberlyfredrick]

Teluvire,

I've got "The Other Bible". I had to hunt all over town for it. Now I want the one with all the Adam and Eve Books, Book of Caves, Book of Treasures etc...I've read them on the internet but I want a 'paper' copy for bedtime reading.

Excellent post Smyrna. I'll start reading this evening!

[smyrna]

Terluvire,

I may have misunderstood your question, but those links are good.The last one is really just a book list.

The Oxford Companion can be found at Amazon, the cheapest source. I have no problem buying used volumes of anything. It is an excellent resource, the best I have found for Church and Biblical manuscript history.

But Amazon is the best source for just about any book.

But don't forget Artisan publishers,for our E. R. Capt books. We couldn't be good British Israelism followers without them http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/wink.gif

[smyrna]

Kimberley,

I hope you find a home at RCV. I looked at the site, and it reminds me very much of the Brothers and Sisters of Charity, which is what you may term the Catholic equivalent of RCV. It is in Ar. (where SC is!) and they also have foreign missions.

I think it would be a wonderful place to raise your kids.

Please do not hesitate to ask for anything from us, I'm sure I can speak for the others here. I too, will do anything I possibly can.


By the way, I have met so many of Choctaw descent,living in Louisiana. Awesome folks, never met a Choctaw I didn't like!

[kimberlyfredrick]

Big Hug to you smyrna!

I feel so blessed to have all of you in my life!!!

[terluvire]

<font color="0000ff">Hey Smyrna, Thanks for those links! I bookmarked all of them.

Kimberly, Please, Smyrna is right; Don't hesitate to ask us for anything. If we are able to help we will. That's what brothers and sister are for, and we are family, family in Yahshua. I would be more than happy to help. http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif</font>

[kimberlyfredrick]

Thank you guys for being sooo good to me. Just keep us in your prayers and leave the 'driving' to Yahshua. Please also keep my friend Nabashalam in your prayers as well. God will know why http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif

[watchman_2]

kimberlyfredrick,

My prayers are with you and your children. Keep the faith and you will be delivered from your current predicament.

[david_munson]

<font color="000000"><font face="arial,helvetica"></font>
Note to all,
I have found that when the post box is not available to post in,just go back to the start and open the thread up again until the post box appears.
It might take two times to get it to open but it will open at some point.(usually the first time you re-open the thread)

Hope that helps.
Dave
</font>}

[smyrna]

Kim wrote: "Now I want the one with all the Adam and Eve Books, Book of Caves, Book of Treasures etc."

I believe those books are part of the Pseudepigrapha, a collection of books that were written by unkown authors, but many attributed to major personalities known from the OT. They are categorized as books of Adam and Eve: A number of closely related versions of a writing dealing with the story of the protoplasts. All of these might derive from a Jewish source document, the language and date of which are unknown.

I found a website that looks like a good resource for ancient texts, but have not had the chance to walk through it myself.Here is the url:

http://www.earth-history.com/Pseudepigrapha/FB-Eden/adam-eve-1.htm

[kimberlyfredrick]

Thanks for the link Smyrna! I had a link which I read months ago and now lost it. I highly recommend reading them just for fun! (They were so great I am gonna read them again)

[smyrna]

Serpent Seed mentioned by Anglican minister in 1500's

http://anglicanhistory.org/andrewes/apo/giles11.html

[skooter942000]

http://anglicanhistory.org/andrewes/apo/giles11.html

...Yep more FACTS here at http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/FactLogoSmall.gif

Sheep on the RIGHT
Goats on the LEFT

http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/wink.gif (.....The left is just not RIGHT)!!!

[fatherofaking]

Serpent Seed mentioned by Anglican minister in 1500's

that explains the exlcusive use of the KJV.

"Andrewes served as Bishop of Chichester and oversaw the translation of the Authorized Version (or King James Version) of the Bible."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancelot_Andrewes#Legacy

he also praised the work of john calvin.


"he stoutly vindicated the Protestantism of the Church of England against the Romanists and adduced John Calvin as a new writer, with lavish praise and affection."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancelot_Andrewes#Legacy

lets look at a bit of the legacy of john calvin.

"Servetus even offered to come to Geneva if invited and given a guarantee of safe passage. Calvin declined to offer either. In 1546 Calvin told Farel, "[Servetus] takes it upon him to come hither, if it be agreeable to me. But I am unwilling to pledge my word for his safety, for if he shall come, I shall never permit him to depart alive, provided my authority be of any avail."[14]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_calvin#Calvin.27s_thought

servetus was an anbaptist preacher that disagreed with his doctrine.

this was the fate of the anabaptists that preached against the roman catolic church and the protestant reformers.

"It has been said that a "16th century man who did not drink to excess, curse, or abuse his workmen or family could be suspected of being an Anabaptist and thus persecuted."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabaptist#Persecutions_and_migrations

the hatred for the jewish people that was spoken by people like luther and calvin are also well documented.

yes you are correct smyrna, they did indeed preach the serpent seed doctrine in the 1500's.

their hate and persecution of others is well documented.

are these the footsteps you claim to walk in?

[dodge]

Could any of you Shepherds Chapel students explain to me what the term "ethnos" means within the SC community?

[stage_director]

QUOTE
Serpent Seed mentioned by Anglican minister in 1500's

http://anglicanhistory.org/andrewes/apo/giles11.html
END QUOTE

Here's an excerpt from what he "mentioned" ...

"The battail that we are to fight, is either with the serpent himself or with his seed. With the Serpent we are at warre as the Apostle sheweth, Ephesians the sixt[h] chapter and the twelfth verse, We fight not with flesh and blood but with principalities and power: Such a fight did the Apostle feel, when the Angel or Satan was sent to buffet him, the second epistle to the Corinthians the twelfth chapter: And of the victory against this enemy the Apostle saith, Young men I write to you, because you are strong and have overcome that wicked one, the first epistle of John the second chapter and the fourteenth verse.

The warre which we have with the Serpents seed is, First, within us; for his poyson infecteth our inward parts, not only the Reins, by stirring in us fleshly lusts, which fight against the soul, the first epistle of Peter the second chapter, which must be overcome as the Apostle exhorts, Colossians, the third chapter, Mortifie your earthly members; but the heart also, by that boyling lust of revenge which made Cain one of the Serpents sees to kill his brother, the first epistle of John the third chapter and the twelfth verse: which inward desire of revenge must likewise be overcome, as the Apostle willeth, Romans the twelfth chapter, Avenge not your selves, sed vinc malum bono; we must overcome the evil of our fleshly lusts and desires of revenge, with the grace of mortification and patience.

Secondly, The seed of the Serpent is without us;"

He does not believe in, or preach, a physical seed of Satan, and this not an example of the Serpent Seed doctrine being taught in the 1500's.

He makes a very good point ... how can the battle be between two flesh seedlines when Christians are told they fight not against flesh and blood?

[fatherofaking]

i will tell you before someone else does that you are wrong stage director.

he calls it filii belial.

"Secondly, The seed of the Serpent is without us; for there are filii Belial, of whom were those to whom Christ said, John the eighth chapter, You are of your Father the Devil:"

it is latin for son of satan.

sorry.

[stage_director]

He's still not speaking of a physical seed ... it was Israelites who killed the prophets and except for some of Herod's favorites, the Pharisees, Saducees, Sanhefrins were Israelites.

[fatherofaking]

ok SD,

i tried.

why does he say the serpent is within us and then say he is without us?
he is clearly making a distinction between the two.
he then uses the latin term son of satan to describe the serpent.


i don't even believe this stuff and i can see what this guy is teaching.

there was a great deal of persecution during that time.
many were killed.
many for just being jewish.
where did that kind of hate come from?

study religious history and you will see it for yourself.

[stage_director]

QUOTE
why does he say the serpent is within us and then say he is without us?
END QUOTE

Satan's real (without) ... and not just an evil we succumb to (within). I don't get how you arrive at him physically fathering Cain based on that ... unless I don't get your point?

QUOTE
where did that kind of hate come from?
END QUOTE

Most hate starts in the mind, doesn't it?

The Jewish people were pretty smart (frugal) with money ... sometimes it was more profitabe for a city or nobleman to kill the "evil" bankers than pay back what they borrowed.

Jews practiced hygeine and sanitary laws, of course. Freaked a lot of Europeans out during the great plagues when they seemed unaffected.

Jews were not Christians ... often they were persecuted purely out of prejudice and intollerance. Then there's the fear of the unknown, unfamiliar customs.

They were a convenient scapegoat ... and man always supposes he's more righteous than somebody else.

(Message edited by stage_director on April 14, 2007)

[stage_director]

FOF, if I'm missing your point it's not deliberately. Been a long week and I only have so many "smart genes." ;-)

[stage_director]

Another thing ... that's a pretty long sermon and he makes mention of Cain only once. He calls him "Cain, one of the serpent seeds..."

[fatherofaking]

i don't really want to argue this with you SD.

the reason being is that you are unfamiliar with history.

your statements are misguided.

take a look at the religious history of the 16th century.
when you have taken the time to educate yourself then we can talk about it.

please forgive me if this sounds harsh but you cannot expect to misrepresent history and prove your point.

[godchild]

scers use John 24 for proof that satan fathered (literally) Cain.

God is not literally our Father (we are His by adoption) anymore than satan could be literally a father. Continue on in the chapter and you will see Jesus says to these same men, Abraham is your father. Now, it should be obvious Jesus was not talking originally about them being literal children of satan, unless Abraham was satan in disguise, or satan was Abraham in disguise, which is all nonsense. If we are "of God" not literally, we can be "of satan" though not literally. We follow God or we follow satan.

[oneway]

Ephesians 6:11 *Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
12 *For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.


To add to what godchild just stated, according to the scers, we are wrestling against flesh and blood hybrids, lol. Kind of goes against what Eph 6:12 seems to be saying.

[fatherofaking]

it seems to me that biblical interpretation has become nothing more than opinion.
there is nothing to back up arguments other than circular reasoning.

when pushed into a corner, the defense becomes, the holy spirit told me, or, god is my authority.

since there is no way to verify such statements, it is impossible to know if the person using this defense is telling the truth.


so what other criteria is there do decide with?
looking up something stated is the best way we have to verify what is being said.
however, this is not always an option since much of the time the direction in which we are pointed just leads in circles, or to more questions.

we have the way in which the message is delivered to judge by.
this we can judge with our own experience rather than just accepting what someone says is true.
this has it's own problems but with the two together we should be able to judge the validity of a message pretty well.

generally speaking if someone says that they believe we should love one another, you would expect to see a demonstration of the concept of love.

even then however, a person can be fooled.
one act of love does not a saint make.
an unselfish act could be percieved as love initially, but have an unseen motive behind it.

this motive can be revealed by continual observation of the words and deeds of the individual claiming to be the bearer of a message recieved by the holy spirit, or given by the authority of god.

there is no other way to know anything but through experience.
we experience one another here through language.
how that language is used is all we have in order judge a persons character in cyberspace.
get to know the bearer of a message before accepting the message.
if you do not, or cannot, then you accept the message blindly, and at your own peril.

having said all of that, i would like to say that this was in no way intended to belittle (that word seems to be getting a lot of use lately) the message found in the bible and other ancient writings.
through many of these ancient writings we can learn the secrets of man, and the universe he lives in, if rightly understood.

[stage_director]

QUOTE
the reason being is that you are unfamiliar with history.

when you have taken the time to educate yourself then we can talk about it.
END QUOTE

You really don't know what I know or don't know ... or what I find relevent to this subject, and not. I'm quite well read on the religious history of the 1500s and most other periods ... from the history of the papacy to the circumstances of the break by the church of England to the reformers, and even which popes or countries were "Jew friendly" and which were not.

The problem is that you are trying to prove a prevailing attitude using a sermon by a man whose point I don't believe you quite understand ... and I've told why I think there are obstacles to your reasoning ... but apparently instead of you considering them, or offering additional facts that prove your argument, I get to hear sarcasm.

Tell you what ... When you have taken the time to educate yourself in the art of a dicussion then we can talk about it.

[fatherofaking]

ok SD sorry about the sarcasm.
i get a little impatient with people sometimes.

my point in all of this was to show how this doctrine can lead to all kinds of hatred and persecution in the name of god.

this guy that smyrna refered to oversaw the translation of the king james bible.
praised calvin and luther who in turn praised him.
calvin and luther both are well known for their hatred of jews and the ones they called the anabaptists.
it is because of what they believed the bible taught.
the serpent seed doctrine.
which i think their pal that was buddy buddy with the king made clear in his teaching as well.
calvin didn't even come up with his own doctrine, he just came up with a new way of teaching it.

(Message edited by fatherofaking on April 14, 2007)

[stage_director]

FOF, I wrote a response to you, hit a wrong key and poof! So ... I'll try to sum it up.

First off, it's all good. This environment breeds sarcasm ... Think I've bitten a hole in my lip. ;-)

I'm on the same page with basically everything you said. I don't agree with Calvin, and I think Luther didn't rebel enough. It's hard to put a label on how I believe ... but I suppose I agree with a lot of the original Armenian precepts. (Sure the search engines of some are already racing to find the evil agenda in that)

Absolutely these type doctrines lead to hatred. IMO enlightenment isn't the understanding of somebody else's motives, but the comprehension of our own agendas. These doctrines foster pride in self and elitism ... that becomes contempt ... that becomes hate. They direct us to not look inward at our own inadequacies and screwed up psyches, but outward.

From the persection by Saul of Tarsus to the Crusades to the many Persecutions to most religious campaigns fought the last 2000 years in the name of God ... they were the wars of men, not of God ... and men were rarely defending God, but their own agendas, imo.

[stage_director]

FOF, I wrote a response to you, hit a wrong key and poof! So ... I'll try to sum it up.

First off, it's all good. This environment breeds sarcasm ... Think I've bitten a hole in my lip. ;-)

I'm on the same page with basically everything you said. I don't agree with Calvin, and I think Luther didn't rebel enough. It's hard to put a label on how I believe ... but I suppose I agree with a lot of the original Armenian precepts. (Sure the search engines of some are already racing to find the evil agenda in that)

Absolutely these type doctrines lead to hatred. IMO enlightenment isn't the understanding of somebody else's motives, but the comprehension of our own agendas. These doctrines foster pride in self and elitism ... that becomes contempt ... that becomes hate. They direct us to not look inward at our own inadequacies and screwed up psyches, but outward.

From the persection by Saul of Tarsus to the Crusades to the many Persecutions to most religious campaigns fought the last 2000 years in the name of God ... they were the wars of men, not of God ... and men were rarely defending God, but their own agendas, imo.

[smyrna]

Godchild wrote:

"God is not literally our Father we are His by adoption"....

Just one more nonsensical comment to place in Godchild's greatest hits (misses).

I wonder who we belonged to before God "adopted us"?

How stupid!

[godchild]

I take it when catholics call their priest(s) father, they believe these men (who have never (ha!) passed on their sperm), are LITERALLY their Fathers.
To quote a catholic scer: How stupid!

[smyrna]

It's quite apprent that Godchild cannot author a post without saying something ridiculous.

She foolishly equates the fact we call God Our Father, with priests who are called Father, after the thousands year old tradition of Judaism, who called their religious teachers Rabbis, which basically means the same thing.

What a sick degenerate, who comes here and lies day after day, whines, makes contradicting herself into an art form, and repeatedly exhibits a lack of knowledge in may different areas.

This is a woman, who cannot keep her own word to herself. Who say she would ingnore me "from now on" that didn't even last twenty four hours.

Who didn't know what the word Martyr meant, and on and on.

She, who is a member of a cult of cowards, who are apprently so embarrassed by their own rumor mongering, and pi-sy fests, they had to hide them from the general public!

Now she claims God adopted us! From whom, I presume?

[godchild]

Verses which refer to man's adoption.

Of the children of God, described:
John 1:12
John 20:17
Rom. 8:14
2 Cor. 6:18
Gal. 4
Eph. 1:5
Heb. 2:10
Heb. 12:5
James 1:18
1 John 3

of the Gentiles:
Isa. 66:19
Hos. 2:23
Acts 15:3
Rom. 8:15
Rom. 9:24
Gal. 4:5
Eph. 1:5
Eph. 2
Eph. 3
Col. 1:27

Rom. 8:15 RECEIVED THE SPIRIT of ADOPTION
Rom. 8:23 WAITING for the ADOPTION
Rom. 9:4
Gal. 4:5 MIGHT RECEIVE ADOPTION of sons
Eph. 1:5 Predestined us to the ADOPTION

Eph. 1:5 should help clear up the err in am/sc belief that predestination has anything to do with them LITERALLY being angels previously and passing a test; therefore being the elect. The other verses should also help, showing present and future references, not past. We were a part of God's BLUEPRINT (so to speak), not literally with Him. The US (Gen.1:26) is God the Father, God the Son and God, the Holy Spirit.

I hope this helps; since it comes from the Word of God, the Holy Bible.

[david_munson]

<font color="000000"><font face="arial,helvetica"></font>
Adoption from scripture,:
Romans 8:15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the "Spirit of adoption", whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
Galatians 4:5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the "adoption of sons".
Ephesians 1:5 Having predestinated us unto the "adoption of children" by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will.

Semms to me that Godchild was correct about adoption according to "God's own Word".
How is that then nonsensical?

We are not "born" saved.
We are adopted or grafted if you like into the body of Christ as members in particular.

To me that makes all the sense "in the heaven of our God".(not "in the world" because it makes no sense to the world.)
1 Corinthians 1:25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

Plus we don't think right apart from the Holy Spirit illuminating God's Word to us.
Isaiah 55:8-11.


</font>}

[david_munson]

<font color="000000"><font face="arial,helvetica"></font>
Godchild,
stop beating me to the punch will you?
LOL?
Just kidding.
I would have waited for you to post your responce if I knew you where on line at present but you posted some verses to be taken into serious consideration.

She did put up some undenyable verses concerning adoption.
God's own Word cannot be debunked.
Firm foundation and all.
You know,house built on a rock instead of sand.

Adoption is one of the most Loving things God does for us when we believe Him and take Him at His Word.

Such beauty beyond imagining.
Let God be praised and glorified for His mercy towards the sons of men.
His mercy endures forever.Psalm 136.

</font>}

[godchild]

Rabbi means teacher (of the law), master (as a title of respect). See STRONGS CONCORDANCE

[godchild]

That's okay, david. Brilliant minds think alike! http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/lol.gif Further confirmation is always good.

[smyrna]

You cannot adopt somebody that is already yours. You play fast and loose with the Bible's metaphors, Munsun.

And anyone who tries to explain the difference bewteen Jewish people calling their teachers Rabbi vs the Catholic Church and others calling their priests Father, are just splitting hairs, in a vain effort to discredit someone's integrity.

A priest called "Father" or a Rabbi are both spiritual fathers of their communities.

But in Godchild's and Munsun's zeal, they try and run to the dictionary,and use spin tactics, not in an effort to understand, but to sow discord.

And for Godchild to think of herself as having a brilliant mind,is like some drunk in the street trying to use Karate moves.

Do we really have to list the products of her "brilliant mind" for proof?

[david_munson]

<font color="000000"><font face="arial,helvetica"></font>
Smyrna erroniously states,
"But in Godchild's and Munsun's zeal, they try and run to the dictionary,and use spin tactics, not in an effort to understand, but to sow discord."
---
A bit presumtous hey Smyrna?
Dictionary,spin tactics,discord? More your style judging from the dishonest narrative if you ask me.

Quite a devious narrative at that Smyrna.
You are not wise nor gifted enough to be able to correctly attribute any of your verbally implicative lying narrative tactics in any way that an average person would be decieved by.

Such dishonest converse should always be met with suspicion.
Not that any average intelligent person couldn't see it for what it is.

You really ought to know better than that by now.

I'm here to sow discord huh?
You know that you are lieing so why try and keep it up?

You are sowing discord with your unfounded accusations.
Accusations that you know are not true.

But please keep it up because it goes a long way to revealing your character.
Not to mention a lack of integrity.

Don't bother to accuse others of lieing until you stop doing it yourself.

Really.

</font>}

[godchild]

Holy Bible:
Matt. 23 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to His disciples, saying: <font color="ff0000">The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say and do not do. For they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. But all their works they do to be seen by men. They make their phylactyeries broad and enlarge the borders of their garments. They love the best places at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues, greeings in the marketplaces, and to be called by men, <font size="+1">'Rabbi, rabbi.' But you, do not be called 'Rabbi': for One is your Teacher, "the Christ", and you are all brethren. Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ. But he who is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.</font>

verse 15 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither go in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in. Woe to you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you devour widows' houses, and for a pretense make long pra;yers. Therefore you will receiver greater condemnation.

What say you to this, catholic-scer? Did our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ lie to us? Take heed!</font>

[smyrna]

Well Dave, if you want to call the fact that Catholic priests and Rabbis are fathers of their communities in a spiritual sense a lie, then so be it.

If you really think that God needs to adopt anyone, even though He is the Creator of all a lie, then so be it.

If you wish to use Scripture as a weapon to discredit another person, rather then seek truth, if you want to deny you tried to do that, and say I am lying, that's cool too.

And finally, if you want to believe one of the biggest lies I've ever heard, which is Godchild using the word "brilliant" to decribe herself,
well Dave, I can't do much about that, but laugh, and perhaps go on another fishing expedition for proof that she is far from brilliant.

[godchild]

dave, I don't think we said God "needs" to do anything, did we? Also, did we ever deny God is the Creator. Did we? I know I didn't and I'm pretty sure you didn't either. (smearna is really reaching now.)

Isn't it strange that a group of people (scers) who claim to study God's Word and live by it and believe in will create words like "serpent seed", Kenites as Cain's children, satan being a sexual being who can turn himself into a man or woman in order to have sex with men and women together, or Very Elect meaning not only are there elect over other believers but a very elect over the elect, will say that rabbi means father, when the concordance they say they use agrees with us (rabbi means teacher), yet they will not believe words like "adoption" which are used over and over again by different bible authors (the original ones). If I was only joking about my being brilliant before (hense the smiley), I've got to be more than brilliant now, in comparison with some of the things these people profess are biblical or not. I'm doing what the bible tells me to....letting my light shine before men (the simpleton kind). Get it, shining light, brilliant. http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/smile.gif

[david_munson]

<font color="000000"><font face="arial,helvetica"></font>
Smyrna,
in order to snap you back into "honesty" (reality) I post what I responded to that you stated.

"Smyrna erroniously states,
But in Godchild's and "Munsun's" zeal, they try and run to the dictionary,and use spin tactics, not in an effort to understand, but to sow discord."

Now pray tell ,how do you get that I said anything other than you are dishonest in your discourse?

Geesh dude,
your flagrant misuse of what others say is pretty blatant isn't it?

See what dishonest narrative leads you to?

You have to make up something I "never" said in order to "try" and discredit me but you fail because of your dishonesty.(narrative)

Are you not aware that others have the intelligence to read what you are trying to do?

Such tactics are not what believers engage in.
Someone with an agenda ,sure.

I would "really" appreciate it if you stopped trying to convince others of what I am thinking when you have no clue and what you attribute to me saying is false and a blatant lie that serves only your purpose.

Start being more honest and drop the lieing narrative.No one believes you.

</font>}

[godchild]

I'm afraid a psychotic like smearna doesn't need anyone to believe them. They are too wrapped up in themselves, and they believe themself. That's good enough for them, God help them!

Go check out smearna's failed website. He refuses to take it down, because he thinks its a success. In his eyes, it probably is. In at least 4 years he's had about 1,100 to 1,200 visitors. Poor man, he doesn't understand his site serves no good purpose even for am.

[smyrna]

"Go check out smearna's failed website. He refuses to take it down, because he thinks its a success. In his eyes, it probably is. In at least 4 years he's had about 1,100 to 1,200 visitors."

I've updated that site three times. Each time the counter starts all over. I've also never listed it on a search engine. I will this time, and it is a success, because it is apparently important enough for Godchild to comment about it.

Of course, she conveniently forgets to tell you that it was that very site that contributed to the closure of the orginal Scripture Truth site, an anti-chapel site that got chased off the web by myself and Watchman.

And that is the truth, so help me God!

www.scripturetruth.homestead.com (http://www.scripturetruth.homestead.com)

[david_munson]

<font color="000000"><font face="arial,helvetica"></font>
I have no interest in his website.
I don't know what is on it and I don't want to know.
-----------------
God is interested in the kind of character we display to others.
Is it His character that shines forth from the Holy Spirit within or is it self centered carnality?(one upmanship)

We each of us have to examine ourselves to be certain it isn't self exaltation we are delving into.

Our posts speak volumes to those who read.
The nature and character of each poster is open to all to see.

As they say in the hood,"are you representing?"

Spread truth.

</font>}

[lutheratx]

True you do have to watch you character however have you fallen short before? Yes you have we all have, God freed me from bondage. I will not give you that information, becuase it is mine to have. Why because the slate is wiped clean. So if a fella says something one day, and doesn't carry into the next. Is this not covered on the cross, trust me it is. Praise God. No personal attacks from me they are not teaching anybody.

[yaakov2]

Hello Smyrna

I checked out your website. It didn't take very long. It is abundant in deriding people that criticize your religion, but short (or non-existent) in providing specific examples of the critics' errors.

<font color="0000ff">So as I explain the controveries, expose the critics' dishonest and strange behaviors, I will poke a bit of fun at them.</font>

I saw all the poking of fun, but I saw no explanation of the controversies. Will you be adding that later? Is your site a work in process?

[smyrna]

Yaakov,

I agree with your assesment, and yes I'm still working on the site.
I am not even close to finished, and really it is an ongoing project now. Because there is so much material provided here, it will take quite a bit of time to sift through and incorporate it into the site.

But thanks for taking a look. I do respect everyone's opinions whether they agree with my approach or not.