The Christ Within

[Perry Staltic]

James was not quoting just verse in Amos.

He was specifically quoting Amos 9:11-12. That is obvious. Sounds like you're just trying to gaslight

 

[Perry Staltic]

The writers of the septuagint simply failed to understand why the text of Acts 15 did not seem to align with that of Amos and so retrospectively changed the translation to fit it better.

You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you? The LXX was translated hundreds of years before Acts was written.

 

[charlie]

James was quoting from memory, so slight differences would be expected. However, they do match very closely. The KJV doesn't match at all with what James said in one sentence, so by your logic this disproves the KJV

Yup, people recall the same scene differently. Simple as that.

 

[damngoodcoffee]

There were early Christians, Ebionites, Nazarenes, Essenes who:

-thought the scriptures were corrupted by the scribes and pharisees
-didn't believe Jesus is God, but the messiah, a prophet, a visionary
-didn't believe in the virgin birth and other hocus pocus nonsense
-rejected animal sacrifice, were plant-based
-believed the Eucharist held the power of redemption - instead of some abstract metaphysical torture show
-considered Paul a false apostle

Many muslims dig Jesus, reject Paul and think the illuminati or whatever you wanna call it have messed with scripture and historical records. (I'm currently looking into David Ewing Jr, fascinating stuff..)

I stand with these kinda folks.

By the way, it never made sense to me people consider Paul anti-gnostic. To me the Paul seems very gnostic. Here's a book that seems interesting, although I haven't had the change to read it yet:
Amazon product ASIN 1563380390View: https://www.amazon.com/Gnostic-Paul-Exegesis-Pauline-Letters/dp/1563380390

 

[Perry Staltic]

There were early Christians, Ebionites, Nazarenes, Essenes who:

-thought the scriptures were corrupted by the scribes and pharisees
-didn't believe Jesus is God, but the messiah, a prophet, a visionary
-didn't believe in the virgin birth and other hocus pocus nonsense
-rejected animal sacrifice, were plant-based
-believed the Eucharist held the power of redemption - instead of some abstract metaphysical torture show
-considered Paul a false apostle

And gnostics too. And they were all heretics.

 

[Perry Staltic]

By the way, it never made sense to me people consider Paul anti-gnostic. To me the Paul seems very gnostic.

Superficially, it might look like that, but not in reality. I examined that a while back, but forgot the specifics. I'll look into it and report back

 

[Perry Staltic]

By the way, it never made sense to me people consider Paul anti-gnostic. To me the Paul seems very gnostic.

First, Paul believed that Christ came in the flesh. The gnostics didn't because they believed all physical matter was evil. This is who John was talking about when he wrote:

By this know the spirit of GOD: every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from GOD. And every spirit which does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not from GOD; and this is the antichrist which you heard is coming, and now is already in the world. 1 John 4:2-3.

Second, gnostics (besides ascetics) believed that what they did in the body was irrelevant because the flesh had nothing to do with salvation and they had become spiritual beings who could never perish no matter what they did (once saved always saved). Paul did not believe or teach that:

What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? Romans 6:1-2

Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves as slaves for obedience, you are slaves to whom you obey, whether of sin to death, or obedience to righteousness? Romans 6:16

Thirdly, Paul appears to tell Timothy in a letter to avoid the teachings of the gnostics

Timothy, guard the deposit, having turned away from the profane empty babblings and opposing theories of the falsely named knowledge (gnosis, γνῶσις), which some asserting have missed the mark concerning the faith. Grace be with you. Amen. 1 Timothy 6:20-21

Fourthly, Paul expounded on man's dual nature in Romans 7 (wanting to to good, but not being able to because of a sinful nature), but it is not a gnostic dualism. Gnostics believed it was impossible for man without gnosis to do anything good, and it was impossible for a man with gnosis to be lost, so righteous conduct to them was irrelevant. Not so with Paul as he believed and taught that there was victory over sin in Christ

There's probably more, but that's all I want to do.

 

[milomag]

Wrong.

Yes, he wants to be his own authority, by correcting God's Word. He's not a Bible believer, but a Bible corrector.

 

[milomag]

I use Hebrew and Greek interlinears. What mistakes are in these?

Scripture4All - Greek/Hebrew interlinear Bible software

Free Greek/Hebrew interlinear Bible software ISA (Interlinear Scripture Analyzer)

www.scripture4all.org

The Apostolic Bible Polyglot

The Apostolic Bible Polyglot is to the Internet what the Gutenberg Bible was to printing.

apostolicbible.com

There are many, many mistakes in translations (this included) from corrupt manuscripts and what you find trustworthy is obviously not of the Spirit of God, because the diety of Christ is diminished in the version you're using compared to the KJB. For instance it is Lucifer who falls from heaven in Isaiah 14:12 (KJB), but your corrupt translation says it's the Lord Jesus Christ (see Revelation 22:16 in the KJB and your translation). That's just one glaring mistake. To replace Lucifer with our Lord is a BIG mistake!

 

[damngoodcoffee]

@Perry Staltic Paul is a mixed bag, some of it makes sense and some of it's absolute crap. Has been a while since I've read it to be honest, would need to refresh my memories. But I'm so sick of his confused long ramblings I don't really want to lol. I like the no-nonsense approach of Jesus a lot more. I find it quite interesting so-called Christians often seem to be more into Paul than into Jesus.

I think there definitely is this gnostic lukewarm religious prideful spirit of hating sexuality etc in Paul.

Paul being a mixed bag brings up a good point Christians always miss. That nobody's perfect. Everybody has good and bad in them.

So-called Christians have this eternal dualistic separation view of life. That God is good and then there's this spiritual being called Satan who is only bad. This was never a part of Judaism. In Judaism Satan does exactly what God intended, and has a vital role. Satan being an equal opposing force to God is just an externalization of prideful people about their own inner prideful spirit. This comic book Satan and eternal hell etc all the insane evil nonsense crap is just ramblings of lazy fools who refuse to repent aka do shadow work, challenge their views, learn, grow, be born again.

 

[damngoodcoffee]

I don't like to call fake Christians Christians because Christian means Anointed, And this anointing can be done only through the Eucharist. It's not that hard to figure out what the Eucharist is... Figure it out. But it's IMPOSSIBLE to do it if you're full of pride. So most of the fundamentalist authoritarian psychos will never do it.

 

[milomag]

Oh really?
Never-mind.

Never-mind is right!

 

[Perry Staltic]

There are many, many mistakes in translations (this included) from corrupt manuscripts and what you find trustworthy is obviously not of the Spirit of God, because the diety of Christ is diminished in the version you're using compared to the KJB. For instance it is Lucifer who falls from heaven in Isaiah 14:12 (KJB), but your corrupt translation says it's the Lord Jesus Christ (see Revelation 22:16 in the KJB and your translation). That's just one glaring mistake. To replace Lucifer with our Lord is a BIG mistake!

One of the interlinears I use is the Textus Receptus. Please point out how corrupt it is. Oh that's right, that's what the KJV is translated from.

 

[Perry Staltic]

@Perry Staltic Paul is a mixed bag, some of it makes sense and some of it's absolute crap. Has been a while since I've read it to be honest, would need to refresh my memories. But I'm so sick of his confused long ramblings I don't really want to lol. I like the no-nonsense approach of Jesus a lot more. I find it quite interesting so-called Christians often seem to be more into Paul than into Jesus.

And think of the long-suffering of our Lord as salvation, as also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you, according to the wisdom given to him; as also in all his epistles, speaking in them concerning these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the unlearned and unsettled pervert, as also they do the rest of the scriptures, to their own destruction. 2 Peter 3:15-16

 

[milomag]

Infinitely agree.

"So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." (Romans10:17 KJB). "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." (John 6:63 KJB).

 

[Perry Staltic]

I think there definitely is this gnostic lukewarm religious prideful spirit of hating sexuality etc in Paul.

First, Paul didn't hate sexuality; it just wasn't for him because it would have been a distraction from his work. Second, gnostics, except for perhaps ascetics, generally indulged in licentious sexuality. So being a sexual prude really wasn't a gnostic thing

 

[Momma]

"So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." (Romans10:17 KJB). "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." (John 6:63 KJB).

Amen.
Thank you.

 

[Perry Staltic]

There are many, many mistakes in translations (this included) from corrupt manuscripts and what you find trustworthy is obviously not of the Spirit of God, because the diety of Christ is diminished in the version you're using compared to the KJB. For instance it is Lucifer who falls from heaven in Isaiah 14:12 (KJB), but your corrupt translation says it's the Lord Jesus Christ (see Revelation 22:16 in the KJB and your translation). That's just one glaring mistake. To replace Lucifer with our Lord is a BIG mistake!

Unless you can prove otherwise, you are entirely wrong. No such thing

 

[milomag]

One of the interlinears I use is the Textus Receptus. Please point out how corrupt it is. Oh that's right, that's what the KJV is translated from.

The gospel that saves today says: "how" that Christ died (1Cor.15:3), but the version you're using leaves out the word, "how" (so you probably don't believe that we are justified by his blood...a big part of the "how"...see Romans 3:25). The translators of the KJB did indeed use the TR and the KJB is a supernatural Book, inspired and preserved by God and should not be messed with by anyone who thinks they know better. Sure, there's some truth in translations inspired by the devil.... someone starving can get some scraps of food from a trash can.

 

[Perry Staltic]

The gospel that saves today says: "how" that Christ died (1Cor.15:3), but the version you're using leaves out the word, "how" (so you probably don't believe that we are justified by his blood...a big part of the "how"...see Romans 3:25). The translators of the KJB did indeed use the TR and the KJB is a supernatural Book, inspired and preserved by God and should not be messed with by anyone who thinks they know better. Sure, there's some truth in translations inspired by the devil.... someone starving can get some scraps of food from a trash can.

The Greek word in that verse is ὅτι. It can mean several things, including "how" and "that", but not "how that", which is just bad English in this day and age. It may have been a thing in medieval times, but it's just a stumbling block now because we don't speak medieval English.

G3754 ὅτι hoti (ho'-tiy) conj.
1. (demonstrative) that (sometimes redundant).
2. (also, demonstrative) how (that). (see James 2:22).
3. (causative) because.
4. (as quotation starter) that.