Did Jesus celebrate a holiday that comes from the apocrypha?

[Josiah]

If the council decided to toss out Isaiah you wouldn't be reading it, even when Isaiah is cited in the NT you would still support the councils decision that it was uninspired, you would say "just because it mentions certain things in Isaiah does not make it the origin"..

No Apostolic or Ecumenical Council tossed out any book. Friend, your whole premise comes from a misconception. Yes, AGAIN, there have been probably thousands of regional or denominational meetings (I was a delegate to one last summer) but only a HANDFUL had ANYTHING to do with the topic of what books are and are not canonical/norma normans (more dealt with the issue of what books may or may not be included in the lectionary). But these are not the church speaking. Yes, the LDS in the 19th Century said the KJV of the Bible (without the Apocrapha) is THEIR Bible but that's just for the LDS, it's not Christianity speaking. NO CHURCH (not any of the many Oriental Orthodox Churches or any of the Eastern Orthodox Churches or the Catholic Church said ANYTHING in ANY official or binding way to this topic for over 1400 years, until ONE of them (the RCC) had a meeting at Florence and because that had no real authority, redid it at Trent a century later.... 2 other denominations followd suit, the Anglicans and Calvinists (so that we now had three DIFFERENT official Bibles), but again, NONE of those spoke for Christianity, none of those even claimed others needed to abide by their denomiantion's action there, and there was none until the 15th century. AGAIN, what we have is by historic, ecumenical consensus and tradition (NOT any Council).... 66 books (by our count) are accepted fully, there's another 7-20+ books at a lesser level ("DEUTERO" - it means secondary, lesser, under), Luther and the Anglicans giving the typical understanding, and another 100 or so just informally "fell" out of use and by the 16th Century, didn't exist so people in the West anyway didn't know about them (The Epistle to the Leodiceans being an oddity here). Your whole point about some mysterious ecumenical, historic, binding COUNCIL simply has no historic basis. Or ever - it NEVER has happened.

also the later books we booted out

WHAT other books? By what binding, ecumenical Council?


And what does any of that have to do with ONE book being the inerrant, divinely and verbally inspired inscripturated words of God - and thus the Rule/Canon/Norma normans BECAUSE it has a bit of correct historical info in it?


Yes, the 66 books Calvin accepted are NOT the same as those embraced at the Council of Jamnia by the Jews. So what? Why do you look to the Jews or Muslims or any non-Christians to tell all Christians what is and is not canonical Scripture? Why is the Christian Bible determined by some sub-set of Jews so that all our Christian Bibles are wrong? IMO, it's more likely God has lead CHRISTIANS regarding Christianity than the Jews. But again, just because tens of millions of books have some correct historical info in them does not mean ergo all those books are canonical Scripture or that there is some Jewish conspiracy or that ancient Jews are the ones who determine what is Scripture for Christians.


Friend, with all due respect, no one denies LOTS and LOTS of books (probably tens of millions) have some correct info in them, but I'm just not buying that THUS all of them are equally canonical. Nor that some mysterious group of Jews before Jesus was born get to determine the Christian Bible. And I'm just not buying any mysterious and entirely unsubstantiated conspiracy theory - by some unnamed Jews or Christians.



.

 

[Josiah]

of course no book can BE the origins of a holy day

Thus, we're done. If we all agree with that, then this thread can be closed.

 

[Andrew]

No Apostolic or Ecumenical Council embraced or tossed out any book. Friend, your whole premise comes from a misconception. Yes, AGAIN, there have been probably thousands of regional or denominational meetings (I was a delegate to one last summer) but only a HANDFUL had ANYTHING to do with the topic of what books are and are not canonical/norma normans (more dealt with the issue of what books may or may not be included in the lectionary). But these are not the church speaking. Yes, the LDS in the 19th Century said the KJV of the Bible (without the Apocrapha) is THEIR Bible but that's just for the LDS, it's not Christianity speaking. NO CHURCH (not any of the many Oriental Orthodox Churches or any of the Eastern Orthodox Churches or the Catholic Church said ANYTHING in ANY official or binding way to this topic for over 1400 years, until ONE of them (the RCC) had a meeting at Florence and because that had no real authority, redid it at Trent a century later.... 2 other denominations followd suit, the Anglicans and Calvinists (so that we now had three DIFFERENT official Bibles), but again, NONE of those spoke for Christianity, none of those even claimed others needed to abide by their denomiantion's action there, and there was none until the 15th century. AGAIN, what we have is by historic, ecumenical consensus and tradition (NOT any Council).... 66 books (by our count) are accepted fully, there's another 7-20+ books at a lesser level ("DEUTERO" - it means secondary, lesser, under), Luther and the Anglicans giving the typical understanding, and another 100 or so just informally "fell" out of use and by the 16th Century, didn't exist so people in the West anyway didn't know about them (The Epistle to the Leodiceans being an oddity here). Your whole point about some mysterious ecumenical, historic, binding COUNCIL simply has no historic basis. Or ever - it NEVER has happened.






WHAT other books? By what binding, ecumenical Council?


And what does any of that have to do with ONE book being the inerrant, divinely and verbally inspired inscripturated words of God - and thus the Rule/Canon/Norma normans BECAUSE it has a bit of correct historical info in it?


Yes, the 66 books Calvin accepted are NOT the same as those embraced at the Council of Jamnia by the Jews. So what? Why do you look to the Jews or Muslims or any non-Christians to tell all Christians what is and is not canonical Scripture? Why is the Christian Bible determined by some sub-set of Jews so that all our Christian Bibles are wrong? IMO, it's more likely God has lead CHRISTIANS regarding Christianity than the Jews. But again, just because tens of millions of books have some correct historical info in them does not mean ergo all those books are canonical Scripture or that there is some Jewish conspiracy or that ancient Jews are the ones who determine what is Scripture for Christians. No one denies LOTS and LOTS of books have some correct info in them, friend that just doesn't substantiate that they THUS are all equally canonical or that some mysterious group of Jews before Jesus was born get to determine the Christian Bible. And I'm just not buying any mysterious and entirely unsubstantiated conspiracy theory - by some unnamed Jews or Christians.



.

What if there was a book on the shelf at walmart that includes the Septuagint versions of the Masoretic books plus the NT, no "Apocryphal" books would be in it just the KJV Masoretic count, the only difference would be the missing years of genealogy, the missing 5 members of Jacobs household, an extra Psalm, "recovery of site to the blind" in Isaiah, etc.. (No room for textual criticism)
Would you consider the book heretical or altered/perverted?
Because the NT doesn't have typos, so 75 souls of Jacobs household and "recovery of site to the blind" SHOULD be corrected by creating a septuagint version of the Masoretic books.. the extra books IMO should be kept in even if it's called the "Apocrypha" perhaps some history behind it, so if you are not discouraging Christians from reading it you could still leave them in... Would THIS bible be acceptable even if you don't buy it?

 

[Josiah]

What if...

I'm just not going to run with admitted fantasy....

Because the NT doesn't have typos, so 75 souls of Jacobs household and "recovery of site to the blind" SHOULD be corrected by creating a septuagint version of the Masoretic books..

NOTHING to do with some holiday Jesus kept - and why.
NOTHING to do with what books are and are not the inerrant, verbally and dvinely inspired, inscripturated words of God (the Rule, Canon, Norma normans).

Personally, I lack the ego to tell the Holy Spirit He goofed. I just can't bring myself to do that. Now, IF you want to present data that there is a variant reading on that SPECIFIC singular verse, and that some other number actually has better support (a matter of textual criticism), well - present that data, but that has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with this thread or any other I know of at CH. I invite you to read all the posts to you here and on the others concerning the Canon/Rule.

the extra books IMO should be kept in even if it's called the "Apocrypha" perhaps some history behind it, so if you are not discouraging Christians from reading it you could still leave them in... Would THIS bible be acceptable even if you don't buy it?

1. WHICH books? I can't remember how many have asked that how many times..... WHOSE "set" of Deutero books? Do we include the Epistle to the Leodiceans (it was included in many Bibles for over 1000 years) or 2 Clement or the Revelation of Peter? How about Psalm 154? WHOSE "Apocrypha?"


2. I have asked repeatedly, WHO/WHAT is telling ANYONE what books they are forbidden to read? I have asked for a list of denominations that officially forbid books to be read and to give the list of such books - but this has been ignored. Just because the book "Boys in the Boat" is not found in any book at Walmart with "BIBLE" written on the cover does not mean the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod officially prohibites anyone from reading that book. I find this whole line of thinking incomprehensible and frankly absurd (not to be rude). Perhaps you don't know, but you CAN buy various sets of "Deutero" books (at least OT ones) from Lutheran, Anglican, and Orthodox owned and operated publishing houses (hardly seems like forbidding them!), CPH (the largest Lutheran publishing house in the world) sells a book with Luther's "set" (the common one in Germany at the time - he included all these in his German translation) - I own it - and also has an extensive curriculum to study these books (I've done it) - hardly seems like forbidding it. To date, no one has told me WHO or WHAT forbids anyone from reading Psalm 151 (I have) or even the Epistle to the Leodiceans (I have), no one shot me dead or excommunicated me.




But I'm not buying what's been put down. Not a bit. I don't accept that because a book contains something correct in it, ERGO it is the inerrant, divinely and verbally inspired inscripturated words of God, the Rule/Canon/Norma Normans for Christian doctrine. I don't accept that any Apostolic or Ecumenical Council "ripped out" canonical books from the Bible, I'm not buying that some unnamed person or persons or denominations forbid me from reading 1, 2, 3 or 4 Maccabees, I don't agree that if a book is read it therefore is canonical, I don't agree that the ancient Jews are the ones to determine the Christian Bible, and I'm certainly not buying that there's been some HUGE mysterious, entirely unsubstantiated conspirasy by either the Jews or Christians on this. I ain't buying what's been put down. And mostly because NOTHING has been shown to support any of this. Sorry.




.

 

[Andrew]

I'm just not going to run with admitted fantasy....






NOTHING to do with some holiday Jesus kept - and why.
NOTHING to do with what books are and are not the inerrant, verbally and dvinely inspired, inscripturated words of God (the Rule, Canon, Norma normans).

Personally, I lack the ego to tell the Holy Spirit He goofed. I just can't bring myself to do that. Now, IF you want to present data that there is a variant reading on that SPECIFIC singular verse, and that some other number actually has better support (a matter of textual criticism), well - present that data, but that has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with this thread or any other I know of at CH. I invite you to read all the posts to you here and on the others concerning the Canon/Rule.







1. WHICH books? I can't remember how many have asked that how many times..... WHOSE "set" of Deutero books? Do we include the Epistle to the Leodiceans (it was included in many Bibles for over 1000 years) or 2 Clement or the Revelation of Peter? How about Psalm 154? WHOSE "Apocrypha?"


2. I have asked repeatedly, WHO/WHAT is telling ANYONE what books they are forbidden to read? I have asked for a list of denominations that officially forbid books to be read and to give the list of such books - but this has been ignored. Just because the book "Boys in the Boat" is not found in any book at Walmart with "BIBLE" written on the cover does not mean the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod officially prohibites anyone from reading that book. I find this whole line of thinking incomprehensible and frankly absurd (not to be rude). Perhaps you don't know, but you CAN buy various sets of "Deutero" books (at least OT ones) from Lutheran, Anglican, and Orthodox owned and operated publishing houses (hardly seems like forbidding them!), CPH (the largest Lutheran publishing house in the world) sells a book with Luther's "set" (the common one in Germany at the time - he included all these in his German translation) - I own it - and also has an extensive curriculum to study these books (I've done it) - hardly seems like forbidding it. To date, no one has told me WHO or WHAT forbids anyone from reading Psalm 151 (I have) or even the Epistle to the Leodiceans (I have), no one shot me dead or excommunicated me.




But I'm not buying what's been put down. Not a bit. I don't accept that because a book contains something correct in it, ERGO it is the inerrant, divinely and verbally inspired inscripturated words of God, the Rule/Canon/Norma Normans for Christian doctrine. I don't accept that any Apostolic or Ecumenical Council "ripped out" canonical books from the Bible, I'm not buying that some unnamed person or persons or denominations forbid me from reading 1, 2, 3 or 4 Maccabees, I don't agree that if a book is read it therefore is canonical, I don't agree that the ancient Jews are the ones to determine the Christian Bible, and I'm certainly not buying that there's been some HUGE mysterious, entirely unsubstantiated conspirasy by either the Jews or Christians on this. I ain't buying what's been put down. And mostly because NOTHING has been shown to support any of this. Sorry.




.

Jesus celebrating a Maccabean revolt Holiday.

Obviously you would call the book a hybrid perversion.. which is why I'll continue on in this thread.

6 Jewish translators, each of the 12 tribes translated the OT Hebrew Sources to Greek (some witnesses refered to it simply as the "Law" translation)

This was before long Jesus was even born..

I would call this commencement a unanimous canon, any future canon of Jews post Christ would simply dismiss the NT as canon and that's exactly what they did, it's called the Masoretic, Jerome created a hybrid because the Jews rejected some books so Jerome rejected them also yet he knew that Christians were also very well versed in singing psalms by memory he mixed the Septuagint and the Masoretic and called the extra books "Apocrypha" meaning "non genuine" to us today but back then the hebrews called them " hidden/sacred/obscure", the Jews were already convinced by that time that although they have the books they are not CANON... This was not the case with the 6 x 12 Jewish scribes who agreed unanimously that these ARE canon...

:/

See how the second canon came from post Christ ministry Jews unlike the pre Christ ministry Jews? I prefer the first canon because Christ had not yet come and no Jew had rejected the Messiah or his Gospel then, a non bias canon was set 300 years before Christ and Christians accepted it as OT canon because the Septuagint was in greek and Greek gentiles now had a reason to read the OT

Again... Jesus celebrated the Maccabean revolt

 

[Josiah]

Jesus celebrating a Maccabean revolt Holiday.

If true, that doesn't indicate that a book which tells of that revolt ERGO is the inerrant, divinely and verbally inspired inscripturated words of God - the Rule/Canon for doctrine. I celebrate my birthday, doesn't make my mom's birthday card thus canonical Scripture.

NOTHING to do with some holiday Jesus kept - and why.
NOTHING to do with what books are and are not the inerrant, verbally and dvinely inspired, inscripturated words of God (the Rule, Canon, Norma normans).

Personally, I lack the ego to tell the Holy Spirit He goofed. I just can't bring myself to do that. Now, IF you want to present data that there is a variant reading on that SPECIFIC singular verse, and that some other number actually has better support (a matter of textual criticism), well - present that data, but that has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with this thread or any other I know of at CH. I invite you to read all the posts to you here and on the others concerning the Canon/Rule.




1. WHICH books? I can't remember how many have asked that how many times..... WHOSE "set" of Deutero books? Do we include the Epistle to the Leodiceans (it was included in many Bibles for over 1000 years) or 2 Clement or the Revelation of Peter? How about Psalm 154? WHOSE "Apocrypha?"


2. I have asked repeatedly, WHO/WHAT is telling ANYONE what books they are forbidden to read? I have asked for a list of denominations that officially forbid books to be read and to give the list of such books - but this has been ignored. Just because the book "Boys in the Boat" is not found in any book at Walmart with "BIBLE" written on the cover does not mean the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod officially prohibites anyone from reading that book. I find this whole line of thinking incomprehensible and frankly absurd (not to be rude). Perhaps you don't know, but you CAN buy various sets of "Deutero" books (at least OT
ones) from Lutheran, Anglican, and Orthodox owned and operated publishing houses (hardly seems like forbidding them!), CPH (the largest Lutheran publishing house in the world) sells a book with Luther's "set" (the common one in Germany at the time - he included all these in his German translation) - I own it - and also has an extensive curriculum to study these books (I've done it) - hardly seems like forbidding it. To date, no one has told me WHO or WHAT forbids anyone from reading Psalm 151 (I have) or even the Epistle to the Leodiceans (I have), no one shot me dead or excommunicated me.




But I'm not buying what's been put down. Not a bit. I don't accept that because a book contains something correct in it, ERGO it is the inerrant, divinely and verbally inspired inscripturated words of God, the Rule/Canon/Norma Normans for Christian doctrine. I don't accept that any Apostolic or Ecumenical Council "ripped out" canonical books from the Bible, I'm not buying that some unnamed person or persons or denominations forbid me from reading 1, 2, 3 or 4 Maccabees, I don't agree that if a book is read it therefore is canonical, I don't agree that the ancient Jews are the ones to determine the Christian Bible, and I'm certainly not buying that there's been some HUGE mysterious, entirely unsubstantiated conspirasy by either the Jews or Christians on this. I ain't buying what's been put down. And mostly because NOTHING has been shown to support any of this. Sorry.


.

Obviously you would call the book a hybrid perversion.

Sorry, you completely lost me.... what does that response have to do with the question of this thread.... please quote me where I said that books are "hybrid perversions."

6 Jewish translators, each of the 12 tribes translated the OT Hebrew Sources to Greek (some witnesses refered to it simply as the "Law" translation) This was before long Jesus was even born..

Yes, and 1800 years before any CHRISTIAN denomination tried to definitively say anything about what is canonical Scripture - but just one denomination and it didn't accomplish anything (that denomination tried again 100 years later)

Yes, there is a lot of unsubstantiated claims about the creation of that translation. But I fail to see how any of that shows that the Book of Romans IS Scripture or some book isn't. There's not one denomination on the planet whose Bible is the LXX (and never has been).

I would call this commencement a unanimous canon

Andrew, anyone can call anything anything they like. But you have NOTHING to show that a group translating some books into Greek PROVES that the JEWISH RELIGION was officially, formally declaring those books (and all those books and no others) to be Scripture. All you can substantiate is PROBABLY what books were translated. And of course, you'd have the Dead Sea Scrolls where many of those are missing and a bunch of others are present - showing they at least seemed to have had a really bad Bible. But even if you could show some document from some ruling body or council of the Jews listing all the books of the Bible - and ALL LXX books are there an no others - why should Christians care? Why ask Jews or Muslims or Buddhist or Atheists what our Bible is?

any future canon of Jews post Christ would simply dismiss the NT as canon and that's exactly what they did

It surprises you that post Christ JEWS reject the New Testament? Frankly, I'd expect that. But I'm just not buying some mystical, entirely unsubstantiated conspiracy theory concerning the Jews.... especially since I don't look to non-Christians to tell Christians what is our Bible; yeah, SURE they'd toss out the NT. Most non-Christians would probably toss out the whole thing. I'm not buying this whole entirely, wholly, completely unsubstantiated Jewish conspiracy theory....

Again... Jesus celebrated the Maccabean revolt

... And I celebrated my birthday and perhaps you celebrated the Fourth of July. Doesn't prove what books are and are not canonical Scripture, doesn't prove that if a book contains something accurate in it, it thus belongs in our Christian Bibles.


I think you are making some incredible leaps.... and I fail to understand how any of it relates to the issue before us.... and you haven't supplied ANYTHING AT ALL to support this whole amazing Jewish conspiracy theory (and I don't know why it would matter if you did).




.

 

[Andrew]

If true, that doesn't indicate that a book which tells of that revolt ERGO is the inerrant, divinely and verbally inspired inscripturated words of God - the Rule/Canon for doctrine. I celebrate my birthday, doesn't make my mom's birthday card thus canonical Scripture.







Sorry, you completely lost me.... what does that response have to do with the question of this thread.... please quote me where I said that books are "hybrid perversions."







Yes, and 1800 years before any CHRISTIAN denomination tried to definitively say anything about what is canonical Scripture - but just one denomination and it didn't accomplish anything (that denomination tried again 100 years later)

Yes, there is a lot of unsubstantiated claims about the creation of that translation. But I fail to see how any of that shows that the Book of Romans IS Scripture or some book isn't. There's not one denomination on the planet whose Bible is the LXX (and never has been).






Andrew, anyone can call anything anything they like. But you have NOTHING to show that a group translating some books into Greek PROVES that the JEWISH RELIGION was officially, formally declaring those books (and all those books and no others) to be Scripture. All you can substantiate is PROBABLY what books were translated. And of course, you'd have the Dead Sea Scrolls where many of those are missing and a bunch of others are present - showing they at least seemed to have had a really bad Bible. But even if you could show some document from some ruling body or council of the Jews listing all the books of the Bible - and ALL LXX books are there an no others - why should Christians care? Why ask Jews or Muslims or Buddhist or Atheists what our Bible is?






It surprises you that post Christ JEWS reject the New Testament? Frankly, I'd expect that. But I'm just not buying some mystical, entirely unsubstantiated conspiracy theory concerning the Jews.... especially since I don't look to non-Christians to tell Christians what is our Bible; yeah, SURE they'd toss out the NT. Most non-Christians would probably toss out the whole thing. I'm not buying this whole entirely, wholly, completely unsubstantiated Jewish conspiracy theory....








... And I celebrated my birthday and perhaps you celebrated the Fourth of July. Doesn't prove what books are and are not canonical Scripture, doesn't prove that if a book contains something accurate in it, it thus belongs in our Christian Bibles.


I think you are making some incredible leaps.... and I fail to understand how any of it relates to the issue before us.... and you haven't supplied ANYTHING AT ALL to support this whole amazing Jewish conspiracy theory (and I don't know why it would matter if you did).




.

Paul was a Jewish conspiracy theorist as well, but I wouldn't call it a theory.. he said the scribes and pharisees were up to no good and would try to argue genealogies to Christians, yes JEWS to this day argue with Christians about genealogy, doesn't effect the Christian but most Jews really believe their Masoretic version of the genealogies and since Shem outlived most of his great great grandchildren then he was around to meet Abraham, and so they make Shem out to be Melchezidic who passes down kingship to Abraham who passed it down to Levi and NOT Judah thus Jesus who was born into the tribe of Judah can NOT be the New High Priest.

You can't argue with them what the NT claims that Melchezidic had no mother or father because they reject the NT and thus suggest that he DID have a mother and father and IS Shem.

 

[Andrew]

[MENTION=13]Josiah[/MENTION] about 2 minutes in... here is what Paul's warns us about, this young Hebrew man attacks Christians because the genealogy timeline "proves" that Jesus is NOT the new high priest/Messiah

https://youtu.be/kksXxeOYFE8

 

[atpollard]

John 10:22
The Feast of Dedication.

It does not say that Jesus celebrated the Feast of Dedication, it just says that Jesus was in Jerusalem during the Feast of Dedication. Since the Gospel of John had him at the Jordan River near where John the Baptist was baptizing, a quick look at a map reveals that there is a road from Jerusalem, past Bethany (where Mary and Martha live), past Jericho (where the Israelites first entered the promised land) and to the Jordan River ... a person can walk from the Temple Mount to the Jordan River in less than 11 hours.

So all John 10 proves is that Jesus was able to walk 11 hours to visit the Temple (perhaps on a Sabbath) and might have even stopped by to visit his good friends Mary, Martha and Lazarus on the way. The Garden of Gethsemane and Mount of Olives are also along the same road, so it may have even been a frequent journey for Jesus.

 

[Josiah]

[MENTION=13]Josiah[/MENTION] about 2 minutes in... here is what Paul's warns us about, this young Hebrew man attacks Christians because the genealogy timeline "proves" that Jesus is NOT the new high priest/Messiah

Irrelvevant to the issue of ANY thread at CH.... Certainly to this thread.

It doesn't support the claimed Jewish conspiracy....
It doesn't confirm that if a book contains something correct it ERGO is the inerrant, divinely and verbally inspired inscripturated words of God - the Rule and Canon for doctrine...
It doesn't confirm that any denomination officially forbids anyone from reading anything...
It doesn't confirm that ancient JEWS are the one who are to determine what books CHRISTIANS are to accept as canonical Scriptures...
It doesn't confirm that ANY books are or are not canonical Scriptures....
It doesn't confirm that Jesus declared all the LXX books are canoncial Scriptures and no others.


Scripture warns us against false teachers ... those who speculate about geneologies and festivals.... those who divide.

Frankly, I'd EXPECT non-Christians to reject things the Christian Scriptures and people say and believe.... I don't think that per se makes non-Christians right and authoritative.



.

 

[Andrew]

Irrelvevant to the issue of ANY thread at CH.... Certainly to this thread.

It doesn't support the claimed Jewish conspiracy....
It doesn't confirm that if a book contains something correct it ERGO is the inerrant, divinely and verbally inspired inscripturated words of God - the Rule and Canon for doctrine...
It doesn't confirm that any denomination officially forbids anyone from reading anything...
It doesn't confirm that ancient JEWS are the one who are to determine what books CHRISTIANS are to accept as canonical Scriptures...
It doesn't confirm that ANY books are or are not canonical Scriptures....
It doesn't confirm that Jesus declared all the LXX books are canoncial Scriptures and no others.


Scripture warns us against false teachers ... those who speculate about geneologies and festivals.... those who divide.

Frankly, I'd EXPECT non-Christians to reject things the Christian Scriptures and people say and believe.... I don't think that per se makes non-Christians right and authoritative.



.

Scripture also warns against arguing genealogies or following the Jews

 

[Albion]

And I never claimed to be Anglican. I’ve no clue where you’re getting that from.

You chose to identify your affiliation by use of the logo appointed for members of Anglican churches here (the grey Celtic cross under your name and next to the information about your sex and marital status). That's "where I'm getting that from." From you.

Thanks for the reply, though. It does explain why a few points should have made sense to you but didn't seem to ring any bells.

 

[Andrew]

You chose to identify your affiliation by use of the logo appointed for members of Anglican churches here (the grey Celtic cross under your name and next to the information about your sex and marital status). That's "where I'm getting that from." From you.

Thanks for the reply, though. It does explain why a few points should have made sense to you but didn't seem to ring any bells.

He might not have chosen it actually, there is a malfunction that sometimes randomly chooses denomination, mine was 'agnostic' for no reason when I signed up

 

[Albion]

He might not have chosen it actually, there is a malfunction that sometimes randomly chooses denomination, mine was 'agnostic' for no reason when I signed up

Are you sure that wasn't just some sort of glitch, if true? The idea of the computer parceling out denominational affiliations somewhat at random seems hard to believe. Anyway, I am sure that it can be corrected in our colleague's case.

 

[Andrew]

Are you sure that wasn't just some sort of glitch, if true? The idea of the computer parceling out denominational affiliations somewhat at random seems hard to believe. Anyway, I am sure that it can be corrected in our colleague's case.

Some kind of glitch but it happens often. I'm not sure what Nathan is, he says protestant but we'll just call him Christian lol, I'd change if I knew how to using mobile, I may try tomorrow, just don't feel like getting into it at the moment

 

[NathanH83]

You chose to identify your affiliation by use of the logo appointed for members of Anglican churches here (the grey Celtic cross under your name and next to the information about your sex and marital status). That's "where I'm getting that from." From you.

Thanks for the reply, though. It does explain why a few points should have made sense to you but didn't seem to ring any bells.

I don’t know what you’re talking about. I never chose any logos or icons.

 

[Andrew]

I don’t know what you’re talking about. I never chose any logos or icons.

Probably a glitch, if you edit your profile you can change the your denomination status

 

[Lamb]

I don’t know what you’re talking about. I never chose any logos or icons.

It seems our Tapatalk members are unaware that we have faith icons that represent what you believe. Here is what we see when we use the full site and not Tapatalk when we look at Andrew's postbit:



The black cross is a basic Christian icon we have but my icon is a Luther's Rose to show that I'm Lutheran.

If you could tell me which denomination you are most in line with I'll make the change for you.

 

[NathanH83]

It seems our Tapatalk members are unaware that we have faith icons that represent what you believe. Here is what we see when we use the full site and not Tapatalk when we look at Andrew's postbit:

View attachment 1189

The black cross is a basic Christian icon we have but my icon is a Luther's Rose to show that I'm Lutheran.

If you could tell me which denomination you are most in line with I'll make the change for you.

Christian is good enough for me.

Some say, “I follow Paul.”
Others say, “I follow Apollos.”
Others say, “I follow Martin Luther.”
Others say, “I follow Menno Simons.”
Others say, “I follow John Calvin.”

Is Christ divided?

I was raised in a Pentecostal Assemblies of God church. But to say I’m in line with them would require me to deny parts of the New Testament, and huge chunks of the Old Testament, including whole entire books that Jesus considers scripture, and declared so through his disciples and through his church.

I follow Christ.
Period.

 

[Albion]

It seems our Tapatalk members are unaware that we have faith icons that represent what you believe. Here is what we see when we use the full site and not Tapatalk when we look at Andrew's postbit:

View attachment 1189

The black cross is a basic Christian icon we have but my icon is a Luther's Rose to show that I'm Lutheran.

If you could tell me which denomination you are most in line with I'll make the change for you.

Technically, that would be Unitarian since that religious society has no confessional requirements and considers everyone who is a freethinker but doesn't have some other affiliation to be, by definition, a Unitarian.

But maybe "other church" would be better for our purposes.

One thing's for certain, though. SOMEONE had to input "Anglican" in this case. Tapatalk members are not simply assigned a faith icon at random.