@Rhema you said that the book of Revelation is not in the Bible. Don't know what Bible you use , Revelation is the last book of the Bible.
Sue... are you actually reading my posts? (Perhaps this is the reason why we can't have a logical and rational discussion.)
I gave you a
direct link to the New Testament that shows Revelation is Not "the last book of the Bible." Here is the link again, and please read the table of contents (under the word "more"):
The Holy Aramaic Scriptures: With a literal English translation and transliteration of The Eastern Peshitta New Testament Text, such as given in The Khabouris Codex.
www.thearamaicscriptures.com
The book of Revelation was not approved by any synod of the church until the year 393 AD (the Council of Hippo Regius), and
the first listing of the 27 books (in the order contained in your Bible) by anyone of repute did not occur until 367 AD. Even Eusebius thought it important enough to mention that Revelation was not considered canonical by some Bishops of the church.
III. THE CANON OF EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA (A.D. 265-340)
1. From Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, in. xxv. I-7. (written 312–324 AD)
2. At this point it seems appropriate to summarize the writings of the New Testament which have already been mentioned. In the first place must be put the holy quaternion of the Gospels, which are followed by the book of the Acts of the Apostles. (2) After this must be reckoned the Epistles of Paul; next in order the extant former Epistle of John, and likewise the Epistle of Peter must be recognized. After these must be put, if it really seems right, the Apocalypse of John, concerning which we shall give the different opinions at the proper time. (3) These, then, [are to be placed] among the recognized books. Of the disputed books, which are nevertheless familiar to the majority, there are extant the Epistle of James, as it is called; and that of Jude; and the second Epistle of Peter; and those that are called the Second and Third of John, whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name. (4) Among the spurious books must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, and the Shepherd, as it is called, and the Apocalypse of Peter; and, in addition to these, the extant Epistle of Barnabas, and the Teachings of the Apostles, as it is called. And, in addition, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem right. (This last, as I said, is rejected by some, but others count it among the recognized books.) (5) And among these some have counted also the Gospel of the Hebrews, with which those of the Hebrews who have accepted Christ take a special pleasure. (6) Now all these would be among the disputed books; but nevertheless we have felt compelled to make this catalogue of them, distinguishing between those writings which, according to the tradition of the Church, are true and genuine and recognized, from the others which differ from them in that they are not canonical [lit., en-testamented], but disputed, yet nevertheless are known to most churchmen. [And this we have done] in order that we might be able to know both these same writings and also those which the heretics put forward under the name of the apostles; including, for instance, such books as the Gospels of Peter, of Thomas, of Matthias, or even of some others besides these, and the Acts of Andrew and John and the other apostles. To none of these has any who belonged to the succession of ecclesiastical writers ever thought it right to refer in his writings. (7) Moreover, the character of the style also is far removed from apostolic usage, and the thought and purport of their contents are completely out of harmony with true orthodoxy and clearly show themselves that they are the forgeries of heretics. For this reason they ought not even to be reckoned among the spurious books, but are to be cast aside as altogether absurd and impious.
IV. THE CANON OF CYRIL OF JERUSALEM (C. A.D. 350)
1. From Cyril's Catechetical Lectures, iv. 36. For a discussion, see pp. 2og-1o above.
2. Then of the New Testament there are four Gospels only, for the rest have false titles and are harmful. The Manichaeans also wrote a Gospel according to Thomas, which being smeared with the fragrance of the name `Gospel' destroys the souls of those who are rather simple-minded. Receive also the Acts of the Twelve Apostles; and in addition to these the seven Catholic Epistles of James, Peter, John, and Jude; and as a seal upon them all, and the latest work of disciples, the fourteen Epistles of Paul. But let all the rest be put aside in a secondary rank. And whatever books are not read in the churches, do not read these even by yourself, as you have already heard [me say concerning the Old Testament apocrypha].
If you wish to believe that Revelation was the word of God, well ... many think the same thing of the Book of Mormon.
Don't know what Bible you use
That's pretty sarcastic, ma'am.
You also show a non-understanding of an assisted Living center.
(So was that....)
The RCC bases their belief of purgatory one verse in a non-canonical book of the Bible.
And you base your belief in the canon of the New Testament upon the RCC. Luther wanted to get rid of James and Revelation, but he didn't have the political clout to do so. The link given above directs you to the New Testament of the Church of the East - a church started in Persia by the Apostle Thomas, one that was left uncorrupted by the Roman Empire.
Let's look at
2Timothy 3:16. " All scripture
is given by inspiration of God.
Indeed, ... the most evil and pernicious mistranslation I have ever encountered. Even the word "is" isn't present in the Greek text. Here's what was actually written (and it doesn't say what you've been told).
και οτι απο βρεφους τα ιερα γραμματα οιδας τα δυναμενα σε σοφισαι εις σωτηριαν δια πιστεως της εν χριστω ιησου πασα γραφη θεοπνευστος και ωφελιμος προς διδασκαλιαν προς ελεγχον προς επανορθωσιν προς παιδειαν την εν δικαιοσυνη
Perhaps one day I'll have the time available to start a thread on this topic. But it won't do any good to those who do not have the education to follow the translation process, or who merely believe what their church leaders tell them.
Rhema
@Rhema. Your comment concerning our inability to have a rational conversation is based entirely on my not agreeing with you. And that is sad.
Actually, it's based on that attitude. I have provided sufficient and compelling arguments to show that this passage in Luke is a spiritual allegory. You have only merely repeated your opinion (time and again). My comment is not based on whether you agree, but whether you can truly present sufficient and compelling arguments. Please feel free to have the last word, but as I believe further discussion would be fruitless, again, I'll not engage you on this subject anymore.
