Gnosticism?

We already have and in your words you ignored them.

ibid above.

Here again michelle (when backed into a corner) redefines/refines the rules of engagement to insure that only she can win the debate.

HankD

 

--------------------------------------------------
Finally, you have no basis to accuse me of having a stubborn spirit. I have read the charges against W&H. I have read the rebuttals of those charges. The rebuttals are much better documented and supported. However, I have no means of knowing whether W&H were engaged in shadowy activities. However if they did, they appear to have spent the bulk of their time in writings that contradict such things... A carefully crafted, laborious cover up? Maybe, but I doubt it.

--------------------------------------------------

Actually, if you were knowledgable at all in the occult, secret societies, and gnostic beliefs, then you would be able to discern with the help of the Holy Spirit of truth, that their writings show this. I have read much of what they wrote, and they were very clever at disguising these heretical beliefs. If one actually understands gnosticism, you would be amazed at how very close to the truth it seems as it is very subtle, but it is NOT WHATSOEVER THE TRUTH, and W/H show forth this. One must approach this with desire for the TRUTH no matter what the cost. Then you will be able to see the truth clearly.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

--------------------------------------------------
I have no need nor desire to present a comprehensive defense of the characters of W&H. The question is whether the methods began by them are reasonable and biblically consistent or not. They are- Whether correct or incorrect, they are logical and honest.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


It might also do you and others well, to find out just where these methods came from. There is a great book called "Touch Not the Unclean Thing" by David Sorenson, who touches upon this. Textual criticism comes from apostacy, and German rationalism. It has no part in christianity.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Isn't that Gnosticism at its "best"?

If you knew you'd know.

 

\


--------------------------------------------------
Isn't that Gnosticism at its "best"?

If you knew you'd know
--------------------------------------------------

Please STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH and the falsely SLANDERING ME.


If you continue to do this, I will not respond to you anymore. This is unacceptable to me and quite childish at best.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Ed,

Here is another KJVO double standard if you don't already have it. Others are supposed to read everything the KJVO proponent demands, while the KJVO refuses to even look at the versions they condemn"

Bro Tony

 

I am sorry that you can't accept an honest question as an honest question michelle.

 

This is on page five.

Is it worth keeping open?

 

I believe this is one of the rare threads that might be able to keep going for a while longer.

Bro Tony

 

Round and Round with the typical KJVO rhetoric, yet no proof. You've been asked MULTIPLE times by many here, and I myself to prove which version of the KJV is correct. The 1611? The 1762? 1769? The Cambridge? The Oxford? Which???? You have no answer because there is no answer and your circular logic will not work as proof. Neither will your long postings of scripture which are in the other versions also. Proof, Michelle, Proof!

AVL1984

 

Prove they were Satan worshipping men, Michelle.

AVL1984

 

I have never said those things, and you cannot prove it from any of my posts since I have been here. You haven't even proved what Gnosticism is, nor have you proven any of your allegations against present day brethren or those who have been laid to rest. False allegations against these brethren is sin on your part. You've been asked for proof, historical proof showing you can back up what you say. Instead, you go off on rants of scriptural texts, which by the way are in the MV's too, that have nothing to do with what is being discussed. Proof Michelle. Context, Michelle. TRUTH, Michelle.

AVL1984

 

Nobody gossips about Erasmus when a graduate from Erasmus University hangs around on this board!

" Erasmus associated with Protestants. "
''

And he complained about their lack of manners. Especially Luther.

"If Erasmus was catholic"
''
He was.

"why then did his own Catholic church consider him a heretic?"
''
They didn't, they just didn't like some of his writings.

" Even until this very day? "
''
Not true.

 

Funny, this same rant of scripture is in the MV's. Worded differently so as to be in todays venacular. Yet, there all the same. Proof Michelle, Proof! King James commissioned this Bible, so he did have something to do with it. There was a perfectly good translation before the KJV and that was the Word of God. So, let me see, the kjVERSION is just a version of those Bible preceeding it...hmmm...very interesting. Why make a new version of the Word of God when there was one BEFORE the kjVERSION???

AVL1984

 

This is what you've been doing all along. You still haven't proven anything about gnosticism, which is what this thread is about.

AVL1984

 

He may not have been personally involved in the day to day translation, but he was responsible for much of the persecution and death many faced because they didn't accept his commissioned version of the Bible. So, what does that tell us? Sort of like the crusades, eh? Yes. Why? Because he FORCED the version upon people. The Anglican church forced the version on people. So, this is God's doing? Don't think so.

AVL1984

 

See, Michelle, even if we were to provide evidence, which you NEVER produce, you would summarily dismiss it. Doesn't that show you what a cultic mindset you've gotten yourself in to?

AVL1984

 

More concerning Francis Bacon's envolment in the final editing of the King James Bible.

 

--------------------------------------------------
The only evidence ever presented as "proof" of Erasmus conversion is that he supposedly died with the Protestants. His life of writing, especially his debates with Luther over the nature of salvation, undermine the notion that he was anything less than RCC. Luther argued "by grace alone". Erasmus argued for a works based sotierology.
--------------------------------------------------

Luther wasn't any better. However Erasmus did write things that show he was a saved man and loved the word of God and his fellow man:

" I vehemently dissent from those who would not have private persons read the Holy Scriptures nor have them translated into the vulgar tongues, as though either Christ taught such difficult doctrines that they can only be understood by a few theologians, or the safety of the Christian religion lay in ignorance of it. I would have the weakest woman read the Gospels and the Epistles of St. Paul...I would have those words translated into all languages, so that not only Scots and Irishmen, but Turks and Saracens might read them. I long for the plowboy to sing them to himself as he follows the plow, the weaver to hum them to the tune of his shuttle, the travelor to beguile with them the dullness of his journey...Other studies we may regret having undertaken, but happy is the man upon whom death comes when he is engaged in these. These sacred words give you the very image of Christ speaking, healing, dying, rising again, and make him so present, that were He before your very eyes you would not more truly see him." (Myths about the Modern Bible Versions, David Cloud, pg.53)


He also rejected the Latin Vulgate:


"Under the gracious, guiding hand of Him who sees the end from the beginning, Erasmus bent all his great mental powers, and all his laborious studies, to the preparation of a critical edition of the Greek Testament. This work appeared at Basel in 1516, one year before the Reformation, accompanied by a Latin translation, in which he corrected the errors of the Vulgate. This was daring work in those days. There was a great outcry from many quarters against this dangerous novelty. 'His New Testament was attacked,' says Robertson, 'why should the language of the schismatic Greeks interferre with the sacred and traditional Latin? How could any improvement be made on the Vulgate translation? To question the fidelity of the Vulgate, was a crime of the greatest magnitude in the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church" (Andrew Miller, Church History, Bible Truth Publishers, p.696 (Myths about the Modern Bible Versions, David Cloud, p.54))


and he shows that he was also a saved man:

"Would you please Peter or Paul? Then emulate faith of the one and the charity of the other. Thereby you will do better than if you make ten pilgramages to Rome...You honour a statue of Christ in wood or stone and adorned with colors. You would do better to honour the image of his mind which through the Holy Spirit is expressed in the gospels. Are you excited over the seamless robe and the napkin of Christ and yet doze over the oracles of his law? Far better that you should believe than that you should treasure at home a piece of the wood of the cross. Otherwise you are no better than Judas, who with his lips touched the divine mouth. The physical presence of Christ is useless for salvation...In a word, let all your possessions, all you concern, all your care be directed toward the imitation of Christ, who was not born for himself, lived not for himself, died not to himself, but for our sakes...

We are assured victory over death, victory over the flesh, victory over the world and Satan. Christ promises us remission of sins, fruits in this life a hundredfold, and thereafter life eternal. And for what reason? For the sake of our merit? No indeed, but through grace of faith which is in Christ Jesus. We are the more secure because he is first our doctor. He first overcame the lapse of Adam, nailed our sins to the cross, sealed our redemption with his blood, which has been confirmed by the testimonies of the prophets, apostles, martyrs, and virgins and by the universal Church of the saints. He added the seal of the Spirit lest we should waver in our confidence...What could we little worms do of ourselves? Christ is our justification. Christ is our victory. Christ is our hope and security. 'Unto us a child is born.' Unto US, born for us, given for us. He it is who teaches us, cures our diseases, casts out demons, for us suffers hunger and thirst, is afflicted, endures the agonies of death, sweats blood, for us is conquered, wounded, dead, and resurrected, and sits at the right hand of God the Father...

As we approach death the sacraments are not to be despised, but of greater importance is faith and charity without which all else is vain. I believe there are many not absolved by the priest, not having taken the Eucharist, not having been annointed, not having recieved Christian burial who rest in peace, while many who have had all the rites of the Church and have been buried next to the altar have gone to hell. There is no point in putting on a cowl. Better to resolve to live a better life if you get well. I know a noble woman who gave a large sum to a priest to have masses said for her soul at Rome. Her money might better have been spent to obligate the priest never to go to Rome..." (Erasmus, "Treatise on Preparation for death," quoted by Roland H. Bainton, Erasmus of Christendom, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1969, pp.68,69,70,269,270)Myths about the Modern Bible Versions, David Cloud p.60,61))


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

I know David Sorenson personally. He used to be the associate pastor at the church I grew up in under his father, Dr. Henry C. Sorenson. I have the book right here.
Let me add this, Michelle, the forcing of the KJV upon people <snipped> through persecution by the Anglican church, and the deaths of those who weren't going to accept this version, was that of God? Wasn't that just Anglican Rationalism? I mean, there was a perfectly good version of the Word of God before the kjVERSION.

AVL1984

[ September 08, 2004, 11:59 PM: Message edited by: Dr. Bob ]