OK since you have taken up the task (I still await the Greybeard etc), what about the New Testament.

Who canonised the New Testament and when?   

Joagbaje:

@OLAADEGBU
But do you agree with me that "let us " was not in the original manuscript? Let's clear that first.

Yes.  But the scribes were known for omitting vowels in the Scriptures. For instance, Yahweh would be written as YHWH.

@newmi



Dont try and muddy the water, Mr Jo is a fraud and I am not Sir John.

@Mr Jo

Where are you, Mr Jo 'Fraudster' Agbaje ?

Hmmmmn, interesting.

Joagbaje,
Seems you have someone that now 'idolises' you. Seems to breath your name in every post

OLAADEGBU,
It's obvious how they read their bibles now, to be misquoting Paul for Jude. They seemingly spend more time reading literature, hence the reason why their reading the bible is seemingly based on the letter and not the Spirit. It is therefore easy for them to discredit the bible.
There is nothing you can say that they will accept, they need their hearts to be 'softened' by the conviction of the Holy Spirit.
May God help us. Amen.

@Snowy

I believe it is every christian's duty to expose the frauds in our churches - Mr Jo is a small fraudster learning the tricks from Oyaks, Oyedepo, Ashimolowo, Hinn and co.

The church should not be abused by frauds like him.

Snowwy:

OLAADEGBU,
It's obvious how they read their bibles now, to be misquoting Paul for Jude. They seemingly spend more time reading literature, hence the reason why their reading the bible is seemingly based on the letter and not the Spirit. It is therefore easy for them to discredit the bible.
There is nothing you can say that they will accept, they need their hearts to be 'softened' by the conviction of the Holy Spirit.
May God help us. Amen.

You are spot on. It appears that the Bible is not enough for them, and that's if they have even read it in the first place. They are so quick to run to the extra books that are popular on the bookstores and claim that they are more reliable than the books of the Bible. They even claim that such books were not added into the canon because of petty jealousies as books such as The Da Vinci Code asserts. This is why Peter describes them as "untaught and unstable" in 2 Peter 3:16.

Snowwy:

Hmmmmn, interesting.
Joagbaje,
Seems you have someone that now 'idolises' you. Seems to breath your name in every post

The bible talks about mockers who don't know the holyspirit.

Jude 1:18-19
18 How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts. 19 These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit..

Enigma:

OK since you have taken up the task (I still await the Greybeard etc), what about the New Testament.

Who canonised the New Testament and when?   

The compilation of the old testament and canonisation was attributed to Ezra the scribe. He divided it into 2 major division "The law" and "the prophets" that's why Jesus use that phrase often to make references to scriptures.

Nehemiah 8:5-7
5 And Ezra opened the book in the sight of all the people; (for he was above all the people and when he opened it, all the people stood up: 6 And Ezra blessed the Lord, the great God. And all the people answered, Amen, Amen, with lifting up their hands: and they bowed their heads, and worshipped the LORD with their faces to the ground. 7 Also Jeshua, and Bani, and Sherebiah, Jamin, Akkub, Shabbethai, Hodijah, Maaseiah, Kelita, Azariah, Jozabad, Hanan, Pelaiah, and the Levites, caused the people to understand the law: and the people stood in their place.

There is a more clearer scripture in Nehemiah I'm still trying to find.

Joagbaje:

@OLAADEGBU
But do you agree with me that "let us " was not in the original manuscript? Let's clear that first.

It appears that you are not forth coming.  Now that I have cleared your question do you believe what Genesis 1:1 says in the Hebrew?

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" -- Genesis 1:1

Do you believe that the bolded words are in the original manuscripts?  And if yes, do you believe that the word God there in Hebrews is the uni-plural Elohim?

I'm not denying the plurality of elohim o. I've forgotten what that particular thread was about. I only pointed out an observation.

Joagbaje:

I'm not denying the plurality of elohim o. I've forgotten what that particular thread was about. I only pointed out an observation.

I thought you were supporting those who denied the tri-une God in the thread below:

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-580172.32.html

@Joagbaje

At least you made an effort ---- I was hoping Greybeard too would come back and expand.

Anyhooos: for the Old Testament, below is a useful piece which gives a wider picture than you painted. Warning: section 2:2 of the article is however very faulty because it should have made clear that the Council of Jamnia is in dispute as to whether it was a proper "council" in the first place and whether it indeed established an OT canon.

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/sbrandt/canon.htm


As for the New Testament, the wiki entry linked below also gives an overview of things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon


EDIT: see also this related post https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-645892.0.html#msg8127199


BTW if Greybeard is still interested, I have a question: what was the decision taken at the Nicea Council (325) on the issue of the canon of the Bible?

OLAADEGBU:

I thought you were supporting those who denied the tri-une God in the thread below:
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-580172.32.html

This was my comment. I only made an observation.

The plurality and respect is revealed in the name Elohim. But the word "us" or "our" was not in the original manuscript.

@Mr Jo

Will a real christian see a picture of a naked burnt man and take pictures of him on his 'iphone' ?

Enigma:


BTW if Greybeard is still interested, I have a question: what was the decision taken at the Nicea Council (325) on the issue of the canon of the Bible?

Nope. I'm not interested in educating you on things every serious christian should already know.

This thread is about Melchizedek and it serves no interest high-jacking it with unrelated issues and leading questions. There are people reading this thread (including myself) who are interested in understanding more about Melchisedek so guys, lets stay on point.

For those who cannot bear the thought of reading anything outside the Bible, please press your back button now,

The Nag Hammadi Library refers to a collection of preserved early Christian texts found in the town on Nag Hammadi in Egypt in 1945. Some of the texts refer to Melchizedek and claim that he is Jesus Christ Himself.
This claim has similarities with the statement in Hebrews 5 that Jesus Christ is a High Priest after the Order of Melchizedek.

Was Melchizedek an appearance of Jesus Christ in Abraham's time?
Or was Melchizedek a different person who established a divine order of High Priests of which Jesus Christ was amoungst?

Grey Beard:

For those who cannot bear the thought of reading anything outside the Bible, please press your back button now,

You are free to read whatever you want to read but the moment you begin to ascribe to them authority over the inspired word of God or assume that such writings should have been included in the canon of the Scripture is the time you should realise that you are going too far.

Grey Beard:

The Nag Hammadi Library refers to a collection of preserved early Christian texts found in the town on Nag Hammadi in Egypt in 1945. Some of the texts refer to Melchizedek and claim that he is Jesus Christ Himself.
This claim has similarities with the statement in Hebrews 5 that Jesus Christ is a High Priest after the Order of Melchizedek.

Whatever archaeological or historical relics that has been found would only attest to the fact that the Bible is accurate.  Any writings or collections that contradicts the inspired Scriptures as we have it in the Bible shows that such artifacts are dodgy.

Grey Beard:

Was Melchizedek an appearance of Jesus Christ in Abraham's time? Or was Melchizedek a different person who established a divine order of High Priests of which Jesus Christ was amoungst?

The answer to this question would depend on where you get your authority from, is it from man or from God?  And that is the quest of this thread.

^^^

Saying so much without actually contributing anything to this thread.

Grey Beard:

^^^

Saying so much without actually contributing anything to this thread.

When at a point I thought you were beginning to make sense then this.

Grey Beard:

Nope. I'm not interested in educating you on things every serious christian should already know. . . .

Tisha no tish me nansens! 

. . . the Roman Catholic Church who canonised the Bible under the leadership of Emperor Constantine beginning with the Council of Nicea in 325 AD

The above that you wrote is misinformed nonsense and if you are wise you will first reeducate yourself before speaking of "educating" others.

^^ Thanks for the advice Enigma. But like I said earlier, I am not interested in educating you on what you should already know.

Grey Beard: ^^^

Saying so much without actually contributing anything to this thread.

I actually agreed with your post.

[b][size=14pt]FABRICATING AN ISSUE OUT OF NOTHING!,[/size]

ADVOCATES OF TITHES HAVE OUT OF GREEDINESS SEEK A WAY TO ESTABLISH TITHING AS LEGITIMATE, BECAUSE THE LEVITICAL TITHING THAT ENDS ON THE CROSS SEEMS TO BE A WEAK DEFENCE TO PROVE THEIR CASE,THEY MAKE AN UNPROVED ASSERTION FIRSTLY THAT THE 'PRE-LAW' ABRAHAM TENTH PART 'TRIBUTE OFFERING'TO MELCHI GIVES THEM THE AUTHORITY TO STILL RECEIVE TITHES,AND THAT EVEN END TO THE LEVITICAL PRIESTHOOD DOES NOT AFFECT TITHING,BASED ON THE TENTH PART TRIBUTE OFFERING RECEIVED BY MELCHI FROM ABRAHAM, THEY HOLD ON TO UNPROVED AND UNEXISTING 'PRIESTHOOD ORDER OF MELCHZEDECK' WHICH ORIGINALLY THEY DERIVED FROM 'AFTER THE ORDER OF MELCHIDECK'
IN BOOK OF PSALM 110:4, AND HEBREWS. OUTSIDE THESE CHAPTERS,THE ONUS OF PROOF UPON THEM TO PROOF WHERE 'PRIESTHOOD ORDER OF MELCHIZEDECK' INSTEAD OF PRIESTHOOD 'SIMILAR' OR 'LIKE FOR LIKE' TO JESUS,THEIR CLAIMS OUTSIDE THESE BOOK OF PSALM 110:4 AND HEBREWS PROVED ABORTIVE.THEY HAVE NO SOLID BACKING.

UNFORTUNATELY, THEY HAVE 'DELVE' USING WORDLY WISDOM TO EVALUATE BIBLE,AND IT IS JUST HOW THE PROPHETS IN THE BIBLE PREDICTS THEM,THEY SEE THE SCRIPTURES AS [size=14pt]'FOOLISHNESS' EVEN CRITISIZING APOSTLE PAULS INSPIRED WRITINGS,TO THEIR OWN UNDERSTANDING,[/size]INSTEAD OF ALLOWING THEIRSELVES TO BE TAUGHT BY THE SCRIPTURES,THEY SEEK 'DEAD TECHNICALITIES'AND PHILOSOPHIES TO BACK UP THEIR CLAIMS,DISREGARDING WARNINGS AS TO THE FOOLISHNESS OF WORDLY WISDOM WHICH 'CAUSED THE WISE NOT TO KNOW GOD'.LETS READ BELOW; NEED TO AKNOWLEDGE THESE;

1 Corinthians 1:20-22


20 Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, [size=14pt]the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.
[/size]

2 Corinthians 10:4-5

4, For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, 5,[size=14pt] casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ,[/size]

1 Corinthians 2:12-13
King James Version (KJV)
12Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

13[size=14pt]Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

[/size]

Acts 4:13
King James Version (KJV)
13[size=14pt]Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them[/size], that they had been with Jesus.

NOW,LETS COMPARE THE TWO BIBLE VERSES BELOW;

Hebrews 7:11
King James Version (KJV)
11If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there [size=14pt]that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec[/size], and not be called after the order of Aaron?

Heb 7:15 And it is yet far more evident: for [size=14pt]that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest, [/size]

[b]Similitude
G3665
ὁμοιότης
homoiotēs
hom-oy-ot'ace

From G3664; resemblance: - like (as), similitude.


GOING FURTHER TO G3664 WHERE IT WAS DERIVED, SEE THE MEANING OF WHAT IS RENDERED IN HEB 7:15 AS

‘’AFTER THE 'SIMILITUDE' OF MELCHISEDEC THERE ARISETH ANOTHER PRIEST’’,


G3664

ὅμοιος

homoios

hom'-oy-os

From the base of G3674 ; similar (in appearance or character): - {like} + manner.




Psa 110:4

The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order (H1700) of Melchizedek.

H1700
דּברה
dibrâh
dib-raw'
Feminine of H1697 ; a {reason} suit or style: - {cause} {end} {estate} {order} regard.

THE WORD RENDERED “ORDER” HERE MEANS PROPERLY A 'WORD' ; 'A THING', 'A MATTER'; HENCE, 'A WAY' OR 'MANNER'. THE MEANING HERE IS,
THAT HE WOULD BE A PRIEST “AFTER THE MANNER” OF MELCHIZEDEK; OR,

SUCH A PRIEST AS HE WAS. HE WOULD NOT BE OF THE TRIBE OF LEVI; HE WOULD NOT BE IN THE REGULAR LINE OF THE PRIESTHOOD, BUT HE WOULD RESEMBLE, IN THE CHARACTERISTICS OF HIS OFFICE, THIS ANCIENT PRIEST-KING, COMBINING IN HIMSELF THE TWO FUNCTIONS OF PRIEST AND KING; AS A PRIEST, STANDING ALONE; NOT DERIVING HIS AUTHORITY FROM ANY LINE OF PREDECESSORS; AND HAVING NO SUCCESSORS.


IM ASKING NOW, WILL THE BIBLE CONTRADICT ITSELF ? IN HEBREW 7:11 AND HEB 7:15? OR PSALM 110:4?

NOW, THE PARTICULAR HEB 7, SUPPLIED US WITH ESTABLISHED PROOFS POINTING TO THE TRUE MEANING OF WHAT IS RENDERED 'ORDER';THAT IS;RESEMBLANCE, OR 'MANNER' OR 'LIKE' FOR 'LIKE',

PLEASE CONSIDER BELOW,WHAT THIS VERSES INCLUDED ARE ALL ABOUT;quoted(in blue)below

11If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

THAT IS 'HAD IT BEEN THAT' LEVITICUS PRIESTHOOD COULD HAVE ACHIEVE PERFECTION? THERE WOULD BE 'NO FURTHER NEED' FOR 'ANOTHER PRIEST, WHICH MEANS THE ALLEGED 'MELCHIZEDECH ISSUE WOULD HAVE NO BASIS AND RENDERED 'USELESS'

LEVITICAL PRIESTHOOD,SAME AS AARONIC OR ALSO KNOWN AS AARONIC PRIESTHOOD, HAS A BASIS THAT ACTUALLY DID NOT PUT US IN THE DARK THAT IS;

(The Aaronic Priesthood is also called the Levitical Priesthood. The word Levitical comes from the name Levi, one of the twelve sons of Israel. Moses and Aaron, who were brothers, were Levites.

When the Aaronic Priesthood was given to Israel, Aaron and his sons received the presiding and administrative responsibility. The male members of all other Levite families were put in charge of the ceremonies of the tabernacle, including the Mosaic law of sacrifice).

ALSO WE ARE 'NOT IN THE DARK' CONCERNING THE MANNER OF WHICH CHRIST 'WAS APPOINTED' A PRIEST 'SIMILAR' OR 'LIKE' OR 'IN RESEMBLANCE' OF MELCHIZEDECK THE ACIENT PRIEST, AS A ;PRIEST-KING, COMBINING IN HIMSELF THE TWO FUNCTIONS OF PRIEST AND KING,
AND JESUS 'DECLARED AS KING OF KINGS,AND LORD OF LORDS' WHAT A FITTING AND UNDISPUTABLE SIMILARITIES?


THERE IS NOTHING SPECIAL ABOUT MELCHIZECK THAT WOULD WARRANT 'AN ALLEGED' 'PRISTHOOD 'ORDER', IT DOES NOT EXIST BECAUSE THERE IS NO ''PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT TO 'PROVE OR STAND' AS A RECOGNISED AND ACCEPTED PROOF,OUTSIDE HEBREWS, AND PSALM11O:4 EXCEPT MERE SPECULATIONS,

SO WE ARE TOTALLY IN THE DARK NOT FROM THE BIBLE BUT FROM THE AGITATORS OR ADVOCATES OF UNEXISTING 'PRIESTHOOD 'ORDER' ALLEGED TO BE OF MELCHIZEDECK AND THATS THE ONLY PART THAT REMAINED AN ARTIFICIAL MISTERY.

WE ALSO HAVE A KNOWLEDGE OF CHRIST 'ASCENTION TO PRIEST' OUTSIDE LEVITICUS ORDER;HEB 7:13,14;

13For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.

14For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood

IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT [size=14pt]THOSE WHO SEEK 'UNPROVED PRIESTHOOD ORDER'OUTSIDE THE REAL TEACHING DID NOT EVEN HAVE 'AGREED DEFINATION' TO SUIT THEIR CONCEPT,[/size]BUT THEN GOD IS NOT 'OF CONFUSION' 1COR 14:33, BUT WE DO WELL TO SEEK THE WARNING BELOW;

2 Peter 2
New King James Version (NKJV)

2 But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction. 2 And many will follow their destructive ways, because of whom the way of truth will be blasphemed. 3 By covetousness they will exploit you with deceptive words; for a long time their judgment has not been idle, and their destruction does[a] not slumber.


[/b]

It's even very mischievous and damn right dishonest to justify tithing in christianity based on the one off example of Melchizedek who was barely mentioned in the bible. What I mean is that christ had a ministry spanning three years and he never for once collected tithes as high priest. Even after he ascended to heaven his disciples never for once taught tithing. One thing is clear if tithing was meant to be practised under the priesthood of Jesus, the bible would have stated so clearly and repeatedly. But as the case is tithe proponents have drawing up comparisons and institutionalising falsehood and using abraham's one off voluntary example to justify their greed. Even when the bible makes no suggestion that tithing was a requirement of the Melchizedek priesthood which they are using to deceive believers.

"And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time" (Daniel 7:25).

The spirit of antichrist already at work seeking to change times and laws.

The Lord will do nothing except reveal his secrets to his servants the prophets! People argue over things which they do not understand or use their own limited knowledge to argue over things of God.Now let me tell u a fact,The holy melchizedek priesthood is the power & authority of God giving unto man to act on his behalf.Many plain & precious things had being removed from the bible by wicked men making it incomplete.There is only 1 true church in all the earth now.One of the reason there are so many churches in our time today is that they all interpret doctrines differently,but I tell u there can only be 1 truth of all things.Truth is the knowledge of things as they were and as they are and as they are to come.Anything outside this is of the devil.

I was trapped. So I figured I headed to the mountians.

OLAADEGBU:

The Order of Melchizedek

"The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek." (Psalm 110:4)

The importance of this intriguing verse is indicated both by the fact that it is the central verse of a great Messianic Psalm (quoted at least 12 times in the New Testament) and also because this one verse constitutes one of the main themes of chapters 5-7 of Hebrews, where it is quoted no fewer than five times (Hebrews 5:6, 10; 6:20; 7:17, 21), and where Melchizedek himself is mentioned nine times.  It refers to the fascinating personage glimpsed briefly in Genesis 14:18-20.  Melchizedek (meaning "King of Righteousness" is said to have been "King of Salem" (or "Peace"), but there is no record, either in secular history or elsewhere in the Bible, that there ever was such a city or earthly king.  He was also called the "priest of the most high God" (Hebrews 7:1), and he suddenly appeared, then disappeared as suddenly as he had come.

Commentators mostly have assumed that Melchizedek was the chieftain of a small settlement of which we have no record, but this hardly does justice to the exalted descriptions of him in Scripture.  He was obviously greater than Abraham (Hebrews 7:4), as well as Aaron, the founder of the Levitical priesthood.  Furthermore, he was "without father, without mother, . . . having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually" (Hebrews 7:3).  Such language is hardly appropriate merely because no genealogy is recorded.

If one takes the Bible literally, such statements could be true only of God Himself, appearing briefly in the preincarnate state of the Second Person, as King of all peace and righteousness.  Now this same divine Person, "because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.  Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him" (Hebrews 7:24-25). HMM

Who is this Melchisedec?

OLAADEGBU:


Who is this Melchisedec?

I will get to bed now sir I will like to learn more another day.