Scripture. What is considered Scripture?

[2003cobra]

Yes, the censer could have been kept in the the Holy of Holies. I have no problem with that unless someone can show otherwise from scripture.

Going to clean out the mail box.

I posted scriptures that showed the censer was used everyday, morning and evening.

The Holy Of Holies was entered only once a year. Tradition says the priest entering had a rope tied around him so his body could be dragged out if things went wrong.

How could a censer have incense burned on it twice a day in a room only entered once a year?

Zenn’s point was that Hebrews places the censer in the Holy Of Holies. He did not say that placement was consistent with the Old Testament account.

A helpful thing is to google images of the temple.

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

I posted scriptures that showed the censer was used everyday, morning and evening.

The Holy Of Holies was entered only once a year. Tradition says the priest entering had a rope tied around him so his body could be dragged out if things went wrong.

How could a censer have incense burned on it twice a day in a room only entered once a year?

Zenn’s point was that Hebrews places the censer in the Holy Of Holies. He did not say that placement was consistent with the Old Testament account.

A helpful thing is to google images of the temple.

I believe the daily incense was burned on the altar of incense that stood in front of the curtain in the Holy place, not the Holy of Holies. The censor must have been left behind the curtain in the Holy of Holies all year round, ready for the day of atonement.

 

[Zeke]

YES.

FINALLY.

(A very serious and important question.)

It is. It is the same with writing. But I think you also mean to include "scripture". "Why is it not the same with scripture?" (After all, scripture just means graphe which just means writing). And the answer would be that all inspired writings would be scripture (in this special sense). But not all of what the Catholics declared to be scripture is inspired.

Rhema speaks Logos. Rhema is the utterance. Rhema is the event where God breaks through and speaks to a person.

So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word RHEMA of God.
(Rom 10:17 KJV)

Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot.
(Act 8:29 KJV)

This is to happen in our everyday walk - That we are to receive the Rhema of the Spirit. It's not just for special prophets and it's not just for special apostles. And this is what James was trying to say, rather than to invent yet another bead for the Rosary (James 4:15). To conclude that Rhema was only possible for those "special people" (called Apostles) and that anyone today who hears the voice of God (cf. Heb. 3:7) is to be belittled or declared that "he is besides himself" (cf Mark 3:21), is to grieve the Spirit. God will only meet your beliefs. If you don't think He'll talk to you, He won't.

But while Rhema speaks Logos, Logos comprises the principles, the teachings, the Logical content - the Idea behind what is spoken - the Pattern of the way things are to be - the Pattern of the Truth of God. And yes, certain writings may be considered a Logos, a "recording" of such Rhema.

But the problem is when the Catholic Bishop Athanasius says, "This, this specific writing, these books are the Holy Writ of Scripture and none other."

Are we to be led by a Catholic Bishop? (A very serious question.)

We are to somehow believe that God inspired this Bishop in 367 AD to list the correct books comprising New Testament scripture and yet God could not inspire that very same Bishop to correctly understand the Doctrine of how one is saved? As if God is more interested in creating Holy Writ than in saving souls?

So to answer the OP. Scripture is whatever the Holy Spirit says to you that scripture is.

If "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:" (Rom 8:16 KJV) how much more will the same Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit that something spoken or written is the Word Truth of God?

First, I appreciate that you're engaging in serious discussion. And the serious answer is that I've not been led by Holy Spirit to "write perfect books" (yet). If the Rhema of God does not say, "Zenn, write this down," then anything I do write within such a capacity IS pride and hubris. Participation in a forum is a bit different than creating works for publication to be distributed as Holy Scripture. (Although there have been times when the Spirit of the Lord has prompted and guided me to write certain posts.)

But I absolutely demand that you not take MY word for it.

How are you to be led? By your own mind? That was Martin Luther's mistake. He published his New Testament translation in German to show the common folk just how right he, Martin Luther, was. Luther could just not conceive that anybody else could read the exact same words and arrive at a completely different understanding. He had no clue that this would lead to the torrent of 30,000 or so denominations, with every Calvin and his brother using their own brain to create new doctrines.

So how are you to be led? By a book? But even the book does not say this. Rather the books says: For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. (Rom 8:14 KJV)

And yet how are most Christians led? By a book. By a book that says to be led by the Spirit. And over the decades, I have yet to find any Protestant explanation that describes something other than each individual being led by what their own brain can figure out from what is written in a book the Roman Catholics declared to be scripture (i.e. Holy Writ).

I personally find this astonishing.

Sigh. Uh... oops.. okay, it's likely you haven't yet read my post which says I am not a Charismatic.

I think it has something to do with doing the works rather than writing about them, although I know a few accounts that you might find interesting (e.g. Lester Sumrall). Most Pentecostals don't know anything of Protestant authors, and most Protestants don't know of anything written by Pentecostals.

daqq my apologies in that I don't quite remember offhand that I said such "cannot really be described". Perhaps I wasn't clear (and unfortunately I don't have the time to review my posts at the moment). I can, though, to the best of my ability, describe what happens to me. However, it's not easily described. Written words have great limitations. How can one describe the experience of riding a bicycle to someone who hasn't?

God would rather lead each and every one of his children directly by the Spirit (which He cannot do if they're being led by something else, like a Bible). So go get your own Rhema (he says in a humorous and friendly manner). I'm not really here to get you to believe what I say. But I can recount what God has said to me (if it becomes edifying to do so), and encourage everyone to seek the Rhema of God for him or herself.

But how can they if they don't know it's there?

Zenn

Ole lester had a pair thats for sure, listen to him back in the day.

 

[patrick jane]

Actually, the best way to destroy faith is to redefine the word to mean something completely different.

This has actually happened with Faith. When the New Testament texts speak of pistis (faith) it has nothing to do with the way most people use this word today. Change the definition and you destroy the concept.

So today, when people speak of faith they hold in their mind the Kierkegaardian definition of faith (the "leap" of faith), not the definition of pistis as would have been understood 2000 years ago. Yet while the prevailing and overwhelming definition of faith is Kierkegaardian, I have noted from years of discourse that there are five different extant definitions of 'faith' in use today.

My point, though, is not to define faith, nor to start down a different rabbit trail about faith, but to show that the best way to destroy a concept is to redefine the word to mean something else. The definition of faith to a Catholic is markedly different than the definition of faith ascribed to by a Protestant. The word faith has been redefined.

So if one translates both Rhema and Logos as "word" then one destroys the concepts. If the "Word of God" (either one) is redefined to mean "Bible" then one destroys what the 'Word of God' truly is (either one).

Zenn

PS: Remember, the truth shall set you free.

That makes sense. I understand the difference between the Word and the Bible but it took time. I also understand many of the tools of satan used to destroy faith in God.

 

[Zenn]

In order to have a productive discussion, we must agree on certain terms and vocabulary.

Finally, someone after my own heart. Truly I am speechless. It's like trying to pull teeth to get people to understand there is such a thing as a Definitional Framework, let alone finding someone who realizes these frameworks need to be aligned between people in order to achieve any measure of agreement.

The contents of the New Testament, however, were all copied very quickly (in the want to be able to send out as many copies as possible for converting non-Christians), thus allowing for spelling errors, possible variations in numerical representations, etc. It was in I believe 390 AD, in which St. Jerome began to compile the Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew Manuscripts, creating the Septuagint/Vulgate.

Hmmm... I don't think I could categorize 390 years as 'quick'. The development and distribution of authoritative holy writ occurred for other reasons than to "convert non-Christians".

I would also point out that Jerome's initial task was to deal with the extreme variations found in the Old Latin copies spread throughout the Empire, not to create something new out of Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew manuscripts, although I do recognize that he had consulted these.

With regards to historical development, though, within the proto-Orthodox and Orthodox church Ecclesiastical Authority was vested in the Church Fathers (the living ones more so than the dead ones) and not scripture. Scripture as holy writ was embraced by the church in order to combat the successes of the Gnostic Christians. The Gnostics appealed to their scriptures as authoritative first and the general populace found this compelling. As the Orthodox church started to lose primacy, we start to see the argument, "HEY, We have holy writ too." In other words, the canon was initially developed as a reaction to what is in essence, market forces.

However, since Ecclesiastical Authority of the Orthodox church had been vested (and still is vested today) in the Church Fathers (again, the living ones more so than the dead ones), each bishop, in each of the cities spread throughout the empire, made and kept his own copy of holy writ, and changes were made as each bishop felt it necessary to 'clarify things' and so the mess of the Old Latin Bibles had developed as a distribution problem.

Yet, logically, it makes sense to work one's way forward through history, in order to find why such declarations were made.

A major historical turning point would be that of the Reformation, though, no? In removing the Church Fathers, and more specifically the Pope, from the seat of Ecclesiastical Authority, Luther was left with a vacuum, and since his view of soteriology had developed along drastically different lines than that which was held by the church for centuries, Sola Scriptura rushed in to fill this void. I just find it rather appalling that to support his view of salvation, Luther had to remove a word from Ephesians and add a word to Romans to make this Sola Scriptura conform to his soteriology.

We must agree that Jesus is God Incarnate. If we disagree on this, then it is pointless to progress on the attributes of Scripture, since we do not agree on one of the (if not, as I would argue, the) central figures in Christianity.

Seriously? :AMR:

There seems to be a presumption in your assertion here (or at least a presupposition) that the Son of God cannot speak authoritatively for his Father, but somehow Must be God himself. While I'd rather this not turn into another carnival side-show about the Trinity, Incarnation is Not a requirement for establishing any bona fides of what would constitute holy writ. Suffice it to say that I believe the Son of God CAN and did speak authoritatively for God, whom he called his father. Is this acceptable? Or is this what the Americans would call "a deal breaker"?

So, to trust Jesus, is to trust the Apostles, which leads to trusting the Scriptures to be inerrant.

And yet until Martin Luther, the official position of the Christian Church was ... So to trust Jesus is to trust his Apostles which leads to trusting the Church Fathers with an apostolic heritage even to this day, with scripture as a helpful guide.

Zenn

PS: Your last assertion fails, though, in that it relies upon the Apostles being inerrant. Yet even Paul said that Peter was in error (cf. Galatians 2:11). So there goes your 'chain of custody' with regards to inerrancy.

PPS: And don't even get me started on the civil war between Paul and James.

 

[Zenn]

You will only get worse because the deeper you dig the more your mindset will disallow what the texts actually say.

daqq !! For shame. The "texts actually say" different things.

Zenn

PS: Why? Now that's a different question.

 

[Zenn]

Every time a sinner is saved, a miracle of the Holy Spirit is performed.

Ahh... Yes. Let us indeed change the definition of 'miracle'.

God said this by imparting previously unknown knowledge to Paul

Ahhh... Yes. Let us indeed preach that Jesus was unable to sufficiently teach the tweleve what His father sent him to reveal.

Zenn

 

[daqq]

daqq !! For shame. The "texts actually say" different things.

Zenn

PS: Why? Now that's a different question.

Nope, no shame in what I said if you understood it. Pretending like I do not know what you just mentioned is the shame because you do it in an attempt to make yourself look wise at my expense. However if you were all that wise you would have understood what I meant and why I said that to Cobra.

 

[Zenn]

Was Jesus misrepresenting, which would be dishonesty, or was He relating parables to the targeted audience and their respective knowledge? I would obviously argue the latter as true

Well that's an interesting viewpoint given what Jesus himself said about parables.

Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
(Mat 13:13 KJV)

The text doesn't say, "Therefore speak I to them in parables so that they seeing-not might see; and hearing-not might hear, and in this way they will understand.

It would seem he spoke in parables so that they would continue to not understand.

No?

(Mat 13:16 KJV) But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear.

Zenn

 

[2003cobra]

I believe the daily incense was burned on the altar of incense that stood in front of the curtain in the Holy place, not the Holy of Holies. The censor must have been left behind the curtain in the Holy of Holies all year round, ready for the day of atonement.

Take a look in the OT and see if you see any indication in the temple plans of a second censer, on in the Holy Of Holies. I think you will find there is none.

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

Take a look in the OT and see if you see any indication in the temple plans of a second censer, on in the Holy Of Holies. I think you will find there is none.

Yes I know but the omission of this fact in the OT does not necessarily mean Paul was wrong, if he did indeed mean a Censor was used and kept in the Holy of Holies.

We know the Altar was in front of the curtain and could not be readily moved to perform this following regulation:

Leviticus 16:13
He is to put the incense on the fire before the LORD, and the smoke of the incense will conceal the atonement cover above the tablets of the covenant law, so that he will not die.

It does not say how to transport the smoke from the Altar into the Holy of Holies but that it does say this end is achieved.

Omission of information does not mean we can imagine one thing over another. If I am making sense?

 

[Zenn]

.. the Logos is the Seeker ..

An interesting assertion. Are you pulling this from John 5:30? Or from somewhere else?

Lol, you do realize that it is not just Rhema that is the Son

I don't think I said anywhere that the Rhema is the Son.

Might I ask from which translation you are quoting? It doesn't seem to quite fit with the Greek I am reading.

It is also an interesting contradiction that you say "all judgment is given to the Son" while noting that the Son "judges not".

Are you saying that John 12:48 declares that Jesus is Not the Logos?

Zenn

PS: At least it would seem you're doing some study into this. Kudos !!

PPS:

And you call me the Pharisee?

Where did I call you a Pharisee? No seriously. Where did I call you this? :AMR: And if I haven't, retract this statement.

 

[Zenn]

You are my enemy, and I will not treat you as anything else.

It is so wonderful to hear that you will now love WatchmanOnTheWall and bless him, and do good to him and pray for him.

Praise God for miracles.

Zenn

 

[jsanford108]

2003cobra,

First, I would like to respond to your failure to see the paradox with your points regarding "brothers" of Jesus. Your entire argument in this thread has been that there are errors in the Scriptures; yet, for the point regarding Jesus' brothers, you rely solely and heavily on a single word. The application of "brother" to mean siblings is negated by information contained within the Scriptures (specifically, verses which list the parentage of the four listed "brothers," as not being Mary (mother of Jesus) and Joseph). And still, you dismiss the negating evidence, insisting on the single word to have a static and single meaning.

That is the paradox. To restate it, in order to emphasize it: You claim errors exist within the Scripture, and rely on a single word as a defamation of doctrine (Perpetual Virginity of Mary).

Inerrant proof?
No, people don’t write documents we can declare inerrant.

However, if you believe the canonized scriptures to be inerrant, then I have provided the inerrant proof already.

It was a rhetorical question. From now on, if it is helpful, I will distinguish rhetorical questions from actual questions, or answer them myself.

Since the scriptures clearly indicate that Jesus had brothers and sisters, when the myth of the perpetual virginity of Mary gained some followers, this theory was developed to reconcile the scriptures to the myth (perpetuated by the 150 AD aprocyphal Protoevangelium of James).

You have reference twice now the development of "the myth of the perpetual virginity of Mary" gaining followers, yet have not provided proof of the sudden inception of this doctrine.

You can claim that it began in 150 AD, using an apocryphal work, which is dismissed by both Catholic and Protestant scholars (hence, the application of "apocryphal"). Also, the Protoevangelium of James, also called "the Nativity," does not assert the perpetual virginity of Mary, only that Mary was indeed a virgin at the time of Jesus' birth.

There are several quotes from early Christians which support an early belief and acceptance of Mary as ever-Virgin, before 150 AD. If I can find them, I will provided them via a PM, if that suffices.

We will have to disagree on the ability to read Matthew’s statement any other way than the obvious: he was a good man and she was a good woman. When such people get married, they have sex. Matthew’s saying Joseph had no marital relations with her until after Jesus was born is exceedingly clear.

You have simply dismissed evidence found within the Scriptures. Everything from the Annunciation to the Crucifixion.

Frankly, the verses and argument you put forth appear a little silly.

I think you are projecting this analysis, due to the contextual evidence disproving your claim.

My evidence is Scriptural, cross referenced, and contextual to history/culture.

There was also “James the Lord’s brother” mentioned in scripture.

Galatians 1:19 NRS
https://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/galatians/1-19.html
19 but I did not see any other apostle except James the Lord's brother

This is the James from Matthew 13. He did not believe in Jesus at first. After all, what would it take to get you to believe your brother was the Son Of God? If I recall correctly, he is also called the Lord’s brother in Eusebius. I may be able to locate that, but I will be helping with a grand baby today so time is limited.

Paul was telling the Galatians which James he met with. Not kinsman, brother.

You realize that my argument cross-referenced this verse? (It was when I mentioned there being two James')

If not, we look at sources and weigh them. Hundreds of years after the scriptures say Jesus had brothers and sisters and that Joseph waited until after Jesus was born to have marital relations with his wife, the Roman Catholic Church decided to declare Mary was a perpetual virgin.

Correct, as far as waiting to make the declaration as doctrine. In fact, the first time the RCC could declare anything was 325 AD, because until that point, a large gathering could have led to death, as they were persecuted until that time. Basic historical knowledge.

It certainly appears to be the case from the text. They lied. God dealt well with them. He gave them families. Do you seriously think lying to a murderer to protect innocent people is a sin?

My point here is that you have specifically twisted your phrasing, in order to make your claim connect. The midwives were ordered to murder the Hebrew males. Yet, they feared God, and saved the males. They did this by lying to Pharoh, after the males were born. Then, God blessed them.

You purposefully left out the context of the situation, as well as aggravating information, in order to portray God as rewarding dishonesty. The contextual evidence points to God rewarding belief and subsequent protection of children.

I don’t recall saying scripture is errant. I have said that it is not inerrant. I have said that it has some minor, insignificant errors. I have pointed out a few. I have also said that it is reliable and valuable and authoritative.

You seem caught in the trap of “if it is not perfect it is worthless; if it is not 100% accurate then you can’t beleive anything in it.” That is not the way God has set things up. He has always used imperfect people to do His work.

Look at this logically and critically. If something is not "inerrant," what is it?

I never said that an imperfection renders something worthless. That is your projection.

No, we have multiple witnesses that Jesus had siblings.

You mean the same people who said that Joseph was Jesus' father? Yeah, they seem reliable and knowledgeable, don't they.

Again, though, you are ignoring cultural, historical, and linguistic context/evidence.

I rely on multiple witnesses to establish facts.

I do see the multiple paradoxes for you, however. You demand an inerrant scripture but the scripture you choose as inerrant has demonstratable errors.

Do you wish to progress in the discussion?

Because right here, you claim to rely on multiple witnesses to establish facts, yet you are relying on only a few as a base of faith. Even then, you are claiming that these sources are erroneous. So, the root of this entire discussion come to surface: How can you trust what is said and claimed in the Scriptures?

 

[daqq]

An interesting assertion. Are you pulling this from John 5:30? Or from somewhere else?

I don't think I said anywhere that the Rhema is the Son.

Might I ask from which translation you are quoting? It doesn't seem to quite fit with the Greek I am reading.

It is also an interesting contradiction that you say "all judgment is given to the Son" while noting that the Son "judges not".

Are you saying that John 12:48 declares that Jesus is Not the Logos?

Zenn

PS: At least it would seem you're doing some study into this. Kudos !!

PPS: Where did I call you a Pharisee? No seriously. Where did I call you this? :AMR: And if I haven't, retract this statement.

I'll give up the one, (Jhn 8:50, Rev 2:23, Rev 19:--- as referenced).

 

[Jacob]

Yes Day 21 Month 10 Year 5988

https://guidetothebible.files.wordpress.com/2017/08/guide_v2017calendar_year5988_2018.pdf

Shalom.

Today is Shlishli, 10-22, It is Yom, Day. This Jewish Calendar Day ends with and at sundown.

I do not know where you are coming up with what you say, or where you live, but your post was during the night of Shlishli, 10-22, to me. I do not accept your year so I do not accept what you are saying. It is my understanding that your calendar is not the calendar found in the Torah.

Shalom.

Jacob

 

[jsanford108]

Finally, someone after my own heart. Truly I am speechless. It's like trying to pull teeth to get people to understand there is such a thing as a Definitional Framework, let alone finding someone who realizes these frameworks need to be aligned between people in order to achieve any measure of agreement.

Refreshing, isn't it.

Hmmm... I don't think I could categorize 390 years as 'quick'. The development and distribution of authoritative holy writ occurred for other reasons than to "convert non-Christians".

I would also point out that Jerome's initial task was to deal with the extreme variations found in the Old Latin copies spread throughout the Empire, not to create something new out of Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew manuscripts, although I do recognize that he had consulted these.

With regards to historical development, though, within the proto-Orthodox and Orthodox church Ecclesiastical Authority was vested in the Church Fathers (the living ones more so than the dead ones) and not scripture. Scripture as holy writ was embraced by the church in order to combat the successes of the Gnostic Christians. The Gnostics appealed to their scriptures as authoritative first and the general populace found this compelling. As the Orthodox church started to lose primacy, we start to see the argument, "HEY, We have holy writ too." In other words, the canon was initially developed as a reaction to what is in essence, market forces.

However, since Ecclesiastical Authority of the Orthodox church had been vested (and still is vested today) in the Church Fathers (again, the living ones more so than the dead ones), each bishop, in each of the cities spread throughout the empire, made and kept his own copy of holy writ, and changes were made as each bishop felt it necessary to 'clarify things' and so the mess of the Old Latin Bibles had developed as a distribution problem.

Look at all we agree on. These are all historical proofs, with consideration given to cultural contexts. Good points, all around.

A major historical turning point would be that of the Reformation, though, no? In removing the Church Fathers, and more specifically the Pope, from the seat of Ecclesiastical Authority, Luther was left with a vacuum, and since his view of soteriology had developed along drastically different lines than that which was held by the church for centuries, Sola Scriptura rushed in to fill this void. I just find it rather appalling that to support his view of salvation, Luther had to remove a word from Ephesians and add a word to Romans to make this Sola Scriptura conform to his soteriology.[/QUOTE]Again, we agree. And it is this point at which I believe that error entered into the equation: Luther paved the way for "personal interpretation." This made interpretation relative to the whims of individual bias and preference.

There seems to be a presumption in your assertion here (or at least a presupposition) that the Son of God cannot speak authoritatively for his Father, but somehow Must be God himself. While I'd rather this not turn into another carnival side-show about the Trinity, Incarnation is Not a requirement for establishing any bona fides of what would constitute holy writ. Suffice it to say that I believe the Son of God CAN and did speak authoritatively for God, whom he called his father. Is this acceptable? Or is this what the Americans would call "a deal breaker"?

I jumped to this point with cobra, because we had already agreed upon it. I also intentionally leave room for opposition to exclaim "Hey, what about this!" so that I can open them up to logical approaches to their personal doctrines. My direct progression of Truth from Jesus, as God, to the Apostles, and so forth, was one such instance.

As for Jesus being God, that comes to an easy question. Jesus actually posed it. "Who do you say that I am?" Either: Jesus is God, or He isn't. If not, then the claims of blasphemy were accurate. Jesus gave the answer "I AM," which was interpreted (accurately) as Jesus using the same answer as God to Moses. Jesus, and the Hebrews, would have known the implications of such action/words.

Jesus also equated Himself with God, saying "I and the Father are One." If no one is equal to God, then why does God, and Jesus, equate themselves with one another, if they are not equal?

And yet until Martin Luther, the official position of the Christian Church was ... So to trust Jesus is to trust his Apostles which leads to trusting the Church Fathers with an apostolic heritage even to this day, with scripture as a helpful guide.

Zenn

PS: Your last assertion fails, though, in that it relies upon the Apostles being inerrant. Yet even Paul said that Peter was in error (cf. Galatians 2:11). So there goes your 'chain of custody' with regards to inerrancy.

Here is another instance of purposeful gaps, in order to spark discussion.

You have made the jump from "inerrant" to "infallible," just as cobra did. Humans, being of human nature, are fallible, and therefore, prone to error. Apostles are only "infallible" when making declarations, as guided by the Holy Spirit. As humans, without direct guidance, they are fallible, and likely errant.

PPS: And don't even get me started on the civil war between Paul and James.

I have heard the point regarding this "feud" before. I find it trivial, and not productive in discussion. But if you wish to discuss it, I will. I just don't see how it pertains to this thread.

 

[daqq]

PPS: Where did I call you a Pharisee? No seriously. Where did I call you this? :AMR: And if I haven't, retract this statement.

I see, said the blind theologian who cannot even tell the difference between a question and a statement. There is no statement to retract dear blind one: but you did indeed make your insinuation by moral equivalence that I was a Pharisee, it is essentially the same "guilt by association" tactic you tried to use against Lon by insinuating that he was missing an "R" from his name in the question you asked, (funny, you understood what a question mark was when you asked him that), and worse you then began posting pictures of Scientology and LRon Hubbard. How blind can you be? Do you not even realize it when you do such things?

Ah daqq... how disappointing. You see, I didn't boast. I mentioned it. You took umbrage and elevated it to a boast, and then condemn me as boastful. Re-read my post and you will realize it's a fact I merely mentioned offhand, but obviously in a manner that offends your religiosity. The Pharisees had trouble with that too.

And you call me the Pharisee?

And since you did not come right out and say it, but rather instead strongly implied it, therefore you see a question mark at the end of my sentence which you have misread and misjudged, (it is this symbol on your keyboard or keypad, ?, lol). That symbol means it is a question, not a statement as you have incorrectly surmised; and as everyone may clearly see, there is a happy face for you at the at the end of that sentence. If you are going to spew, I am going to put up my shield, so you should expect your own spew to come splashing right back into your face when you decide to spew. You should now retract your statement that I stated in a statement that you had called me a Pharisee because it was not a statement but a question in response to your insinuation. :chuckle:

 

[Lon]

So you think Christ died so that His followers could be enemies? I see you as a sister in Christ just needing some correction.

But me..."Get out!" :think:

 

[2003cobra]

Yes I know but the omission of this fact in the OT does not necessarily mean Paul was wrong, if he did indeed mean a Censor was used and kept in the Holy of Holies.

We know the Altar was in front of the curtain and could not be readily moved to perform this following regulation:

Leviticus 16:13
He is to put the incense on the fire before the LORD, and the smoke of the incense will conceal the atonement cover above the tablets of the covenant law, so that he will not die.

It does not say how to transport the smoke from the Altar into the Holy of Holies but that it does say this end is achieved.

Omission of information does not mean we can imagine one thing over another. If I am making sense?

The detailed plans for the holy places are specified in the Torah.

I think you have become confused by the use of two terms for the same thing: Golden altar of incense and censer.

Look how the translators alternate those interchangeable terms:

KJ21 which had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tablets of the covenant;
ASV having a golden altar of incense, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was a golden pot holding the manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant;
AMP having the golden altar of incense and the ark of the covenant covered entirely with gold. This contained a golden jar which held the manna, and the rod of Aaron that sprouted, and the [two stone] tablets of the covenant [inscribed with the Ten Commandments];
AMPC It had the golden altar of incense and the ark (chest) of the covenant, covered over with wrought gold. This [ark] contained a golden jar which held the manna and the rod of Aaron that sprouted and the [two stone] slabs of the covenant [bearing the Ten Commandments].
BRG Which had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant;
CSB It had the gold altar of incense and the ark of the covenant, covered with gold on all sides, in which was a gold jar containing the manna, Aaron’s staff that budded, and the tablets of the covenant.
CEB It had the gold altar for incense and the chest containing the covenant, which was covered with gold on all sides. In the chest there was a gold jar containing manna, Aaron’s rod that budded, and the stone tablets of the covenant.
CJB which had the golden altar for burning incense and the Ark of the Covenant, entirely covered with gold. In the Ark were the gold jar containing the man, Aharon’s rod that sprouted and the stone Tablets of the Covenant;
CEV The gold altar that was used for burning incense was in this holy place. The gold-covered sacred chest was also there, and inside it were three things. First, there was a gold jar filled with manna. Then there was Aaron’s walking stick that sprouted. Finally, there were the flat stones with the Ten Commandments written on them.
DARBY having a golden censer, and the ark of the covenant, covered round in every part with gold, in which [were] the golden pot that had the manna, and the rod of Aaron that had sprouted, and the tables of the covenant;
DLNT having a golden altar-of-incense, and the ark of the covenant having been covered on-all-sides with gold, in which was a golden jar having the manna and the rod of Aaron having budded and the tablets of the covenant,
DRA Having a golden censer, and the ark of the testament covered about on every part with gold, in which was a golden pot that had manna, and the rod of Aaron, that had blossomed, and the tables of the testament.
ERV In the Most Holy Place was a golden altar for burning incense. And also there was the Box of the Agreement. The Box was covered with gold. Inside this Box was a golden jar of manna and Aaron’s rod—the rod that once grew leaves. Also in the Box were the flat stones with the Ten Commandments of the old agreement on them.
EHV It had the golden censer for incense and the Ark of the Covenant, which was covered entirely with gold. Inside the Ark was the golden jar holding the manna, Aaron’s staff that had sprouted buds, and the stone tablets of the covenant.
ESV having the golden altar of incense and the ark of the covenant covered on all sides with gold, in which was a golden urn holding the manna, and Aaron's staff that budded, and the tablets of the covenant.
ESVUK having the golden altar of incense and the ark of the covenant covered on all sides with gold, in which was a golden urn holding the manna, and Aaron's staff that budded, and the tablets of the covenant.
EXB In it was a golden altar for burning incense [Lev. 16:12–13] and the ·Ark [box; chest] ·that held the old agreement [L of the covenant/contract; Ex. 25:10; 26:33], covered [L completely; on all sides] with gold. Inside this Ark was a golden jar of manna [Ex. 16:33–34], Aaron’s rod that once grew leaves [Num. 17:1–11], and the stone tablets of the ·old agreement [covenant; contract; Ex. 25:16; 40:20; Deut. 10:2].
GNV Which had the golden censer, and the Ark of the Testament overlaid round about with gold, wherein the golden pot, which had Manna, was, and Aaron’s rod that had budded, and the tables of the Testament.
GW It contained the gold incense burner and the ark of the Lord’s promise. The ark was completely covered with gold. In the ark were the gold jar filled with manna, Aaron’s staff that had blossomed, and the tablets on which the promise was written.
GNT In it were the gold altar for the burning of incense and the Covenant Box all covered with gold and containing the gold jar with the manna in it, Aaron's stick that had sprouted leaves, and the two stone tablets with the commandments written on them.
HCSB It contained the gold altar of incense and the ark of the covenant, covered with gold on all sides, in which there was a gold jar containing the manna, Aaron’s staff that budded, and the tablets of the covenant.
ICB In it was a golden altar for burning incense. Also there was the Ark of the Covenant that held the old agreement. The Ark of the Covenant was covered with gold. Inside this Ark of the Covenant was a golden jar of manna and Aaron’s rod—the rod that once grew leaves. Also in it were the stone tablets of the old agreement.
ISV which had the gold altar for incense and the Ark of the Covenant completely covered with gold. In it were the gold jar holding the manna, Aaron’s staff that had budded, and the Tablets of the Covenant.
PHILLIPS Now the first agreement had certain rules for the service of God, and it had a sanctuary, a holy place in this world for the eternal God. A tent was erected: in the outer compartment were placed the lamp-standard, the table and the sacred loaves. Inside, beyond the curtain, was the inner tent called the holy of holies in which were the golden censer and the gold inlaid ark of the agreement, containing the golden jar of manna, Aaron’s budding staff and the stone tablets inscribed with the words of the actual agreement. Above these things were fixed representations of the cherubim of glory, casting their shadow over the ark’s covering, known as the mercy seat. (All this is full of meaning but we cannot enter now into a detailed explanation.)
JUB which had a golden censer and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, in which was the golden urn that had the manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tables of the testament,
KJV Which had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron's rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant;
AKJV which had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant;
LEB containing the golden incense altar and the ark of the covenant covered on all sides with gold, in which were a golden jar containing the manna and the rod of Aaron that budded and the tablets of the covenant.
TLB In that room there were a golden incense-altar and the golden chest, called the ark of the covenant, completely covered on all sides with pure gold. Inside the ark were the tablets of stone with the Ten Commandments written on them, and a golden jar with some manna in it, and Aaron’s wooden cane that budded.
MSG That first plan contained directions for worship, and a specially designed place of worship. A large outer tent was set up. The lampstand, the table, and “the bread of presence” were placed in it. This was called “the Holy Place.” Then a curtain was stretched, and behind it a smaller, inside tent set up. This was called “the Holy of Holies.” In it were placed the gold incense altar and the gold-covered ark of the covenant containing the gold urn of manna, Aaron’s rod that budded, the covenant tablets, and the angel-wing-shadowed mercy seat. But we don’t have time to comment on these now.
MEV which contained the golden censer and the ark of the covenant overlaid with gold, containing the golden pot holding the manna, Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tablets of the covenant.
MOUNCE It contained the golden altar of incense and the ark of the covenant covered on all sides with gold, in which were the golden urn containing the manna, · · Aaron’s rod that had budded, and the stone tablets of the covenant.
NOG It contained the gold incense burner and the ark of the Lord’s promise. The ark was completely covered with gold. In the ark were the gold jar filled with manna, Aaron’s staff that had blossomed, and the tablets on which the promise was written.
NABRE in which were the gold altar of incense and the ark of the covenant entirely covered with gold. In it were the gold jar containing the manna, the staff of Aaron that had sprouted, and the tablets of the covenant.
NASB having a golden altar of incense and the ark of the covenant covered on all sides with gold, in which was a golden jar holding the manna, and Aaron’s rod which budded, and the tables of the covenant;
NCV In it was a golden altar for burning incense and the Ark covered with gold that held the old agreement. Inside this Ark was a golden jar of manna, Aaron’s rod that once grew leaves, and the stone tablets of the old agreement.
NET It contained the golden altar of incense and the ark of the covenant covered entirely with gold. In this ark were the golden urn containing the manna, Aaron’s rod that budded, and the stone tablets of the covenant.
NIRV It had the golden altar for incense. It also had the wooden chest called the ark of the covenant. The ark was covered with gold. It held the gold jar of manna. It held Aaron’s walking stick that had budded. It also held the stone tablets. The words of the covenant were written on them.
NIV which had the golden altar of incense and the gold-covered ark of the covenant. This ark contained the gold jar of manna, Aaron’s staff that had budded, and the stone tablets of the covenant.
NIVUK which had the golden altar of incense and the gold-covered ark of the covenant. This ark contained the gold jar of manna, Aaron’s staff that had budded, and the stone tablets of the covenant.
NKJV which had the golden censer and the ark of the covenant overlaid on all sides with gold, in which were the golden pot that had the manna, Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tablets of the covenant;
NLV In the inside tent there was an altar where special perfume was burned. There was also a large box made of wood called the box of the Way of Worship. Both of these were covered with gold inside and out. Inside the box was a pot made of gold with the bread from heaven. It also had in it Aaron’s stick that once started to grow. The stones on which the Law of Moses was written were in it.
NLT In that room were a gold incense altar and a wooden chest called the Ark of the Covenant, which was covered with gold on all sides. Inside the Ark were a gold jar containing manna, Aaron’s staff that sprouted leaves, and the stone tablets of the covenant.
NMB It had the golden censer, and the ark of the testament overlaid round about with gold, in which was the golden pot with manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tables of the testament.
NRSV In it stood the golden altar of incense and the ark of the covenant overlaid on all sides with gold, in which there were a golden urn holding the manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tablets of the covenant;
NRSVA In it stood the golden altar of incense and the ark of the covenant overlaid on all sides with gold, in which there were a golden urn holding the manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tablets of the covenant;
NRSVACE In it stood the golden altar of incense and the ark of the covenant overlaid on all sides with gold, in which there were a golden urn holding the manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tablets of the covenant;
NRSVCE In it stood the golden altar of incense and the ark of the covenant overlaid on all sides with gold, in which there were a golden urn holding the manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tablets of the covenant;
NTE This contained the golden altar, and the ark of the covenant, which was covered completely in gold. In the ark were the golden urn containing the manna, Aaron’s rod that budded and the tablets of the covenant.
OJB Having a golden Mizbe’ach of ketoret (incense) and the Aron HaBrit having been covered on all sides with gold, and in which was a golden jar holding the manna and the rod of Aharon which budded, and the Luchot haBrit (the tablets of the Covenant, the Decalogue, Aseret HaDibrot).
TPT It contained the golden altar of incense and the ark of covenant mercy, which was a wooden box covered entirely with gold. And placed inside the ark of covenant mercy was the golden jar with mystery-manna inside, Aaron’s resurrection rod, which had sprouted, and the stone tablets engraved with the covenant laws.
RSV having the golden altar of incense and the ark of the covenant covered on all sides with gold, which contained a golden urn holding the manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant;
RSVCE having the golden altar of incense and the ark of the covenant covered on all sides with gold, which contained a golden urn holding the manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant;
TLV It held a golden altar of incense and the ark of the covenant, completely covered with gold. In the ark was a golden jar holding the manna, Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tablets of the covenant—
VOICE In there they placed the golden incense altar and the golden ark of the covenant. Inside the ark were the golden urn that contained manna (the miraculous food God gave our ancestors in the desert), Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tablets of the covenant that Moses brought down from the mountain.
WEB having a golden altar of incense, and the ark of the covenant overlaid on all sides with gold, in which was a golden pot holding the manna, Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tablets of the covenant;
WE In the Most Holy Place was a pan made of gold. In this pan a fire could burn to make a sweet-smelling smoke. The box of the agreement was also in the Most Holy Place. It was covered all over with gold. In this box were: the golden pot, which had some of the food God sent from heaven for the people in the desert; Aaron's stick which grew flowers on it; and the stones which had God's agreement written on them.
WYC having a golden censer, and the ark of the testament, covered about on each side with gold, in which was a pot of gold having manna, and the rod of Aaron that flowered [and the rod of Aaron that flourished], and the tables of the testament;
YLT having a golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid all round about with gold, in which [is] the golden pot having the manna, and the rod of Aaron that budded, and the tables of the covenant