Believe the Bible - bend the Bible - deny the Bible... pick one

[bugkiller]

Oh my goodness.

Are you trying to say the SDAs are the only ones having His anointing?

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/interview-of-sda-pastor-septic-tank-ministry.7407073/

You're catching on lloj.

bugkiller

 

[Commander Xenophon]

Jerome knew the original languages from which he was translating - the RCC rulers at the time where woefully incompetent when it came to the text - and Jerome told them - in writing - in the prologues that the Jewish Apocrypha was NOT in the Canon of scripture.

That some illiterate archbishop had "authority" to force Jerome against his own best judgment - saying more about coercion than it does about the Jewish Apocrypha being canonical.

For you to make such a statement indicates that you simply haven't read the actual correspondance between Jerome and his Roman archbishop (whose successors, starting in the sixth century, were called Papem, or Pope; in the fourth century only the archbishop of Alexandria was called Papem); St. Jerome loved his bishop, and it was his bishop who approved his plans to translate the Vulgate Old Testament protocanon from the Hebrew and Aramaic texts rather than the Seuptuagint, which had until that time been used by all Christians everywhere since the destruction of Jerusalem in 130 AD.

Successive Roman archbishops sponsored St. Jerome's hermetic life in the deserts of Judea and arranged with the Patriarch of the newly rebuilt Jerusalem to provide him with assistance. Even while he was still in Italy, Jerome with the help of a Jew began studying Hebrew and Aramaic, which had by that time fallen completely out of use by everyone except scholars such as Origen (who St. Jerome regarded as a heretic, and whose Hexapla, which compared the Hebrew/Aramaic, the Septuagint, Symmachus, Herodotion, Aquila and one other variant translation of the Old Testament side-by-side, Jerome did not avail himself of, seeking instead to find the most ancient and reliable manuscripts), and the Syriac-speaking Christians of the East, who could not without some effort understand the Gallilean or Judean Aramaic spoken with our Lord, if they could understand it at all, much less the older Imperial Aramaic (of the Chaldean Empire), found in the Old Testament ( @SteveCaruso would no for sure, but orally, I think there was no mutual intelligibility, certainly there was no textual mutual intelligibility, as Hebrew is written in the "square letters" of Imperial Aramaic, which had sadly displaced the more distinctive letters of the Old Hebrew Alphabet in the wake of the Babylonian Captivity, compare the appearance of a Samaritan and a Hebrew Torah scroll).

It is not reaply important in any case. The general view in the fourth century church was that the deuterocanon was less important; St. Athanasius did not even highly regard the book of Esther in the Hebrew canon; however, there was some apiritual value attached to it then as now.

The Church ultimately had the sole authority to determine the canon in use, which St. Athanasius did, definitively with the New Testament. As far as the Old Testament is concerned, no one was ever able to come to a complete consensus on which deuterocanonical books were important, or indeed, which protocanonical books were important; there is little to be gained spiritually from reading in the books of the Old Testament, precise number of people killed by Israel's Army, and some parts of the Protocanon, for example, texts which involve Israel being commanded to slaughter the women and children of their enemies, are actually spiritually harmful if read in isolation.

The value of the Old Testament is threefold: firstly it gives us an account of God's continuing care and endless forgiveness of the old Israel, who he punished from affliction to instill repentence, and then relieved their sufferings and elevated them to glory as they meritted it, only to strike them down again, and then forgive them again, on countless occasions, so that their rise and fall was almost like the crashing of the waves of the sea into the shore), but they were never able to escape from sin, proving the ancestral nature of sin as a disease and affliction of the human condition owing to our fallen nature.

Secondly, it gives us accounts, which can be read allegorically, metaphorically and literally (I prefer all three) the creation of the world, the fall of man, the practice of virtue, and the process of repentence (turning away from sin, metanoia in Greek, which means, to change your mind). For example, the repentance of the Ninevites in Jonah procures their salvation, and the righteous Job is saved in the end by his humility and fear of God.

Thirdly, and most importantly, it contains explicit and implicit, literal and typological, unambiguous and in some cases obscure, prophecies of our Lord, his Incarnation, His baptism in the Jordan, His transfiguration, His entrance to Jerusalem, His institution of the Eucharist, His sacing Passion, His glorious resurrection, and His ascent into Heaven. He "opened the books of Scripture," meaning the Old Testament, at the end of the Gospel of Luke, so that the Apostles could see that the entire book was about ultimately about Him nd the divine economy of salvation. This is why we continue to use the Old Testament: primarily because of its Christological prophecy. So books like Esther (the shorter version) or even the deuterocanonical Judith (which is believed by many to have existed in Hebrew or Aramaic) are of debateable value for Christians, because of the lack of clear Christological prophecy, but enough ancient theologians were able to make sense of these books in the light of Christ, who alone is the Truth and Reason through which we may comprehend these works, for them to be retained.

The deuterocanon was ultimately retained for two reasons: the Apostles used it (St. Jude even appears to quote 1 Enoch, which is more than most churches are prepared to accept), the early Church used it, and on several occasions, it contains clear and unambiguous Christological prophecy. Read the Book of Wisdom (The Wisdom of Solomon, not Sirach), specifically Wisdom 2, and younwill find one of the most unambiguous prophecies of our Lord's passion in the entire Old Testament.

 

[BobRyan]

The video in the OP demonstrates "observations in nature" that disprove blind-faith evolutionism's claims but such things arising out of chance and undirected process. Even Dawkins admits to the basic point in 'observation' - which is that "
"biology is the study of complicated things that appear to have been designed for a purpose.”
The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1."

Evidence for design - that you probably still have not 'allowed yourself' to observe. Hence the religious nature of the argument for evolutionism - exposed again.

Not only this - but the religious argument that "amoebas will sure-enough turn into horses given sufficiently talented amoebas and a sufficiently long and talented period of time filled with improbable just-so stories" is not remotely an "observation in nature" it is 'wishful thinking' and "gross story telling about what single-celled animals are imagined to do over time".

What is more - we have 50,000 generations of bacteria proving that after that much "evolution" they REMAIN - bacteria.

50,000 generations of humans would cover more than 2,000,000 years! And stories say that humans evolved --came into being-- supposedly in less than 1 TENTH of that time!! Yet bacteria DO NOT when it comes to REAL OBSERVATIONS in nature - turn into single-celled eukaryotes over TEN TIMES that number of generations!! Rather "observations in nature" SHOW that they REMAIN "bacteria".

As I said before the - best text book you have for the religion of evolutionism - is Urantia-- not the Bible. This is irrefutable.

The majority of that post being ----

Not only this - but the religious argument that "amoebas will sure-enough turn into horses given sufficiently talented amoebas and a sufficiently long and talented period of time filled with improbable just-so stories" is not remotely an "observation in nature" it is 'wishful thinking' and "gross story telling about what single-celled animals are imagined to do over time".

What is more - we have 50,000 generations of bacteria proving that after that much "evolution" they REMAIN - bacteria.

50,000 generations of humans would cover more than 2,000,000 years! And stories say that humans evolved --came into being-- supposedly in less than 1 TENTH of that time!! Yet bacteria DO NOT when it comes to REAL OBSERVATIONS in nature - turn into single-celled eukaryotes over TEN TIMES that number of generations!! Rather "observations in nature" SHOW that they REMAIN "bacteria".

As I said before the - best text book you have for the religion of evolutionism - is Urantia-- not the Bible. This is irrefutable.

Indeed it was Gods will for the creator Son to experience all that his created children are to experience in life, death is the final act. So he lived for us, and he laid down his life for us.

You keep repeating the inaccurate statement that evolutionism is a blind faith. It's not blind, it's based on the observations of living and diseased creatures on an old planet. But we haven't found ANYTHING that supports a one time, YEC event.

I am providing "observations in nature" in that post - that refute the faith that is being placed in evolutionism. But in that post I also concede to you book Urantia - as a religious text for evolutionism - which the Bible flatly rejects.

I think everyone agrees to the fact that "diseased creatures" have been living on planet earth --

 

[Commander Xenophon]

Interesting. Never heard of it, and I will probably not read it.

http://www.urantia.org/

The Urantia Book, first published by Urantia Foundation in 1955, presents us with the origin, history, and destiny of humanity. It answers questions about God, life in the inhabited universe, the history and future of this world, and it includes an uplifting narrative of the life and teachings of Jesus.

The Urantia Book portrays our relationship with God the Father. All human beings are the sons and daughters of a loving God and therefore brothers and sisters in the family of God. The book provides new spiritual truth for modern men and women and a pathway to a personal relationship with God.

http://www.urantia.org/urantia-book-standardized/paper-60-urantia-during-early-land-life-era

Paper 60

Urantia During the Early Land-Life Era
60:0.1 (685.1) THE era of exclusive marine life has ended. Land elevation, cooling crust and cooling oceans, sea restriction and consequent deepening, together with a great increase of land in northern latitudes, all conspired greatly to change the world’s climate in all regions far removed from the equatorial zone.

60:0.2 (685.2) The closing epochs of the preceding era were indeed the age of frogs, but these ancestors of the land vertebrates were no longer dominant, having survived in greatly reduced numbers. Very few types outlived the rigorous trials of the preceding period of biologic tribulation. Even the spore-bearing plants were nearly extinct.



.

Not for this old Greco-Swedish American Missouri Boy...

"Show me" how Urantia and other cults like that get their authority, and also "show me" how their people live, and id they really receive the blessings claimed, or if it is anything more than a giant scam, remembering Christ's warning about false prophets and wolves in sheep's clothing, and of course Galatians 1:8.

 

[Commander Xenophon]

The Hebrew Bible is what was Canon at the time and in Luke 24:27 Christ "Taught from ALL THE SCRIPTURES" -- not the apocrypha. Your argument that the writers of the GREEK Gospel texts indicates that Bible quotes are from the GREEK form of the Hebrew texts in the Hebrew bible - does not get you to the "Jewish Apocrypha canonized" -- because the Gospel writers are writing in Greek to reach non-Jews.

As has been noted by @sculleywr, the Masoretic canon, which most Protestants now use, omits Baruch, whereas Josephus included it. So when we talk about "all the scriptures," the only clear guide on this point is the church established as infallible in Matthew 16:18, of which we are all united to (1 Corinthians 10-12) by baptism members of a royal priesthood (Hebrews).

That Church might be, depending on how your perspective, the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern or Oriental Orthodox Church, the Local Church (the Baptist/Congregationalist view), all churches having apostolic succession according to an Augustinian idea of such succession, aka, the Branch Ecclesiology (preferred by most Anglicans and Old Catholics, and by a shrinking minority of Orthodox, some Catholics and some Assyrians), and the idea that the church is the Invisible Spiritual Assembly of all true Christians.

Regardless of which one of those interpretations you subscribe to, the New Testament makes it crystal clear that that Church has the authority to give us Scripture. The opinions of the Jews are no longer relevant since they rejected Jesus; many converted to Christianity, which is the rightful heir to Second Temple Judaism; most did not. The same thing happened centuries before Christ; both the Samaritans and Second Temple Judaism as organized by the Holy Prophet St. Nehemiah and St. Ezra the Priest claimed to be the true successor to the religion of David and Solomon, but the Samaritans, like the Rabinnical and Karaite Jews of todays, were the false claimants.

Christians alone are "heirs to the promise" and the opinion of the united Ekklesia, however you define it, alone posesses rhe spiritual authority to determine the canonicity of scripture. Which is why Josephus and the Masoretes could not agree over Baruch; until very recently, there was a distinct lack of unity, and even today, I think it not unfair to say there is morenmitt between Charedi Jews and Reform Jews than between any two Christian denominations,

 

[Emmy]

Dear Strong in Him. Yes, I am strong in Him, and I show it by following His Commandments. I Matthew 22: 35-40:
Jesus tells us: "The first and great Commandment is: Love God with all thy heart, with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. The second is like it: love thy neighbour as thyself." That is straightforward and easy to understand.
( our neighbour is all we know and all we meet, friends and not friends) In Matthew 7: 7-10: we are told: " ask and you shall receive," we ask God for Love and Joy, then we thank God and share all love and joy with our neighbour.
We keep asking and receiving, and share all love and joy with our neighbour. God will see our loving efforts, and God will Bless us.
The Bible tells us: " Repent and be Born Again," we give up all selfish wishes and wants, and share all love and joy with all around us. The Holy Spirit will help and guide us, and Jesus our Saviour will lead us all the way: JESUS IS THE WAY. We might stumble and forget at times, but then we ask God to forgive us, and carry on loving and caring,
being kind and helpful. ( where help is needed) God is Love, and God wants loving sons and daughters.
A Christian`s weapon is Love, with love we can overcome and change all, and we will help to change this imperfect
world. Love is very catching, and soon we will be more and more like the men and women which God wants us to be. I say this with love, Strong in Him. Greetings from Emmy, your sister in Christ.
P.S. THE BIBLE IS GOD`S WORD TO MAN.

 

[Colter]

Not for this old Greco-Swedish American Missouri Boy...

"Show me" how Urantia and other cults like that get their authority, and also "show me" how their people live, and id they really receive the blessings claimed, or if it is anything more than a giant scam, remembering Christ's warning about false prophets and wolves in sheep's clothing, and of course Galatians 1:8.

Christ did warn us against "false prophets". From that we can assume there would be true prophets and more revelation. But religion formulates closed minded doctrines such as Judaism.

Christ also warned us against becoming pig headed in our pursuit of truth, hiding our talents under a rock.

 

[Colter]

The video in the OP demonstrates "observations in nature" that disprove blind-faith evolutionism's claims but such things arising out of chance and undirected process. Even Dawkins admits to the basic point in 'observation' - which is that "
"biology is the study of complicated things that appear to have been designed for a purpose.”
The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1."

Evidence for design - that you probably still have not 'allowed yourself' to observe. Hence the religious nature of the argument for evolutionism - exposed again.

Not only this - but the religious argument that "amoebas will sure-enough turn into horses given sufficiently talented amoebas and a sufficiently long and talented period of time filled with improbable just-so stories" is not remotely an "observation in nature" it is 'wishful thinking' and "gross story telling about what single-celled animals are imagined to do over time".

What is more - we have 50,000 generations of bacteria proving that after that much "evolution" they REMAIN - bacteria.

50,000 generations of humans would cover more than 2,000,000 years! And stories say that humans evolved --came into being-- supposedly in less than 1 TENTH of that time!! Yet bacteria DO NOT when it comes to REAL OBSERVATIONS in nature - turn into single-celled eukaryotes over TEN TIMES that number of generations!! Rather "observations in nature" SHOW that they REMAIN "bacteria".

As I said before the - best text book you have for the religion of evolutionism - is Urantia-- not the Bible.

This is irrefutable.



So your view of the Urantia type of God is that he "helps evolution out" when it gets into trouble and has no science "observation in nature" to sustain its claims?

By contrast in the first two posts - we see that the God of the Bible creates all of the distinct "kinds" of life on earth in a literal 7 day creation week.

Two very different doctrines on origins. One from the Bible - the other found in Urantia.

Instead of the Bible saying "in the beginning God created amoeba then over 3.5 billion years whenever evolution needed a boost he would give it a helpful-miracle to keep it going" --

The Bible actually says "in legal code" --

Ex 20:8-11 "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy - SIX days you shall labor... For in SIX days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."

Gen 2:1-3
Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts. 2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made

No such language found in even ONE of evolutionism's 'texts' to state that particular "belief".

No, that's not what I said or the UB. You are being immature in this discussion.

The Hebrew editors, redactors and authors of Genesis made no claim that their pseudo-biographical story was inspired by God. That claim came later as religious leaders required authority to lead and control. That claim and that authority was used to reject Christ in Judaism. It still is today.

"Blind faith" in Genesis has the Jews popping out Aborigine babies, and Chineses babies, and American Indian babies and every other race on earth, all of which jumped in canoes and rushed off to their respective nations to rapidly repopulate and create fake archeological evidence to be discovered today.


You don't seem to have an issue with this mutation without a transitional fossil as proof!

 

[tickingclocker]

You can have the last word here, Bob. It is your question, after all. I'm more of a fan of Paul's wise advice in 2 Timothy 2:14-16 anyway.

However, I will continue to pray for you, that the Lord would have a greater presence in your life, for your good as well as for His glory. Can't go wrong there!
---Job 13:15

 

[sculleywr]

More bible please - less making-stuff-up.

1 John 2
As for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him.



I suppose there is some funny sort of way where that comment applies to 1 John 2 -- just not sure how.

in Christ,

Bob

I'm not making stuff up. With Sola Scriptura, it is your personal grasp of logic, and HOPEFULLY the Holy Spirit, guiding your reading of Scripture. You read the Scripture through your personal cultural background, your experience, and your "systematic theology". That systematic theology is code for tradition. One doesn't need the Bible to prove that people bring preconceptions to the Bible. You bring the preconception of Sola Scriptura to the Bible.

This is why Sola Scriptura results in every single Protestant denomination, division, and church split in the world. If I am to judge a tree by its fruit, how am I to judge the tree of sola scriptura, when it destroys true unity and brings about relativism in the churches?

 

[BobRyan]

No. You are your own pope, because YOU interpret the Bible. That is what the Pope does. He tells you what the Bible means. So instead of him, it is you telling you what the Bible means.

The question is notwhether or not you have an earthly source telling you what Scripture means. The question is whether that source is the Church, the Pope, or your reflection. For me, it is the Church which preexisted and canonized the Scripture. I trust the Church over the Masoretes for the Old Testament, and the Church over the rejecter of Christ Josephus, as well. Oh, did you really think that Josephus, a Pharisee who rejected Christ, had authority over the Church?

The Catholics were never put in a position of telling the Jews what Bible they wrote at the OT -- as we all know.

There is no evidence at all that the NT authors were trying to tell the Jews "you have the wrong Bible" -- as we all know

More bible please - less making-stuff-up.
1 John 2
As for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him.

I'm not making stuff up. With Sola Scriptura, it is your personal grasp of logic, and HOPEFULLY the Holy Spirit, guiding your reading of Scripture.

In the case of Sola Scriptura we have these Bible examples - so radioactive to the wild speculative doctrine opposed to sola scriptura -- that you have yet to bring yourself to even deal with the details "in the text".

Acts 17:11 "They studied THE SCRIPTURES daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them (by the APOSTLE Paul) --- were SO"

Mark 7:6-13 -- evidence, proof, and example -
Christ's doctrine on "sola scriptura testing" - resulted in hammering the traditions of the Jewish magisterium of His day and promoting the authority of the Word of God - yes even as found in the Ten Commandments.

Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

That is a case of Christ demonstrating the way that the magisterium is hammered "sola scriptura" in the cases where it's traditions and "doctrines of men" are at odds with scripture


Gal 1:6-9
6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!

And we know what Paul preached - even 2000 years later - because "we read" what HE wrote.

=========================

One side of this debate relies on avoiding every detail in these texts - at all costs.

The other side - relies on setting "those details" - front and center -- back in focus... time after time.

Obviously.

Acts 17:11 is a case where even NON-Christians are judging the APOSTLE's statements - "sola scriptura" and APPROVED for doing so.

Irrefutable.

 

[BobRyan]

As has been noted by @sculleywr, the Masoretic canon, which most Protestants now use, omits Baruch, whereas Josephus included it.

Just not in real life -

Many who reject Josephus for whatever reason will still admit that "Judaism officially excluded the deuterocanonicals and the additional Greek texts listed here from their Scripture in the Council of Jamnia (c. 70–90 AD)"

But Josephus argues that the Hebrew Bible was closed for 400 years - which means "no Baruch" -- even for Josephus - and no Baruch in the OT canon - no not even for the Catholic's own Jerome.

So when we talk about "all the scriptures," in Luke 24:27 - we are not talking about any Catholics -- we are talking about the Hebrew Canon which is all Christ had -

No one thinks that Catholics wrote the OT. No one thinks that Jews were waiting for Catholics to come along many centuries later and tell them what the OT - Hebrew Bible is.

This is beyond dispute. The church established in Matthew 16 was not the Catholic church and was not telling Jews "you have the wrong Bible" as we see clearly when we read the NT text.

Regardless of which one of those interpretations you subscribe to, the New Testament makes it crystal clear that that Church has said that the Jews have the wrong scripture, the wrong Bible etc.

Matt 22 - Christ said to the Jews that Lev 19:18 and Deut 6:5 are foundational "to ALL the LAW and the PROPHETS" - not "you have the WRONG law and prophets".

This is irrefutable.

 

[BobRyan]

Not for this old Greco-Swedish American Missouri Boy...

"Show me" how Urantia and other cults like that get their authority, and also "show me" how their people live, and id they really receive the blessings claimed, or if it is anything more than a giant scam, remembering Christ's warning about false prophets and wolves in sheep's clothing, and of course Galatians 1:8.

The point is not that Urantia is right - the point is that it affirms blind-faith evolutionism - and the Bible rejects it.

it is a study "in contrast"

 

[BobRyan]

Fact-check: St. Jerome did not "reject" the Apocrypha. He expressed a personal opinion

This is NOT a case of two great scholars - both literate in the original language having some "difference in opinion" on some subtle detail. RATHER it is a case of an illiterate bishop trying to coerce a scholar who actually knew what he was reading -- to corrupt the Latin Vulgate... and winning.

Jerome knew the original languages from which he was translating - the RCC rulers at the time where woefully incompetent when it came to the text - and Jerome told them - in writing - in the prologues that the Jewish Apocrypha was NOT in the Canon of scripture.

That some illiterate archbishop had "authority" to force Jerome against his own best judgment - saying more about coercion than it does about the Jewish Apocrypha being canonical.

For you to make such a statement indicates that you simply haven't read the actual correspondance between Jerome and his Roman archbishop (whose successors, starting in the sixth century, were called Papem, or Pope; in the fourth century only the archbishop of Alexandria was called Papem); St. Jerome loved his bishop,

Whether or not he respected the illiterate bishop that coerced him against his own knowledge of the actual languages and the texts - is irrelevant. The point is that he was quick to tell us that the apocrypha does not belong in the canon. He was not illiterate when it came to the original languages - but Catholic leadership was greatly illiterate when it came to Hebrew and Greek at the time of Jerome.

", the Vulgate manuscripts included prologues[11] that clearly identified certain books of the Vulgate Old Testament as apocryphal or non-canonical. In the prologue to the books of Samuel and Kings, which is often called the Prologus Galeatus, Jerome described those books not translated from the Hebrew as apocrypha; he specifically mentions that Wisdom, the book of Jesus son of Sirach, Judith, Tobias, and the Shepherd "are not in the canon". In the prologue to Esdras he mentions 3 and 4 Esdras as being apocrypha. In his prologue to the books of Solomon, he mentioned "the book of Jesus son of Sirach and another pseudepigraphos, which is titled the Wisdom of Solomon". He says of them and Judith, Tobias, and the Books of the Maccabees, that the Church "has not received them among the canonical scriptures".

He mentions the book of Baruch in his prologue to the Jeremias and does not explicitly refer to it as apocryphal, but he does mention that "it is neither read nor held among the Hebrews"

Thus Jerome did not consider himself as writing Canon -but translating -- and stated that some of what was being translated was "Canon" and others were NOT.

When commenting on the Apocryphal books, it (The Glossa ordinaria (pl. glossae ordinariae),) prefixes an introduction to them saying: 'Here begins the book of Tobit which is not in the canon; here begins the book of Judith which is not in the canon' and so forth for Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, and Maccabees etc. These prologues to the Old Testament and Apocryphal books repeated the words of Jerome.

As for Jerome's complaint against those who insisted on the corruption of the Vulgate

"1Jerome to the Bishops in the Lord Cromatius and Heliodorus, health!

I do not cease to wonder at the constancy of your demanding. For you demand that I bring a book written in the 3Chaldean language into Latin writing, indeed the book of Tobias, which the Hebrews exclude from the catalogue of Divine Scriptures, being mindful of those things which they have titled Hagiographa. I have done enough for your desire, yet not by my study. 6For the studies of the Hebrews rebuke us and find fault with us, to translate this for the ears of Latins contrary to their canon. "

The deuterocanon was ultimately retained for two reasons: the Apostles used it (St. Jude even appears to quote 1 Enoch, which is more than most churches are prepared to accept), the early Church used it, and on several occasions, it contains clear and unambiguous Christological prophecy.

No NT author refers to the Apocryphal text as "It is written" or "The Spirit says" or "according to scripture" -

WE Do have Paul quoting Cretan poets in Titus 1.
We DO have Paul quoting pagan authors in Acts 17 -

Acts 17
22 So Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, “Men of Athens, I observe that you are very religious in all respects. 23 For while I was passing through and examining the objects of your worship, I also found an altar with this inscription, ‘TO AN UNKNOWN GOD.’ Therefore what you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you. 24 The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; 25 nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things; 26 and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, 27 that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; 28 for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we also are His children.’

But in quoting them he never said "as scripture says" -- "as the Holy Spirit says" -- "and it is written"

 

[BobRyan]

here is an exchange that appears to respond to the actual subject of the OP -- the first two posts

Indeed it was Gods will for the creator Son to experience all that his created children are to experience in life, death is the final act. So he lived for us, and he laid down his life for us.

You keep repeating the inaccurate statement that evolutionism is a blind faith. It's not blind, it's based on the observations of living and diseased creatures on an old planet. But we haven't found ANYTHING that supports a one time, YEC event.

The video in the OP demonstrates "observations in nature" that disprove blind-faith evolutionism's claims but such things arising out of chance and undirected process. Even Dawkins admits to the basic point in 'observation' - which is that "
"biology is the study of complicated things that appear to have been designed for a purpose.”
The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1."

Evidence for design - that you probably still have not 'allowed yourself' to observe. Hence the religious nature of the argument for evolutionism - exposed again.

Not only this - but the religious argument that "amoebas will sure-enough turn into horses given sufficiently talented amoebas and a sufficiently long and talented period of time filled with improbable just-so stories" is not remotely an "observation in nature" it is 'wishful thinking' and "gross story telling about what single-celled animals are imagined to do over time".

What is more - we have 50,000 generations of bacteria proving that after that much "evolution" they REMAIN - bacteria.

50,000 generations of humans would cover more than 2,000,000 years! And stories say that humans evolved --came into being-- supposedly in less than 1 TENTH of that time!! Yet bacteria DO NOT when it comes to REAL OBSERVATIONS in nature - turn into single-celled eukaryotes over TEN TIMES that number of generations!! Rather "observations in nature" SHOW that they REMAIN "bacteria".

As I said before the - best text book you have for the religion of evolutionism - is Urantia-- not the Bible. This is irrefutable.
=========================================================================

By contrast

No. You are your own pope, because YOU interpret the Bible.

This constant resort to the dead-end debate over the Hebrew Bible and Jewish Apocrypha - as if the Catholics wrote or are in charge of the Hebrew bible gets us nowhere since it is unconvincing "at best".

The NT is the same in both Catholic and Protestant Bibles - nothing to debate --- if we can admit that NT letters were written and read by the saints in the first century. A point that is incredibly obvious.

The OT text --- the Hebrew Canon was not written by catholics nor were the Jews waiting for Catholics to tell them what to read - NOR is there any NT text claiming "the Jews have the wrong Bible".

The Jewish apocrypha - written by Jews - not Catholics - and not in the Hebrew Canon - so much the case that even Jerome complained that Catholic illiterate authorities were trying to force him to include it in the Vulgate.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Indeed it was Gods will for the creator Son to experience all that his created children are to experience in life, death is the final act. So he lived for us, and he laid down his life for us.

You keep repeating the inaccurate statement that evolutionism is a blind faith. It's not blind, it's based on the observations of living and diseased creatures on an old planet. But we haven't found ANYTHING that supports a one time, YEC event.

The video in the OP demonstrates "observations in nature" that disprove blind-faith evolutionism's claims but such things arising out of chance and undirected process. Even Dawkins admits to the basic point in 'observation' - which is that "
"biology is the study of complicated things that appear to have been designed for a purpose.”
The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1."

Evidence for design - that you probably still have not 'allowed yourself' to observe. Hence the religious nature of the argument for evolutionism - exposed again.

Not only this - but the religious argument that "amoebas will sure-enough turn into horses given sufficiently talented amoebas and a sufficiently long and talented period of time filled with improbable just-so stories" is not remotely an "observation in nature" it is 'wishful thinking' and "gross story telling about what single-celled animals are imagined to do over time".

What is more - we have 50,000 generations of bacteria proving that after that much "evolution" they REMAIN - bacteria.

50,000 generations of humans would cover more than 2,000,000 years! And stories say that humans evolved --came into being-- supposedly in less than 1 TENTH of that time!! Yet bacteria DO NOT when it comes to REAL OBSERVATIONS in nature - turn into single-celled eukaryotes over TEN TIMES that number of generations!! Rather "observations in nature" SHOW that they REMAIN "bacteria".

As I said before the - best text book you have for the religion of evolutionism - is Urantia-- not the Bible.

This is irrefutable.

You must not read my post. I keep saying that God is the source of life that evolved. God designed life! Evolution has been fostered. Within it we can see purposive potential.

Mutations occurred from lines that have remained the same.

So your view of the Urantia type of God is that he "helps evolution out" when it gets into trouble and has no science "observation in nature" to sustain its claims?

By contrast in the first two posts - we see that the God of the Bible creates all of the distinct "kinds" of life on earth in a literal 7 day creation week.

Two very different doctrines on origins. One from the Bible - the other found in Urantia.

Instead of the Bible saying "in the beginning God created amoeba then over 3.5 billion years whenever evolution needed a boost he would give it a helpful-miracle to keep it going" --

The Bible actually says "in legal code" --

Ex 20:8-11 "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy - SIX days you shall labor... For in SIX days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."

Gen 2:1-3
Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts. 2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made

No such language found in even ONE of evolutionism's 'texts' to state that particular "belief".

No, that's not what I said or the UB. You are being immature in this discussion.

?? a bit wild in your factless ad hominem at that point.

The Hebrew editors, redactors and authors of Genesis made no claim that their pseudo-biographical story was inspired by God.

Christ believed them - according to the Gospels -- was "Christ in error"?

They are quoted as "The Holy Spirit says" --
And as "It is written" by NT authors.

2Peter 1:19-21 - claims they were all inspired by God.

Do you reject BOTH - OT and NT??

That claim came later as religious leaders required authority to lead and control. That claim and that authority was used to reject Christ in Judaism. It still is today.

On the contrary - it is NT Christians saying that the OT is inspired by God - read Luke 24:27, read 2Tim 3:16, read 2Peter 1:19-21.

"Blind faith" in Genesis has the Jews popping out Aborigine babies

Just not in real life.

You "quote you again" did you think we "simply would not notice"????

 

[Colter]

The video in the OP demonstrates "observations in nature" that disprove blind-faith evolutionism's claims but such things arising out of chance and undirected process. Even Dawkins admits to the basic point in 'observation' - which is that "
"biology is the study of complicated things that appear to have been designed for a purpose.”
The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1."

Evidence for design - that you probably still have not 'allowed yourself' to observe. Hence the religious nature of the argument for evolutionism - exposed again.

Not only this - but the religious argument that "amoebas will sure-enough turn into horses given sufficiently talented amoebas and a sufficiently long and talented period of time filled with improbable just-so stories" is not remotely an "observation in nature" it is 'wishful thinking' and "gross story telling about what single-celled animals are imagined to do over time".

What is more - we have 50,000 generations of bacteria proving that after that much "evolution" they REMAIN - bacteria.

50,000 generations of humans would cover more than 2,000,000 years! And stories say that humans evolved --came into being-- supposedly in less than 1 TENTH of that time!! Yet bacteria DO NOT when it comes to REAL OBSERVATIONS in nature - turn into single-celled eukaryotes over TEN TIMES that number of generations!! Rather "observations in nature" SHOW that they REMAIN "bacteria".

As I said before the - best text book you have for the religion of evolutionism - is Urantia-- not the Bible.

This is irrefutable.



So your view of the Urantia type of God is that he "helps evolution out" when it gets into trouble and has no science "observation in nature" to sustain its claims?

By contrast in the first two posts - we see that the God of the Bible creates all of the distinct "kinds" of life on earth in a literal 7 day creation week.

Two very different doctrines on origins. One from the Bible - the other found in Urantia.

Instead of the Bible saying "in the beginning God created amoeba then over 3.5 billion years whenever evolution needed a boost he would give it a helpful-miracle to keep it going" --

The Bible actually says "in legal code" --

Ex 20:8-11 "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy - SIX days you shall labor... For in SIX days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."

Gen 2:1-3
Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts. 2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made

No such language found in even ONE of evolutionism's 'texts' to state that particular "belief".



?? a bit wild in your factless ad hominem at that point.



Christ believed them - according to the Gospels -- was "Christ in error"?

They are quoted as "The Holy Spirit says" --
And as "It is written" by NT authors.

2Peter 1:19-21 - claims they were all inspired by God.

Do you reject BOTH - OT and NT??



On the contrary - it is NT Christians saying that the OT is inspired by God - read Luke 24:27, read 2Tim 3:16, read 2Peter 1:19-21.



Just not in real life.

You "quote you again" did you think we "simply would not notice"????

I've been discussing evidence based evolution of life on earth, you've been talking about blind faith YEC. You still haven't provided one single bit of evidence for a singular creation event 6,000 years ago.



Jesus knew the OT was written by fallible holy men. His enemies used the man made authority of the scriptures to oppose Jesus new Liberal teachings. He chose what was true and left the error to die on the vine.

 

[BobRyan]

given a sufficiently talented single-celled life form - over a sufficiently long and talented period of time - filled with improbable just-so stories

 

[BobRyan]

I've been discussing evidence based evolution of life on earth, you've been talking about blind faith YEC. You still haven't provided one single bit of evidence for a singular creation event 6,000 years ago.

At which point you do NOT introduce "observations in nature" but rather what you hope is a "probable story" -- in fact a highly "improbable just-so story" -- being called 'Probable steps of seed evolution'.

And for the sake of that "Story" we need to toss our bibles out the window???

Really??


Jesus taught "From ALL of scripture" Luke 24:27 " Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures."

Less Urantia - and more bible please.

 

[Colter]

At which point you do NOT introduce "observations in nature" but rather what you hope is a "probable story" -- in fact a highly "improbable just-so story" -- being called 'Probable steps of seed evolution'.

And for the sake of that "Story" we need to toss our bibles out the window???

Really??


Jesus taught "From ALL of scripture" Luke 24:27 " Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures."

Less Urantia - and more bible please.

Luke, who never knew Jesus, was a Jewish doctor who sought in his book written for a Jewish audience to justify faith in Jesus using the Old Testiment from Judaism.

I have been discussing what we observe in nature and the bones left behind by natures ancestors. We observe 550,000,000 years of evolving, mutating life.

Less conjecture by medicine men and more scientific fact please.