- Jul 13, 2014
- 3,431
- 558
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- CA-NDP
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
If you haven't read the book of Wisdom I would highly recommend it. It's quite Holy Spirit inspired. Judith is a great historical piece as well. Just excellent leadership by a woman moved by her faith in God. An amazing story of outfoxing a superior adversary.
You should, you know, open your mind just a peep. It won't hurt.
You may call it ad hominem, I see it as calling a spade a spade.
Well that would be your lossMy point is that I wouldn't be quick to take lessons in theological or canonical accuracy from anyone who venerates Mary,
You may call it ad hominem, I see it as calling a spade a spade.
In an argument, you should never get personal regardless what the other side does.
Watch out LAC, you disparage one Kiwi, you disparage them all
Hah!Because they aren't.
What on earth is that supposed to mean?We're Protestants, literally. Not "Protestants".
Could be, I can't say I've noticed it but that accent of theirs is scary!Watch out LAC, you disparage one Kiwi, you disparage them all
I suspect that a wallaby has a larger and more capable brain than a kiwiOh you Wallabies think you know everything!
What on earth is that supposed to mean?
A lot of these so-called "Protestants" forget that the historic movement involving the Reformers did not completely remove the anagignoskomena/deutercanon, but rather demoted their status. Luther, made them secondary essentially fulfilling the term "deuterocanonical" literally, where as Zwingli and Calvin demoted it even further, though they recongized its usefulness. Regardless, the Bible always had the so-called "Apocrypha" well until the late seventeenth century where after the English Civil War, it was considered a bad thing because Catholics.
Also, if you say that only the 66 books are valid and everything else heathen, then you are siding with the decision (minus the New Testament) of the anti-Christian Jewish Council of Jimena (allegedly a proper council) which removed these books from their scriptural canon because Christians were using it. Though the Reformers demoted these books based on other rationales, most modern "Protestant" Christians no nothing of history and think that just because the bible they have only have 66 Books, they think that God himself handed the Apostles the books straight into their hands, and as such Catholics added more stuff (Orthodox, what are they?).
Oh, so he is objecting to history? That happens a lot with "protestants"He's referring to this:
I wait to see the answers with you; it always seems to me that any critique of the deuterocanonicals I have seen amounts to a critique that would immediately remove Song of Solomon from scripture, Ecclesiastes too, probably Job, Revelation, Daniel, Ezekiel, Zechariah, second Peter, Jude, and possibly second and third John. Not to mention passages from Chronicles, possible Hebrew Esther (no mention of God), and some psalms. And why stop there, once the critique starts it cannot be stopped without some arbitrary and unjustifiable rule being introduced.The argument that I am seeing here is "I don't recognize those books because Catholics use them." Other than their association with Catholics, I am curious what arguments there are that are based on the content of those books. After all, Catholics also use Genesis, the Psalms, Acts, and 1 John, but I don't see people discarding those books based on their association with Catholics.
What I find is that if people were to apply to "The 66" the standards that they apply to the deuterocanonical (although the Orthodox don't make that distinction. It's all just "The Scriptures") books, there would be no Bible left at all.
I wait to see the answers with you; it always seems to me that any critique of the deuterocanonicals I have seen amounts to a critique that would immediately remove Song of Solomon from scripture, Ecclesiastes too, probably Job, Revelation, Daniel, Ezekiel, Zechariah, second Peter, Jude, and possibly second and third John. Not to mention passages from Chronicles, possible Hebrew Esther (no mention of God), and some psalms. And why stop there, once the critique starts it cannot be stopped without some arbitrary and unjustifiable rule being introduced.
I admit it's probably not completely relevant, but speaks volumes to me about the thought process of someone who rejects the Protestant view of canon. i know we all hold different beliefs but I think it's fair to say we're at opposite ends of the spectrum.
Wow, I'm glad I wasn't drinking anything I read your post. I would of spit out everything on my computer!Don't forget about Numbers: if you think your wife is whoring around, make her drink a potion and see if her crotch rots out. Hardly different from the "magic" we find in Tobit.
The argument that I am seeing here is "I don't recognize those books because Catholics use them." Other than their association with Catholics, I am curious what arguments there are that are based on the content of those books. After all, Catholics also use Genesis, the Psalms, Acts, and 1 John, but I don't see people discarding those books based on their association with Catholics.
What I find is that if people were to apply to "The 66" the standards that they apply to the deuterocanonical (although the Orthodox don't make that distinction. It's all just "The Scriptures") books, there would be no Bible left at all.
Never heard of Jimena, are you referring to Jamnia? If so there is zero evidence that such a council occurred and even less evidence that this mythological council decided anything on the Jewish Canon. It was most probably a apologetical fabrication by the Jews. I think Ebia came across some info that point it to an invention by some Jewish apologist, which was then taken up by Protestant apologist, and then somehow got into Christian history books. Weird how that happened.Also, if you say that only the 66 books are valid and everything else heathen, then you are siding with the decision (minus the New Testament) of the anti-Christian Jewish Council of Jimena (allegedly a proper council) which removed these books from their scriptural canon because Christians were using it. Though the Reformers demoted these books based on other rationales, most modern "Protestant" Christians no nothing of history and think that just because the bible they have only have 66 Books, they think that God himself handed the Apostles the books straight into their hands, and as such Catholics added more stuff (Orthodox, what are they?).
What I find is that if people were to apply to "The 66" the standards that they apply to the deuterocanonical (although the Orthodox don't make that distinction. It's all just "The Scriptures") books, there would be no Bible left at all.
Neither do Catholics. All OT books have the same authority. The terminology was developed for apologetical reasons, not theological ones.
Exactly, nothing much would be left once the critical approach was applied. Marcion would look conservative compared to the havoc wrecked by removing books from the canon if those books said anything that the critic didn't think was credible.Don't forget about Numbers: if you think your wife is whoring around, make her drink a potion and see if her crotch rots out. Hardly different from the "magic" we find in Tobit.
I did chuckle a bit at it myselfWow, I'm glad I wasn't drinking anything I read your post. I would of spit out everything on my computer!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?