Jesus didn't quote from "Catholic" books

Status
Not open for further replies.

Wolseley

Beaucoup-Diên-Cai-Dāu
Feb 5, 2002
21,141
5,633
63
By the shores of Gitchee-Goomee
✟277,361.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Oh, don't get me started on old TV show theme songs.

How brave is Corporal Rusty, though he is just a boy;
How brave is Private Rin-Tin-Tin, they are they Army's pride and joy!
Yo, Rinny! Yo, Rinny! Pals through thick and thin;
Through all the tales of the West, you'll remember best
Corporal Rusty, and Private Rin-Tin-Tin!

I married Joan! What a girl, what a whirl, what a wife......

Whew. We better stick with commercials.

"Sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you don't......"
 
Upvote 0

VOW

Moderator
Feb 7, 2002
6,912
15
71
*displaced* CA, soon to be AZ!
Visit site
✟28,000.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse], "I Married Joan"!

A horse is a horse, of course, of course
And no one can talk to a horse, of course,
That is, of course, unless the horse
Is the famous Mister Ed!

There's a little hotel called the Shady Rest,
At the Junction!
It is run by Kate, come and be her guest,
At the Junction!


And commercials?

Choo-choo Charlie was an Engineer!


The commercial that made me PUKE was:

"I'm somebody's, I'm somebody's, I'm somebody's MOM!"
And the woman rode an egg beater and fixed pudding for the neighborhood.


Peace and brain picking,
~VOW
 
Upvote 0

Loki

Senior Veteran
Jul 6, 2002
2,250
98
Visit site
✟17,983.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The so-called Apocryphal books are not apocryphal to all people. The difference goes back to a schism in the Hebrew bible between the Hebrew version and the Septuigant. The Septuigant used more 2nd temple writings, which can be found today in the "apocryphal" books of the bible, used by the Catholics and Anglicans.

The way I understand it: Jerome put them in, 19th cen. Protestants took them back out. If you find a sufficiently old KJV or Anglican KJV (which I have in my collection :)), it contains the Apocrypha.
 
Upvote 0

Wolseley

Beaucoup-Diên-Cai-Dāu
Feb 5, 2002
21,141
5,633
63
By the shores of Gitchee-Goomee
✟277,361.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I think the two commercials I hated the worst were that Armour hot dog commercial ("tough kids, sissy kids, kids who climb on rocks") and the one where they sang "Oh Fab! I'm glad! They put real Borax in you!" 40 million times, over and over and over.....

My father always liked that Muriel cigar commercial where the woman in the slinky black dress fixed you with a smoky glance (no pun intended), and purred, "Why doncha pick one up and smoke it sometime?"

I liked the jazzy ones, too, like "When you're out of Schlitz, you're out of beer!" :D
 
Upvote 0

Lynn

Veteran
Feb 14, 2002
1,509
102
69
Ogden, UT
Visit site
✟10,696.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
brother!!! for some reason this one has been running around my brain for days now!!!

Grab a bucket and mop
Clean it bottom to top
There is nothing so cleeeaannnn
as my burger machinnne

You deserve a break today........so get up and get aawwwaaaaayyyy
to McDonald's, McDonald's, McDonnnnaaalllddd's
 
Upvote 0

Wolseley

Beaucoup-Diên-Cai-Dāu
Feb 5, 2002
21,141
5,633
63
By the shores of Gitchee-Goomee
✟277,361.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
But tonight (tonight, tonight.....) let it be Lowenbrau!

You got three rings, and that means Ballentine! It's a very special glass of beer!

When you say Buuuuuuudweiser! You've said it all!

To a surfer, it's a wave, wave, wave,
To a goalie, it's a save, save, save;
To a colonel, it's a regiment,
To a smoker, it's a Kent!

The flavor of Kent, the flavor of Kent;
The flavor of Kent; more taste, fine tobacco!
That's the flavor of Kent!

Luckies taste better, smoother, fresher, sweeter,
Luckies taste better; that's right! Lucky Strike!

(gads, I'm old enough to remember TV cigarette commericals!!! :eek: )

Brylcreem! A little dab'll do ya!
Brylcreem! You'll look so debonair!
Brylcreem! The girl's cuddle to ya!
They'll love to get their fingers in your hair!

(yeah---greasy, slimy, oily hair. Yuck! I used to use that stuff when I was in grade school.)

Dippity Doo! For styling your hair! Dippity Doo! Rollers! Dippity Doo! Dippity Doo! Dippity Doo!

Everybody doesn't like something; but nobody doesn't like Sara Lee!

You'll look sharp with Gillette Blue Blades!
You'll feel sharp with Gillette Blue Blades!
You'll be sharp with Gillette Blue Blades,
For the cleanest slickest shave of all!

Plop, plop, fizz, fizz, oh what a relief it is.... :D

AUUUGGGHHHHH!!! Enough!!!! :)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

VOW

Moderator
Feb 7, 2002
6,912
15
71
*displaced* CA, soon to be AZ!
Visit site
✟28,000.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Oh, I LOVED all the Alka-Seltzer commercials through the years. Little Speedy Alka-Seltzer (there's a movie cartoon character now that kinda looks like Speedy....must be his great-grandson!) and all the bellies while the instrumental played, "No matter what shape your stomach is in..." Then of course, there was the dialogue between the man and his stomach, while they sat in two separate chairs and argued over what caused his heartburn ("you never did like my mother!"). And there were the glasses of water where two tablets would be thrown in while voices spoke in the background: "Our anniversary was YESTERDAY, Fred!" "Alice Henry said you told that secret to her that I told you not to tell!" or the two glasses, a man's hand, and a woman's hand, with a baby crying in the background! The BEST ones, though, had to be the new bride killing her husband with the heart-shaped meatloaf, or marshmallowed meatballs.

"Yipes, Stripes! Beech-nut's got 'em!
Yipes, Stripes! In Fruit Stripe gum!
Yipes, Stripes, Five different flavors!
Get Beech-nut's Fruit Stripe gum!"

Can you still do the Teaberry Shuffle?


Peace,
~VOW
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

BaMerz

Member
Jul 4, 2002
11
0
East Coast
Visit site
✟129.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Originally posted by Loki
The so-called Apocryphal books are not apocryphal to all people. The difference goes back to a schism in the Hebrew bible between the Hebrew version and the Septuigant. The Septuigant used more 2nd temple writings, which can be found today in the "apocryphal" books of the bible, used by the Catholics and Anglicans.

The way I understand it: Jerome put them in, 19th cen. Protestants took them back out. If you find a sufficiently old KJV or Anglican KJV (which I have in my collection :)), it contains the Apocrypha.

They were not even officially added until 1546.  By then, the "Protestants" had already, for the most part, left the Roman Catholic church.  The date usually attributed with "kicking off" the Reformation is October 31, 1517, the date that Martin Luther tacked his 95 Theses to the door of the church at Wittenberg.
 
Upvote 0

Kotton

Senior Member
Feb 8, 2002
1,357
105
Kansas
Visit site
✟20,964.00
Faith
Catholic
Originally posted by BaMerz
They were not even officially added until 1546.  By then, the "Protestants" had already, for the most part, left the Roman Catholic church.  The date usually attributed with "kicking off" the Reformation is October 31, 1517, the date that Martin Luther tacked his 95 Theses to the door of the church at Wittenberg.

You had better check your history, the books under discussion were used as part of the Bible from the beginning of Christianity. Go to the FAQ thread at the head of this forum and read POST #6. As Wols posted there:
Anyway, the Greek Septuagint(which contains the deuterocanonical books)/Latin Vulgate was used as the standard Christian Bible right up to the time of the Reformation.

Kotton  :wave:
 
Upvote 0

Wolseley

Beaucoup-Diên-Cai-Dāu
Feb 5, 2002
21,141
5,633
63
By the shores of Gitchee-Goomee
✟277,361.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Minutes from the Council of Hippo, Canon 36: October 8, 393 AD, regarding canonical Biblical books:

"Placuit ut praeter Scripturas canonicas nihil in Ecclesia egatur sub nomine divinarum Scripturarum. Sunt autem canonicae Scripturae:

Genesis

Exodus

Leviticus

Numeri

Deuteronomium

Iesu Nave (Joshua)

Iudicum (Judges)

Ruth

Regnorum libri quator (1 & 2 Samuel, 1 & 2 Kings)

Paralipomenon libri duo (1 & 2 Chronicles)

Iob

Psalterium Davidicum

Salomonis libri quinque (Song of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, Wisdom, and Sirach

Duodecium libri prophetarum (the minor Prophets)

Esaias

Ieremias (including the book of Baruch)

Daniel

Ezechiel

Tobias

Iudith

Hester

Hesdrae libri duo (Ezra and Nehemiah)

Machabaeorum libri duo" (1 & 2 Maccabees).

(Bolding mine.)

Here you see we have seven Deuterocanonical books listed by a Catholic Church council as being canonical in the year 393 AD.

The question of course now becomes, if they weren't "officially added" until 1546, why are they listed here, 1,153 years before 1546???

The simple fact of the matter is, Pope Damasus issued a decree in 382 AD detailing which Biblical books were canonical, and they included the Deuterocanon. The Council of Hippo followed suit eleven years later with the list above, as did the 3rd Council of Carthage in 397. Eight years after this, in 405, Pope Innocent I officially closed the canon at 73 books.

This listing was re-affirmed by the 4th Council of Carthage in 418 , the Council of Florence in 1441, and the Council of Trent in 1546, which is where you got your date from, BaMerz. But those books weren't "added" by the Council of Trent in 1546; they had always been there. They were simply re-affirmed as being canonical books.

Why did Trent feel the need to re-affirm the canonicity of the Deutercanon?

Because Martin Luther, bless his heart, decided to throw them away, and removed them from his 1534 German translation of the Bible, declaring that they "weren't really" Scripture.

So it's not a question of what the Catholic Church "added"; it's a question of what the Protestant Reformers removed.

Those are the historical facts, and they remain, despite the desire of some Protestants to deny them.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Status
Not open for further replies.