- May 27, 2002
- 13,291
- 180
- 55
- Faith
- Catholic
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Thank You GEL. What you posted is very interesting. Where did you learn all of this? Is there a book you would recommend for learning more about this?
Upvote
0
Martin Luther's "editing"
- Thread starter Greeter
- Start date
- Status
Thank You GEL. What you posted is very interesting. Where did you learn all of this? Is there a book you would recommend for learning more about this?
GreenEyedLady
My little Dinky Doo
Aside from the political resons, the religious reasons ect about the apocrypha there are technical reasons WHY protestants, and jews do not concider it inspired and never did.
When you have read and studied the Word of God for years, it becomes very evident when you're reading myth and when you're reading Scripture. The Holy Bible is a work written by various men over a period of thousands of years, yet since God motivated the Work:
]
2 Peter 1:21 "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."
.. all the Books of our Bible interlock, with one text or Book aiding the interpretation of other texts or Books. The Spirit showed me the interlocking system of the Scripture years ago, as He has shown many others before me. In fact, I use this method of Bible study, allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture, because I have found this to best way to understand the truths represented in the Bible. Since Scripture is, in fact, written by only One Author (God the Holy Spirit), then the doctrine presented will always be consistent!
In the Book of Tobit, Tobit was supposed to be a youth (Tobit 1.3-5) in the days when the ten Northern Tribes of Israel revolted and seceded from the South (Judah). The book was supposed to have been written around the time of the Assyrian captivity, but if this was the case then Tobit would have been over 200 years old at the time of the writing. Yet Tobit 14.11 reports that he died when he was 158 years old. To me, that's a big error. But even if we discard this as "just a slip", Tobit 14.5 declares that Ninevah was taken in battle by Nebuchadnezzar, something that just historically never happened. I am sure that God knows history, since He sees it all from eternity past. Tobit cannot be Scriptural.
Tobit also endorses the superstitious use of fish liver to ward off demons. Again, I quote:
"Then the young man said to the angel, Brother Azarias, to what use is the heart and the liver and the gall of the fish? And he said unto him, Touching the heart and the liver, if a devil or an evil spirit trouble any, we must make a smoke thereof before the man or the woman, and the party shall be no more vexed.."
2 Maccabees is even more interesting. In 2 Maccabees 14.41-46 suicide is justified, a thing you would not find in Scripture. I quote:
"..Choosing rather to die manfully, than to come into the hands of the wicked, to be abused otherwise than beseemed his noble birth ... he plucked out his bowels, and taking them in both his hands, he cast them upon the throng, and calling upon the Lord of life and spirit to restore him those again, he thus died.."
2 Maccabees 12.41-45 teaches prayer for the dead as a means to bring them to salvation. This is totally contrary to Scripture, as illustrated by Jesus' story of the Rich man and Lazarus:
Luke 16:24-31 "And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence. Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house: For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. "
Jesus made it plain that He believed that there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence. You cannot pray someone out of Hell, they are permanent residents in that awful place because they rejected Christ as Savior when it mattered. God has a chasm between Heaven and Hell to separate the two, and none shall "pass over" because the living pray for it.
Ecclesiasticus 3.30 tells us that we can buy our way into Heaven. This is totally contrary to God's Word (John 1:3; 2 Samuel 12:19; Hebrews 9:27; Romans 4:5; Galatians 3:11). I quote:
.
"Water will quench a flaming fire, and alms maketh an atonement for sins."
.
.. while Ecclesiasticus 33.26-28 tells us that it is fine to torture your servants. Again, I quote:
"A yoke and a collar do bow the neck; so are tortures and torments for an evil servant. Send him to labour that he be not idle; for idleness teacheth much evil. Set him to work, as is fit for him: if he be not obedient, put on more heavy fetters.."
In the New Testament Book of Philemon Paul begs the owner of the runaway slave Onesimus to be charitable, to receive him back as a newly converted Christian, but not to beat or punish him. Paul tells Philemon:
Philemon 1:10-16 "I beseech thee for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my bonds: Which in time past was to thee unprofitable, but now profitable to thee and to me: Whom I have sent again: thou therefore receive him, that is, mine own bowels: Whom I would have retained with me, that in thy stead he might have ministered unto me in the bonds of the gospel: But without thy mind would I do nothing; that thy benefit should not be as it were of necessity, but willingly. For perhaps he therefore departed for a season, that thou shouldest receive him for ever; Not now as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved, specially to me, but how much more unto thee, both in the flesh, and in the Lord? "
Which sounds more like God's Word to you? Beat the runaway slave, torture him, or receive him back in love as a brother? Ecclesiasticus bears the mark of the world, not of the Word.
The Wisdom of Solomon is also a rather strange work. In Wisdom Of Solomon 7.25 we are treated to the doctrine of Gnosticism. The Gnostics believed that, once you accepted Christ as Savior, you were free to sin with impunity because it was, after all, paid for on the Cross. The Gnostics (their name means, "To Know") believed that just the knowledge of the holy was sufficient. It was the Gnostics that caused God to inspire James to write:
James 2:20-26 "But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. "
Just knowledge of the holy is not enough. If your faith did not create a change in you, if you did not become a "new creature in Christ" after salvation, you are still lost my friend. If your knowledge does not show evidence of a changed life you are still dead in your sins. Gnosticism is just another name for cultic, and it is supported by the writings of Wisdom of Solomon.
Wisdom of Solomon 8.19-20 teaches the doctrine of reincarnation, something totally outside of the Biblical teachings. I quote:
"..For I was a witty child, and had a good spirit. Yea, rather being good, I came into a body undefiled.."
The Bible does not teach reincarnation, nor the pre-existence of the human soul. This, too, is a false work, totally unScriptural.
No I am sure that many might not SEE what I see when reading the apocrypha, however this makes sense to me. It made sense to the jews and to luther and every other protestant out there.
I am not saying that reading the apocrypha is a bad thing..its not like its from the devil. In fact i think its good to read for historical reasons, but i disagree to use these uninspired writings as scripture.
Thanks and God Bless!
GEL
When you have read and studied the Word of God for years, it becomes very evident when you're reading myth and when you're reading Scripture. The Holy Bible is a work written by various men over a period of thousands of years, yet since God motivated the Work:
]
2 Peter 1:21 "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."
.. all the Books of our Bible interlock, with one text or Book aiding the interpretation of other texts or Books. The Spirit showed me the interlocking system of the Scripture years ago, as He has shown many others before me. In fact, I use this method of Bible study, allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture, because I have found this to best way to understand the truths represented in the Bible. Since Scripture is, in fact, written by only One Author (God the Holy Spirit), then the doctrine presented will always be consistent!
In the Book of Tobit, Tobit was supposed to be a youth (Tobit 1.3-5) in the days when the ten Northern Tribes of Israel revolted and seceded from the South (Judah). The book was supposed to have been written around the time of the Assyrian captivity, but if this was the case then Tobit would have been over 200 years old at the time of the writing. Yet Tobit 14.11 reports that he died when he was 158 years old. To me, that's a big error. But even if we discard this as "just a slip", Tobit 14.5 declares that Ninevah was taken in battle by Nebuchadnezzar, something that just historically never happened. I am sure that God knows history, since He sees it all from eternity past. Tobit cannot be Scriptural.
Tobit also endorses the superstitious use of fish liver to ward off demons. Again, I quote:
"Then the young man said to the angel, Brother Azarias, to what use is the heart and the liver and the gall of the fish? And he said unto him, Touching the heart and the liver, if a devil or an evil spirit trouble any, we must make a smoke thereof before the man or the woman, and the party shall be no more vexed.."
2 Maccabees is even more interesting. In 2 Maccabees 14.41-46 suicide is justified, a thing you would not find in Scripture. I quote:
"..Choosing rather to die manfully, than to come into the hands of the wicked, to be abused otherwise than beseemed his noble birth ... he plucked out his bowels, and taking them in both his hands, he cast them upon the throng, and calling upon the Lord of life and spirit to restore him those again, he thus died.."
2 Maccabees 12.41-45 teaches prayer for the dead as a means to bring them to salvation. This is totally contrary to Scripture, as illustrated by Jesus' story of the Rich man and Lazarus:
Luke 16:24-31 "And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence. Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house: For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. "
Jesus made it plain that He believed that there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence. You cannot pray someone out of Hell, they are permanent residents in that awful place because they rejected Christ as Savior when it mattered. God has a chasm between Heaven and Hell to separate the two, and none shall "pass over" because the living pray for it.
Ecclesiasticus 3.30 tells us that we can buy our way into Heaven. This is totally contrary to God's Word (John 1:3; 2 Samuel 12:19; Hebrews 9:27; Romans 4:5; Galatians 3:11). I quote:
.
"Water will quench a flaming fire, and alms maketh an atonement for sins."
.
.. while Ecclesiasticus 33.26-28 tells us that it is fine to torture your servants. Again, I quote:
"A yoke and a collar do bow the neck; so are tortures and torments for an evil servant. Send him to labour that he be not idle; for idleness teacheth much evil. Set him to work, as is fit for him: if he be not obedient, put on more heavy fetters.."
In the New Testament Book of Philemon Paul begs the owner of the runaway slave Onesimus to be charitable, to receive him back as a newly converted Christian, but not to beat or punish him. Paul tells Philemon:
Philemon 1:10-16 "I beseech thee for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my bonds: Which in time past was to thee unprofitable, but now profitable to thee and to me: Whom I have sent again: thou therefore receive him, that is, mine own bowels: Whom I would have retained with me, that in thy stead he might have ministered unto me in the bonds of the gospel: But without thy mind would I do nothing; that thy benefit should not be as it were of necessity, but willingly. For perhaps he therefore departed for a season, that thou shouldest receive him for ever; Not now as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved, specially to me, but how much more unto thee, both in the flesh, and in the Lord? "
Which sounds more like God's Word to you? Beat the runaway slave, torture him, or receive him back in love as a brother? Ecclesiasticus bears the mark of the world, not of the Word.
The Wisdom of Solomon is also a rather strange work. In Wisdom Of Solomon 7.25 we are treated to the doctrine of Gnosticism. The Gnostics believed that, once you accepted Christ as Savior, you were free to sin with impunity because it was, after all, paid for on the Cross. The Gnostics (their name means, "To Know") believed that just the knowledge of the holy was sufficient. It was the Gnostics that caused God to inspire James to write:
James 2:20-26 "But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. "
Just knowledge of the holy is not enough. If your faith did not create a change in you, if you did not become a "new creature in Christ" after salvation, you are still lost my friend. If your knowledge does not show evidence of a changed life you are still dead in your sins. Gnosticism is just another name for cultic, and it is supported by the writings of Wisdom of Solomon.
Wisdom of Solomon 8.19-20 teaches the doctrine of reincarnation, something totally outside of the Biblical teachings. I quote:
"..For I was a witty child, and had a good spirit. Yea, rather being good, I came into a body undefiled.."
The Bible does not teach reincarnation, nor the pre-existence of the human soul. This, too, is a false work, totally unScriptural.
No I am sure that many might not SEE what I see when reading the apocrypha, however this makes sense to me. It made sense to the jews and to luther and every other protestant out there.
I am not saying that reading the apocrypha is a bad thing..its not like its from the devil. In fact i think its good to read for historical reasons, but i disagree to use these uninspired writings as scripture.
Thanks and God Bless!
GEL
Upvote
0
- May 27, 2002
- 13,291
- 180
- 55
- Faith
- Catholic
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Ok, so Martin Luther does edit the Bible but only to purify it by removing what Pope Leo has added.
What historical references do we have for this?
Is the Protestant Bible and the Catholic Bible the same?
If so, then why do Catholics even refer to the Martin Luther debate? What is their point?
What historical references do we have for this?
Is the Protestant Bible and the Catholic Bible the same?
If so, then why do Catholics even refer to the Martin Luther debate? What is their point?
Upvote
0
VOW
Moderator
- Feb 7, 2002
- 6,912
- 15
- 71
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
To Greeter:
Pope Leo didn't ADD anything to the Bible. The canon of the Old and New Testament was determined in the Fourth Century by the Early Church Fathers. Even Augustine's writings list all the Old Testament books including the Deuterocanonicals.
Further, there are many instances in the New Testament where the Deuterocanonicals have been paraphrased.
Peace be with you,
~VOW
Pope Leo didn't ADD anything to the Bible. The canon of the Old and New Testament was determined in the Fourth Century by the Early Church Fathers. Even Augustine's writings list all the Old Testament books including the Deuterocanonicals.
Further, there are many instances in the New Testament where the Deuterocanonicals have been paraphrased.
Peace be with you,
~VOW
Upvote
0
WayneH
Washed in His Blood
- Jan 3, 2002
- 583
- 6
- 67
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
interesting - if Luther added ALONE to Romans 3:28 then Why does My Bible only say by faith............
I must have dropped the Bible and lost the word..... it just can't be found............ and its not a catholic bible
I must have dropped the Bible and lost the word..... it just can't be found............ and its not a catholic bible
Upvote
0
jukesk9
Dixie Whistlin' Papist
- Feb 7, 2002
- 4,046
- 83
- 52
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Wow GEL. Anger you are full of. Beware the dark side.
Actually, I combined both (gasp!) Protestant and Catholic sources. A date that differs from my previous date of 400 AD for the Council of Jamnia is 90 AD (oh my gosh...from a PROTEST-ant site: http://agards-bible-timeline.com/q2_bible_english.html). Taken from this site:
90-95 AD Council of Jamnia, a Jewish council, met to revise the Books of the Canon (or the Old Testament as it is known to Christians.) These were the criteria:
1. The books had to conform to the Pentateuch (the first 5 books).
2. The books had to be written in Hebrew.
3. The books had to be written in Palestine.
4. The books had to be written before 400 B.C..
One result is the removal of the 14 books known as the Apochrypha.
Now, if these books weren't accepted by the Jews, why were they REMOVED? Prior to this point, the canon was not closed. Now the Jews were closing it. See at one point and time, all of Christendom accepted the Apocrypha. During the Reformation, they were REMOVED because they no longer accepted them.
If the Catholic Church canonized the Bible as you say at the Council of Trent, why, do tell, does the Eastern Orthodox Church include the Apocrypha? Remember, the EOC split from Rome in 1054 and would not recognize the Council of Trent! The EOC, as well as the Anglican Communion, only recognize SEVEN councils. The last being in 787 (Nicea II). The Anglican Church inlcudes the Apocrypha but does not base doctrine on them. So obviously, the Apocrypha had been included in canon prior to the Council of Trent. Trent merely endorsed these books.
The Council of Rome (AD 382), Hippo (AD 393), and Carthage (AD 397 and 419) affirmed the Apocrypha. The Council of Nicea II (AD 797) approved everything said by Carthage (AD 419).
Now, please show me some sort of evidence that the Bible you hold in your hand was canonized sometime before 382 AD. THIS NON-CATHOLIC SOURCE (http://din-timelines.com/0350-0399_timeline.shtml) says that the Council of Rome in 382 AD was the first attempt to canonize the Bible. Yes, all the books of the NT and the OT were done. But guess what. Some folks were using the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary, Gospel of Barnabas, etc. So the Church decided to say what will be used and what won't. How? She decided that those books that were Apostolic, ie those that were handed down by the Apostles and were taught by the Apostles, were worthy to call Scripture. This Council was led by Pope Damascus, not Pope Leo.
Oft the mind I grind baffles with the following question: Why is is that the protestants accept the New Testament as defined by the Catholic Church? I mean, by 382 the Church was paganized by Constantine and had invented many man-made doctrines (hint of sarcasm here) so how could such an evil institution be trusted with the canonization of the New Testament?
"Be you angels? And we said 'Nay!'We are but men. ROCK!"
Actually, I combined both (gasp!) Protestant and Catholic sources. A date that differs from my previous date of 400 AD for the Council of Jamnia is 90 AD (oh my gosh...from a PROTEST-ant site: http://agards-bible-timeline.com/q2_bible_english.html). Taken from this site:
90-95 AD Council of Jamnia, a Jewish council, met to revise the Books of the Canon (or the Old Testament as it is known to Christians.) These were the criteria:
1. The books had to conform to the Pentateuch (the first 5 books).
2. The books had to be written in Hebrew.
3. The books had to be written in Palestine.
4. The books had to be written before 400 B.C..
One result is the removal of the 14 books known as the Apochrypha.
Now, if these books weren't accepted by the Jews, why were they REMOVED? Prior to this point, the canon was not closed. Now the Jews were closing it. See at one point and time, all of Christendom accepted the Apocrypha. During the Reformation, they were REMOVED because they no longer accepted them.
If the Catholic Church canonized the Bible as you say at the Council of Trent, why, do tell, does the Eastern Orthodox Church include the Apocrypha? Remember, the EOC split from Rome in 1054 and would not recognize the Council of Trent! The EOC, as well as the Anglican Communion, only recognize SEVEN councils. The last being in 787 (Nicea II). The Anglican Church inlcudes the Apocrypha but does not base doctrine on them. So obviously, the Apocrypha had been included in canon prior to the Council of Trent. Trent merely endorsed these books.
The Council of Rome (AD 382), Hippo (AD 393), and Carthage (AD 397 and 419) affirmed the Apocrypha. The Council of Nicea II (AD 797) approved everything said by Carthage (AD 419).
Now, please show me some sort of evidence that the Bible you hold in your hand was canonized sometime before 382 AD. THIS NON-CATHOLIC SOURCE (http://din-timelines.com/0350-0399_timeline.shtml) says that the Council of Rome in 382 AD was the first attempt to canonize the Bible. Yes, all the books of the NT and the OT were done. But guess what. Some folks were using the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary, Gospel of Barnabas, etc. So the Church decided to say what will be used and what won't. How? She decided that those books that were Apostolic, ie those that were handed down by the Apostles and were taught by the Apostles, were worthy to call Scripture. This Council was led by Pope Damascus, not Pope Leo.
Oft the mind I grind baffles with the following question: Why is is that the protestants accept the New Testament as defined by the Catholic Church? I mean, by 382 the Church was paganized by Constantine and had invented many man-made doctrines (hint of sarcasm here) so how could such an evil institution be trusted with the canonization of the New Testament?
"Be you angels? And we said 'Nay!'We are but men. ROCK!"
Upvote
0
VOW
Moderator
- Feb 7, 2002
- 6,912
- 15
- 71
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
To Jukes:
Thanks so much!
I have a problem with calling Tobit and Wisdom "myths." There are a LOT of myths in the Old Testament. The two Creation stories are myths. Noah and the Flood is a myth. Some scholars even think Job is a myth. Yet, when I mentioned it before, I got chopped up into hamburger.
Peace be with you,
~VOW
Thanks so much!
I have a problem with calling Tobit and Wisdom "myths." There are a LOT of myths in the Old Testament. The two Creation stories are myths. Noah and the Flood is a myth. Some scholars even think Job is a myth. Yet, when I mentioned it before, I got chopped up into hamburger.
Peace be with you,
~VOW
Upvote
0
GreenEyedLady
My little Dinky Doo
Juke,
Why do you think I am full of anger? i have nothing to be angry about. If I can aross that way sorry. Sometimes I write in obscure ways. Sometimes I don't re-read what I said.
Look, you see it one way and the Protestants see it another! You have your history and we have ours. Thats fine with me. Its ok to disagree. Its ok to have differant opinions. Surley God will not condem us protestants for having our doubts about the apocrypha.
My posts were to clear up the misconceptions about Luther, not to condem the RCC. Thats all.
God Bless!
GEL
Why do you think I am full of anger? i have nothing to be angry about. If I can aross that way sorry. Sometimes I write in obscure ways. Sometimes I don't re-read what I said.
Look, you see it one way and the Protestants see it another! You have your history and we have ours. Thats fine with me. Its ok to disagree. Its ok to have differant opinions. Surley God will not condem us protestants for having our doubts about the apocrypha.
My posts were to clear up the misconceptions about Luther, not to condem the RCC. Thats all.
God Bless!
GEL
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
jukesk9
Dixie Whistlin' Papist
- Feb 7, 2002
- 4,046
- 83
- 52
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Well GEL,
Concerned I was about your tone of post. Fear for you I had. The Dark Side is powerful. Divisions the Emperor desires....
Okay. A dead horse is a dead horse. We will get nowhere riding a dead horse. Unless of course the horse isn't a corpse.....
"Be you angels? And we said, 'Nay!' We are but men, ROCK!"
Concerned I was about your tone of post. Fear for you I had. The Dark Side is powerful. Divisions the Emperor desires....
Okay. A dead horse is a dead horse. We will get nowhere riding a dead horse. Unless of course the horse isn't a corpse.....
"Be you angels? And we said, 'Nay!' We are but men, ROCK!"
Upvote
0
GreenEyedLady
My little Dinky Doo
you have no need to fear FOR me. The darkness is NOT as powerful as the blood of Christ which washed away my sins when I accept HIM into my life. Christ lives in ME, and I live for HIM.
No need to fear.
GEL
No need to fear.
GEL
Upvote
0
Wolseley
Beaucoup-Diên-Cai-Dāu
- Feb 5, 2002
- 21,132
- 5,624
- 63
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Did someone say "dead horse"???
Barbecue sauce on the counter, onions in the bowl, plenty of cold beer! Line up!
(Wols gets a sudden swift mental shot of Thomas Aquinas turning from Martin Luther and saying to St. Peter, "Teach him I cannot! Willful he is! Yes!")
Barbecue sauce on the counter, onions in the bowl, plenty of cold beer! Line up!
LOL!!!
(Wols gets a sudden swift mental shot of Thomas Aquinas turning from Martin Luther and saying to St. Peter, "Teach him I cannot! Willful he is! Yes!")
Upvote
0
- May 27, 2002
- 13,291
- 180
- 55
- Faith
- Catholic
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
So you are saying the Bible is not the "true and the infallible word of God"?
If so, may I please refer you to the thread appearing at the top of this discussion area titled "Welcome! This forum is for CHRISTIANS only!" that points out the requirements for posting in this area.
Please don't get this discussion moved to the round table discussion area. I was hoping to discuss this topic with other Christians who believe the same basic tenets of the faith as stated in the thread "Welcome! This forum is for CHRISTIANS only!" before taking it to a round table discussion(not my intention anyway).
From where I am sitting it sounds like you and others so fond of mentioning the alleged editing of the Bible by Martin Luther are trying to bash my religion.
As for beating a dead horse that is not what I started this thread for. I put it in this area to learn more about where others, who believe as I do, sit on the subject. Especially important as many Catholics appear to be using the topic to bash other religions. Just in case I am wrong about your intentions, if they are not to do as stated above, maybe you can make them plain to me by stating what the purpose of mentioning it is?
Upvote
0
VOW
Moderator
- Feb 7, 2002
- 6,912
- 15
- 71
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
To Greeter:
I AM a Christian!
I did NOT say the entire Bible is a collection of myths.
I said SOME of the stories in the Old Testament are myths. I get hosed regularly by the literalists when I bring up the subject, but a serious student of the Bible understands that there are MANY literary styles included within the covers of the Holy Bible.
If you have ever done a study of the Old Testament, you'll find that there are MANY versions written at different times, and then later on "editors" came upon the scene and combined the different versions, and then "editors" later still did more polishing. When you read about "God" in some books, that was one set of stories. When you read about "Lord" in some books, that was a second set of stories. When you read "Lord God" that is the work of an editor.
Understanding the Bible and how it came to be certainly doesn't detract from the wisdom, the teaching, and the MESSAGE contained within. If anything, you obtain a deeper appreciation for God's Word.
Peace be with you,
~VOW
I AM a Christian!
I did NOT say the entire Bible is a collection of myths.
I said SOME of the stories in the Old Testament are myths. I get hosed regularly by the literalists when I bring up the subject, but a serious student of the Bible understands that there are MANY literary styles included within the covers of the Holy Bible.
If you have ever done a study of the Old Testament, you'll find that there are MANY versions written at different times, and then later on "editors" came upon the scene and combined the different versions, and then "editors" later still did more polishing. When you read about "God" in some books, that was one set of stories. When you read about "Lord" in some books, that was a second set of stories. When you read "Lord God" that is the work of an editor.
Understanding the Bible and how it came to be certainly doesn't detract from the wisdom, the teaching, and the MESSAGE contained within. If anything, you obtain a deeper appreciation for God's Word.
Peace be with you,
~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
MatthewDiscipleofGod
Senior Veteran
- Feb 6, 2002
- 2,992
- 267
- 47
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Ouch! Flood and Creation a myth? I do beg to differ on that. Parables are in the bible but they clearly are defined as such. That's a new topic though all together. I have many Catholic friends so this isn't a bash but is this forum for Catholics as well? I didn't think it was since they have one right below that's for "Protestants AND Catholics". Just wanting more defition for which forum is for who and I think it would help clear things up for us all.
Upvote
0
MatthewDiscipleofGod
Senior Veteran
- Feb 6, 2002
- 2,992
- 267
- 47
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Ok just checking. I never posted in the Catholic forum as far as I recall but I might sometime!
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
KC Catholic
Everybody's gone surfin'...Surfin' U.S.A
- Feb 5, 2002
- 4,009
- 76
- 57
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
This forum is open to anyone who is Christian or Jewish.
The purpose behind the Non-Denominational/Reformed/Protestant Discussion was so that those groups could discuss issues within their own groups as well as those outside the group.
The Catholic "One Bread" forum is visited by Protestants (which is fine!) so the Catholics here feel comfortable visiting these threads as well.
As long as things remain civil - people should be allowed to post pretty much anywhere unless denoted.
The purpose behind the Non-Denominational/Reformed/Protestant Discussion was so that those groups could discuss issues within their own groups as well as those outside the group.
The Catholic "One Bread" forum is visited by Protestants (which is fine!) so the Catholics here feel comfortable visiting these threads as well.
As long as things remain civil - people should be allowed to post pretty much anywhere unless denoted.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
