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.
First off this isn't even true. Secondly there is a lot of middle ground between Jesus existing literally in a cracker and "just some spiritual reference". This makes your argument a fallacy. A straw man to be exact. It is a highly significant symbolic act to most protestants.
First off this isn't even true. Secondly there is a lot of middle ground between Jesus existing literally in a cracker and "just some spiritual reference". This makes your argument a fallacy. A straw man to be exact. It is a highly significant symbolic act to most protestants.
Originally Posted by Pteriax
First off this isn't even true. Secondly there is a lot of middle ground between Jesus existing literally in a cracker and "just some spiritual reference". This makes your argument a fallacy. A straw man to be exact. It is a highly significant symbolic act to most protestants.
What makes you think many Protestants are biblical literalists?Seeing many Protestants are Biblical literalists, I'm puzzled that they don't take the Eucharist as a literal action.
Funny...your bible is missing some books.
Although they quoted from Cannonized Scripture, they also quoted from letters/writings that werent included..
I am glad to see you are finally seeing the value in ECF quotes...I guess that makes my quote concerning infant baptism valid...thanks for coming around!! I teach RCIA if you are interested....
I do...that is why I look at everthing, not my narrow interpretation of things.
False. Your Bible contains extraneous non-scriptural books that were not even canonized until Trent, which Jerome and other ECFs rejected.
Why the Apocrypha Isn't in the Bible.
- Not one of the apocryphal books is written in the Hebrew language (the Old Testament was written in Hebrew). All Apocryphal books are in Greek, except one which is extant only in Latin.
- None of the apocryphal writers laid claim to inspiration.
- The apocryphal books were never acknowledged as sacred scriptures by the Jews, custodians of the Hebrew scriptures (the apocrypha was written prior to the New Testament). In fact, the Jewish people rejected and destroyed the apocrypha after the overthow of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.
- The apocryphal books were not permitted among the sacred books during the first four centuries of the real Christian church (I'm certainly not talking about the Catholic religion.
- The Apocrypha contains fabulous statements which not only contradict the "canonical" scriptures but themselves. For example, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in three different places.
- The Apocrypha includes doctrines in variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection.
Irrelevant. They only referred to what we know as scripture as being inspired.
They have a lot of value in debunking Catholic heresies and other nonsense. The ones I have been looking at do not speak of infant baptism, however and one of the earliest works, the diadache, has a whole section on all the valid forms of baptism and excludes infant baptism. Oops.
Everything huh? So you read and study all 70 something Gnostic gospels, Confucius, I Ching, the works of Charles Tas Russel, Mary Baker Eddy, Joseph Smith Jr, Kabbalah, Dianetics, Hindu writings, Taoist and Buddhist writings, The Oddessy and The Iliad, new age and Wiccan works like the Sefer Reziel Hemlach, The Book of the Dead, and so forth? How do you find the time?
False. Your Bible contains extraneous non-scriptural books that were not even canonized until Trent, which Jerome and other ECFs rejected.
[*]Not one of the apocryphal books is written in the Hebrew language (the Old Testament was written in Hebrew). All Apocryphal books are in Greek, except one which is extant only in Latin.
[*]None of the apocryphal writers laid claim to inspiration.
[*]The apocryphal books were never acknowledged as sacred scriptures by the Jews, custodians of the Hebrew scriptures (the apocrypha was written prior to the New Testament). In fact, the Jewish people rejected and destroyed the apocrypha after the overthow of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.
[*]The apocryphal books were not permitted among the sacred books during the first four centuries of the real Christian church (I'm certainly not talking about the Catholic religion.
[*]The Apocrypha contains fabulous statements which not only contradict the "canonical" scriptures but themselves. For example, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in three different places.
[*]The Apocrypha includes doctrines in variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection.
Why the Apocrypha Isn't in the Bible.
Irrelevant. They only referred to what we know as scripture as being inspired.
They have a lot of value in debunking Catholic heresies and other nonsense. The ones I have been looking at do not speak of infant baptism, however and one of the earliest works, the diadache, has a whole section on all the valid forms of baptism and excludes infant baptism. Oops.
Everything huh? So you read and study all 70 something Gnostic gospels, Confucius, I Ching, the works of Charles Tas Russel, Mary Baker Eddy, Joseph Smith Jr, Kabbalah, Dianetics, Hindu writings, Taoist and Buddhist writings, The Oddessy and The Iliad, new age and Wiccan works like the Sefer Reziel Hemlach, The Book of the Dead, and so forth? How do you find the time?
Yeah I read that part of praying for the dead in Maccabees, I found it odd since the OT never mentions an afterlife nor is it discussed in the whole NT.
Did Jerome ever admit his opinion was wrong?Jerome rejected them, but then submitted to the voice of the church. His personal opinion was wrong. The church has always used these books, long before Trent.
There was nevet a "Trent" for the Orthodox, yet we recognize those books just the same.
.
You cannot and should not interpret the Bible which most has done starting with the KJV up until now. However if you want to know the truth the original Vulgate written by Jerome known as the Hebraic Bible was the best written since the ones found by the Dead Sea Scroll. Jerome was a Catholic and a spiritual man who want the true word of Elohim to be translated and understood.
Unfortunately, the Catholic Church refused to use his Hebraic Bible. The Vulgate as we know it today is not the one done by Jerome. He did not complete a translation of the New Testament. The Vulgate used today was created by assembling books from a variety of sources, including Jerome.
Happy Sabbath,
stinsonmarri
Jerome rejected them, but then submitted to the voice of the church. His personal opinion was wrong. The church has always used these books, long before Trent. There was nevet a "Trent" for the Orthodox, yet we recognize those books just the same.
1) What does language have to do with it? That is an arbitrary criterion. There are portions of your OT canon that are not in Hebrew. Are you prepared to tear those pages out?
2) Where did the author of Esther lay claim to "inspiration"?
3) The only reason that we have the deuterocanonicals is because they were accepted and preserved by Jews. And so what if Christ-rejecting Jews got rid of those books. They don't like the New Testament either. Are you prepared to tear those out of your Bible?
4) You should look more closely at those early canons, and at what the word "canon" meant to them. Not only were "apocryphal" books included, but some "regular" books were left out of some of them.
5) Judas dies two different ways in the Gospels. Are you prepared to tear them out of your Bible?
6) Jesus "contradicts" the Law when He declares all food clean. But none of us see that as a contradiction. The "contradictions" that you see are only because you have decided that you will not consider them Scripture and are already biased against them.
False. The "church" was wrong.
Books that were written by the Hebrews should not appear in LATIN. If they are genuine.
Irrelevant. Esther was always considered scripture, the apocrypha was not.
The Jews never considered them scripture.
Disagree.
Irrelevant. Both happened, which is quite plausible. The death of Antiochus was in different locations as well.
That is not a contradiction. As to your assessment of it, false. You are biased. Everyone is biased. But you are wrong.
Not to mention the fact that nobody except neoplatonic religionists (what evangelicals generally call Gnostics) agreed with the idea that the "bread of life" was a mere reference to some spiritual/intellectual reality until many centuries after Christ.
First off this isn't even true.
Well I couldnt go anyways but I probably wouldnt if I could since I dont agree with 2 big doctrines- Purgatory and immauclate conception.
But I respect the RCC deeply and I love the liturgical worship. I watch Mother Angelica too love her
knee-v said:6) Jesus "contradicts" the Law when He declares all food clean. But none of us see that as a contradiction. The "contradictions" that you see are only because you have decided that you will not consider them Scripture and are already biased against them.That is not a contradiction. As to your assessment of it, false. You are biased. Everyone is biased. But you are wrong.
Let's not confuse things by being rational.How is there no contradiction, because Jesus said it, because you say so, what?
How is knee-v's assessment false, because he is Orthodox, because you say so, what?
How are you biased? Also, if you are biased, does it also follow that you are "wrong" in what you say?
Let's not confuse things by being rational.
Indeed; being rational and gathering evidence and drawing correct conclusions from the evidence is not fair!
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?