- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Venial Sin my butt!
Posted on 2/19/24 at 2:26 pm to FooManChoo
Posted on 2/19/24 at 2:26 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
You need to define “in” here, because even Cardinal Cajetan—who was an ardent disputer of Luther—didn’t agree that all the deutero books were canonical in the same way Rome eventually decreed them to be. There was disagreement about canonical vs ecclesiastical books for those fifteen hundred years until Rome canonized the books in response to the arguments posed by the Reformers.
I like the way that you are completely wrong about when Rome set the canon. It's all right here in Catholic Answers.
The Septuagint was the version of the OT that was most quoted by the writers of the NT. Luther removed books from the Septuagint.
Catholic Answers explains how Luther removed books from the OT.
It's all right here, for those who wish to learn.
LINK
This post was edited on 2/19/24 at 2:27 pm
2
Posted on 2/19/24 at 2:45 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:
PS, you’ve stated on here before that you agree with whatever Foo posts on theology. You differ from him greatly though on contradictions. You acknowledge they exist, and that’s no problem to your faith, which is fine.
For the most part- I do agree with Foo. We have unity in the primary theological elements of what constitutes true Christianity. Whatever you may say we disagree on, would be secondary issues. Furthermore, in anything that we would disagree on, I would be more than willing to admit that he may be right and I may be wrong. I wouldn’t disagree with him from the stance that I know he is wrong, but rather that I am unsure, and further study on my part would be necessary before I could reach the same conclusion.
I absolutely believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. As far as any apparent contradiction may be concerned, I believe that the vast majority of them are easily reconciled, and the few that are more complicated most likely have a path to reconciliation that will be discovered as more information becomes available over time. Furthermore, I tentatively hold the belief if they do exist, and cannot be reconciled, that they (A) do not affect the information necessary for salvation, and (B) serve a purpose.
That purpose may be to offer an ‘out’ to those who want out. After all, we are saved by grace, through faith. If God’s existence, and the truth of Christianity were irrefutably undeniable, then faith would not exist; and the decision to follow Christ would be one that is born and remains in fear and not love. While I cannot fully articulate this belief, I would liken it to an arranged marriage versus a free will decision by two willing people to devote their lives to each other. I hope that makes sense.
quote:
Look at Bart - he was an evangelical and went to seminary. Bart devoted his life to the Bible because he wanted to. He didn’t find what he wanted. He found that it was all made up and was untrue.
He certainly started out as an evangelical- but it’s impossible to know if he was doing it for the right reasons. There are many who go into ministry for the wrong reasons. And, at this point, he’s dedicated more of his life to destroying the Kingdom than he has building it. You have to ask yourself- why just Bart? Why doesn’t everyone that graduates from seminary give up their faith? How is it that his doctoral advisor, Bruce Metzger, didn’t give up his own faith? There is a common denominator between those who give up their faith- desire.
quote:
From my perspective, I would love to live forever with my loved ones
Of course you do. Like you said, who wouldn’t? Unfortunately, that’s not the desire that matters here. The desire in question is the desire to do either ‘that which is good in your own eyes’ or to do the will of God- as laid out in scripture.
quote:
The problem for me is that I found out what I didn’t want to find out. It sucks, but it is reality.
I find this statement hard to believe- no offense. The reason being, that it is orders of magnitude more difficult to live a truly Christ-like lifestyle, than it is to live a life that ignores the commandments and the consequences thereof. If you truly wanted to live for Christ- then you would. You would be n here, performing ‘mental gymnastics’… in repeated attempts to defend the faith- rather than destroying it.
My old pastor used to say “Inside of each of us, there are two dogs fighting (the spirit and the flesh). The dog that’s going to win the fight- is the one you feed the most.”
Do you see what I did there? This quotation may not be exactly, word for word, what my pastor said. If you had access to transcript, you very well may find a discrepancy between the two- a meaningless detail here or there. But it absolutely is inspired by what he said, and accurately captures the spirit of what he said. And he absolutely would not disagree with a word of it. And in this way- the Bible is the inerrant and inspired Word of God.
Posted on 2/19/24 at 3:41 pm to Prodigal Son
quote:
He certainly started out as an evangelical- but it’s impossible to know if he was doing it for the right reasons.
If you listen to his words and analyze his actions. He was a believer and active member in his church community - he loved Jesus and that’s why he went to seminary. I’ve listened to him explain how he - at first - became a great apologist and could use mental gymnastics to rationalize just about anything. You could make the argument he was already an atheist all along before seminary, but there’s just no evidence to back up that claim.
quote:
Why doesn’t everyone that graduates from seminary give up their faith?
Many do. Many don’t. I don’t have all the answers. I could speculate that many seminary graduates are in a shitload of student debt and need to take a job in their field of study that’s going to earn them enough money to paid their loan. Many might have their own personal reasons. Many in the university systems and ranks of scholars have signed pledges as part of their employment contract to not deny the deity nor existence of Jesus.
quote:
I find this statement hard to believe- no offense. The reason being, that it is orders of magnitude more difficult to live a truly Christ-like lifestyle, than it is to live a life that ignores the commandments and the consequences thereof. If you truly wanted to live for Christ- then you would.
I’m not following you. If I want to be a good Christian and then learn it’s all fabricated, I’m not going to reject it because I didn’t want to believe in it. I just don’t happen to believe in it. Sometimes you just find things out even if it isn’t want you would hope for.
Posted on 2/19/24 at 4:53 pm to Champagne
quote:
The Septuagint was the version of the OT that was most quoted by the writers of the NT. Luther removed books from the Septuagint. Catholic Answers explains how Luther removed books from the OT. It's all right here, for those who wish to learn.
Foo is going to set you straight- on how you should reject the Bible of the earliest Christians (the Septuagint) and reject the Bible books of the Essenes (Dead Sea Scrolls) who later became the Christians, but accept only the Bible of the middle-ages Jews who rejected Jesus (Masoretic Text).
Repent of your wickedness and your heretical books and put your trust in the LORD!
Posted on 2/19/24 at 4:57 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:I'll let your ignorance of church history slide, but no, Protestants don't reject those non-biblical books because of Martin Luther. Luther also had a poor view of some other books like James and Revelation, but as much as Luther was used by God to save many people from the slavery of Roman tradition, Luther didn't have everything right.
Why? Because this one heretic named Martin Luther didn’t like them. That’s the real reason. The excuse he used was that they weren’t a part of the then-current Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) in circulation
quote:Of course your corrected statement can be confirmed because you finally looked up the accurate history of the matter. Your initial statement was implying that the truth of the matter is that the apocryphal/deuterocanonical books are actually God-inspired writings and that Protestants have actually cut out actual biblical books, but I'm glad you corrected yourself after being called out.
I’m not saying you are anyone ripped out the pages, or applied white out to the books. When they deleted what you would call the “apocrypha”, they simply quit printing those books dispersed in their new canon but moved them to a separate section within the Bible (like the 1611 version of KJV). Later versions quit including them altogether. This can be confirmed by anyone with a pulse with an internet connection.
The deutero books have been included in many Protestant Bibles over the last 500+ years because those books have been considered ecclesiastical books and helpful for teaching by many in the Protestant tradition, just as many Roman Catholics have viewed them in the same regard for 1000 years prior. Contrary to what Catholics like to assert, there was not universal acceptance of those books as inspired, canonical Scripture from the beginning.
quote:Inclusion within the covers didn't mean inclusion in the canon, which I think you're wrong to either claim or imply. Luther included the Apocrypha in his German translation, but he rightly separated them from the rest of the Old Testament Scriptures as helpful but not authoritative.
The truth with a capital “T” is that prior to 1534, every Christian Bible produced for over 1100 years included Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, 1/2 Maccabees, 1/2 Esdras, etc.
quote:Clearly you missed the point.
Was the Book of Mormon printed with the Hebrew Bible for the last 2200 years? No. You are idiotically comparing an apple to an aardvark.
Mormons include the King James Version of the Bible as part of their holy scriptures, along with the Book of Mormon and some other writings. The point of mentioning the BoM was to highlight that Protestants treat the non-canonical books of the Apocrypha the same in terms of authority as the BoM, which the Mormons add to the Bible for their scriptures.
This post was edited on 2/19/24 at 6:24 pm
Posted on 2/19/24 at 5:08 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:
What is the item?
This is a public forum and it would make it fairly easy to dox me due to my long term history and knowledge of it.
FWIW, the greatest art museum in the world is the private quarters of the Vatican. Unreal is all I can use to describe it.
Posted on 2/19/24 at 5:35 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:
You could make the argument he was already an atheist all along before seminary, but there’s just no evidence to back up that claim.
I wasn’t trying to claim that he was an atheist before seminary. What I’m assuming (and maybe unfairly so), is that he very well could have gone for the wrong reasons- as many do. Those reasons being related to pride; a sort of “look at me, I’m somebody” type of attitude. But I may be way off base here. I’m admittedly projecting that which I know, onto that which I don’t. I forget who said it, but it goes like this: “We don’t need another million dollar apologist, we a million one dollar apologists.” Just like with a lot of these mega church pastors (as well as any-size church pastors), and online personalities and influencers, it inevitably becomes more about them than it does the Gospel. They almost always lose sight of the prize. People who seek power and notoriety all too often abuse it. Think Lord of the Rings (I’m not a huge fan, but I understand the concept). The reason I lump Bart into this category, is because that is exactly what he has become- only in the complete opposite direction. I don’t question that he once believed, and now doesn’t. I question his motives, and whether or not he’s even aware of them.
quote:
I’m not following you. If I want to be a good Christian and then learn it’s all fabricated, I’m not going to reject it because I didn’t want to believe in it. I just don’t happen to believe in it.
Fair enough. But, consider this:
Genesis 4:7 (NASB95): 7 “If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it.”
You must master it. Implying that this is not only a difficult task; one that requires steadfast devotion, but also one in which we may fail or succeed at. We can fall a thousand times, and He will pick us back up. It is only when we choose to stay down, that He grants our wish. Should you so choose to get back up- He is waiting, with arms wide open. Consider the parable of the Prodigal Son.
Revelation 3:20–21 (NASB95): Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me.
21 ‘He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.
He who overcomes, is an all encompassing statement. From Genesis to Revelation, we see story after story of God’s people both overcoming, and failing to overcome; and we see the consequences thereof.
So there are some potential problems; some apparent discrepancies that cause you to doubt. So what? There’s nothing inherently wrong with having doubts- asking questions. I have doubts. I have questions. But, I have learned to doubt my doubts; to question the motives behind them. The bottom line is that I can’t help but believe that there is a God. The universe had a beginning. The notion that nothing created everything is untenable, and requires far more faith than belief in an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent Creator of all. Even with all its potential problems, I believe that Christianity and the Bible best describes that Being, and the world around me.
Think about it like this:
Let’s imagine that your father was accused of murder. You weren’t there, but you know he didn’t do it. He swore to you his innocence, and he’s always been a man of honor and integrity. He doesn’t have a solid alibi, and the DA has some very circumstantial evidence- primarily a couple of discrepancies in his testimony (he couldn’t remember exactly certain details of his day)- but nothing concrete. No DNA, no fingerprints, no murder weapon, no body. Let’s also suppose that the DA has a handful of “witnesses” that clearly have ulterior motives. What then, would it take for you to take the stand, and profess to the jury that you believe your father is guilty? If it helps, put yourself in the place of the father, and ask what you would expect of your son.
Posted on 2/19/24 at 6:21 pm to Champagne
quote:I'm curious if you read every word in that article you linked. I did, and it didn't settle the issue at all, which is why I think you didn't actually read it. Everyone has their biases, and Catholics are no different.
I like the way that you are completely wrong about when Rome set the canon. It's all right here in Catholic Answers.
What I stated about Cardinal Cajetan was factually, historically accurate. It wasn't until the Council of Trent that the matter was finally settled for Catholics to where what was generally accepted was dogmatically defined and left no room for doubt or dissent.
Prior to Trent, there was dissent on where the apocryphal books stood in relation to the other 66 books of Scripture. Some believed they were authoritative in the same sense that the rest of the Scriptures were and others believed they were helpful but not authoritative in the same way. The article hardly touched on this but had one short paragraph where it seemed to concede that recognition and codification were different things but were an unnecessary distinction (I disagree).
In fact, it was the Council of Trent that first put an anathema on those who reject the apocryphal books. Prior to Trent, there were councils that affirmed those books, but there were still many who disagreed, but all dissent was stopped at Trent, when the canon was dogmatically "closed" without any dissent or disagreement tolerated.
quote:Catholics like yourself really need to stop using this argument. Your argument that the NT writers, Jesus, and the Apostles knew, used, and quoted from the Septuagint and therefore they agreed that the apocryphal books were God-breathed Scripture falls flat on its face for several reasons which I've mentioned to you and others previously, but primarily in this way: that the Septuagint included other books that even Catholics reject as inspired and canonical. Simply put, you can't have your cake and eat it too: if your argument is that Jesus quoted from the Septuagint and therefore all books contained in the Septuagint are Scripture, then Rome needs to update their Bibles. Since those Bibles aren't updated, you can't use that argument without it being used against you.
The Septuagint was the version of the OT that was most quoted by the writers of the NT. Luther removed books from the Septuagint.
Posted on 2/19/24 at 7:07 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:
Foo is going to set you straight- on how you should reject the Bible of the earliest Christians (the Septuagint) and reject the Bible books of the Essenes (Dead Sea Scrolls) who later became the Christians, but accept only the Bible of the middle-ages Jews who rejected Jesus (Masoretic Text).
He's been doing this for years.
Posted on 2/19/24 at 7:11 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
and it didn't settle the issue at all
The issue is very well-settled. I can't help you if you refuse to ignore the facts and stick to your Masoretic text.
The earliest Bible that we know of that is in book form includes the books that Luther threw out of the Bible.
Here's more from Catholic Answers that de-bunks the Protestant case for throwing those OT books out of the Bible:
LINK
Protestant arguments for a shorter Old Testament canon are contradicted by the biblical and historical evidence. It is a settled matter.
I realize that you can never admit that the issue is settled, because if you did admit it, you'd have to embrace Purgatory and a host of other Roman Catholic doctrines that the men who invented your sect rejected.
This post was edited on 2/19/24 at 7:13 pm
Posted on 2/19/24 at 7:25 pm to Champagne
Prots: read the text
Also Prots: no, not that text
Also Prots: no, not that text
Posted on 2/19/24 at 7:27 pm to Champagne
quote:Oh I certainly believe the issue is settled, but not in the way you think. The Scriptures alone are my final authority on faith and life for the very reason that Catholics are coming out so strongly against the Pope. Opinions of men can change but God's Word doesn't. Even the Catholic view of Purgatory has been watered down over the past several decades, where it's taught more as a preparatory cleansing of remaining sin rather than as punishment for sin.
The issue is very well-settled. I can't help you if you refuse to ignore the facts and stick to your Masoretic text.
The earliest Bible that we know of that is in book form includes the books that Luther threw out of the Bible.
Here's more from Catholic Answers that de-bunks the Protestant case for throwing those OT books out of the Bible:
LINK
Protestant arguments for a shorter Old Testament canon are contradicted by the biblical and historical evidence. It is a settled matter.
I realize that you can never admit that the issue is settled, because if you did admit it, you'd have to embrace Purgatory and a host of other Roman Catholic doctrines that the men who invented your sect rejected.
But even so, I didn't say the issue isn't settled but that the article you linked to didn't settle the issue. You keep linking to CA as if that's all there is to it. It isn't. If you'd like, I can start linking to the Westminster Confession of Faith or the Larger and Shorter Catechisms for these discussions, but I doubt you'd accept that. That's why I like to have actual discussions rather than just link to long articles where others do the "fighting" for me.
Perhaps you should practice taking the writings you link to and summarizing them into a few paragraphs or sentences to explain your positions in your own words. Not everyone takes the time to read those things you post, especially since you would rather just link to another article instead of engaging in discussion.
Do you have anything to say regarding the Septuagint response I gave? Does the RCC believe all contents of the LXX should be part of the canon of inspired Scripture?
This post was edited on 2/19/24 at 7:29 pm
Posted on 2/19/24 at 7:59 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:
God has to sacrifice himself to pay a ransom to himself to save people from a hell that he created. It’s utter nonsense.
No wonder you you don’t believe in god. You do not understand who God is.
Jesus did not have to die. He chose to die. The same way any loving father would gladly give his life in exchange for his child who was dying of cancer.
Jesus showed you how much he loves you. Not because he needed to but because he wanted to.
You may believe this is a fairy tale but at least learn the true fairytale and not the straw man you have created.
One day you will realize that you were created. Your existence is not an accident.
When this happens, hopefully you will realize that the Being that gave you life has the power to take it away but he will not do that. He will let you make the decision.
He has set before you life and death. Choose life
Oh oh tidings of comfort and joy.
This post was edited on 2/19/24 at 9:32 pm
Posted on 2/19/24 at 10:05 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Protestants don't reject those non-biblical books because of Martin Luther
Well, he is credited with the start of the Protestant reformation and as the one responsible for declaring Judith, Tobit, Maccabees, etc. as being non-divinely inspired. Luther is credited with coining the term “apocrypha”. Luther started it, and it was precisely because of his theology and personal views. Did you not get through like 10th grade social studies? This is simple stuff that everyone knows.
quote:
Of course your corrected statement can be confirmed because you finally looked up the accurate history of the matter.
What corrected statement?
quote:
Your initial statement was implying that the truth of the matter is that the apocryphal/deuterocanonical books are actually God-inspired writings and that Protestants have actually cut out actual biblical books
Foo, snap out of it. You know I am an atheist. Why would I claim the “truth” is that any of those books are “God-inspired”?
Protestants have actually cut out biblical books. Go try to buy a Bible on Amazon. Unless it says “includes apocrypha” or “Catholic edition” those books, intended for Protestant groups, have not included what Luther calls the “apocrypha”. They’ve deleted it from Protestant canon and in some cases have deleted it from the entire book. That’s a fact. Sorry you don’t like facts.
quote:
Contrary to what Catholics like to assert, there was not universal acceptance of those books as inspired, canonical Scripture from the beginning.
Among the Catholic Church (excluding Marcionite and Gnostic and Ebionites heretics) spanning North Africa, the Middle East, Anatolia, and most of southern Europe, there was formal acceptance of the books Luther declared to be non-inspired.
Council of Rome 382CE Canon
quote:
Proverbs one book, Ecclesiastes one book, Canticle of Canticles one book, likewise Wisdom one book, Ecclesiasticus [i.e. Sirach] one book.
Likewise the order of the Prophets. Isaias one book, Jeremias one book, with Ginoth, that is, with his Lamentations, Ezechiel one book, Daniel one book, Osee one book, Micheas one book, Joel one book, Abdias one book, Jonas one book, Nahum one book, Habacuc one book, Sophonias one book, Aggeus one book, Zacharias one book, Malachias one book. Likewise the order of the histories. Job one book, Tobias one book, Esdras two books [i.e. Ezra & Nehemiah], Esther one book, Judith one book, Machabees two books.
So Foo, it is a fact that in 382 the church declared that they accepted the books as divinely inspired that your Protestants have since relegated to the trash heap 1200 years later.
quote:
Clearly you missed the point. Mormons include the King James Version of the Bible as part of their holy scriptures, along with the Book of Mormon and some other writings. The point of mentioning the BoM was to highlight that Protestants treat the non-canonical books of the Apocrypha the same in terms of authority as the BoM, which the Mormons add to the Bible for their scriptures.
Let’s remind our audience of what you wrote:
quote:
Protestants reject that those books were ever part of inspired Scripture, so not including them in the copies of the Bible we have is not “deleting” books of the Bible any more than rejecting the Book of Mormon is deleting a book of the Bible.
Nope I got the point that you are trying to somehow compare rejecting a book a conman made up in the 1800s to deleting several books out of the Bible that Christians have used for the last 2200 years. Lay off the drugs man.
This post was edited on 2/19/24 at 10:25 pm
Posted on 2/19/24 at 10:17 pm to Squirrelmeister
Squirrelmeister, thanks for your Disinterested Third Party input to Foo's ridiculous claim denying that Protestants threw some books out of the Old Testament that Christians had regarded as Scripture for over 100 centuries.
Foo, sometimes it takes an atheist to proclaim the Truth about an Historical Fact.
This matter is settled.
Foo, sometimes it takes an atheist to proclaim the Truth about an Historical Fact.
This matter is settled.
This post was edited on 2/19/24 at 10:23 pm
Posted on 2/19/24 at 11:43 pm to Revelator
quote:
I ordered a Whopper, not thinking much of it. As I was eating, i gazed over at the neighboring table, and sister Claire and sister Angela were giving me the stink eye as they ate their fish sandwiches! It’s not my fault they chose Burger King!
Growing up in Metairie, our neighbors across the street were devout Roman Catholics. Dad was a physician, Mom was working at home raising five boys and I think was having a sixth. If it gives you any idea of the family, one son was a grade above me, one was my same grade level, and one was a grade lower. I was at public school and they were at Catholic school, I think St. Katherine by Metairie Road and Bonnabel(?).
We were inseparable, irrepressible, and troublesome, especially with another RC kid one street over part of the crew. In the summers we ran the streets on our Stingray bikes or built forts and gathered other neighborhood kids and divided up into teams and had BB gun wars and mud clod wars. (down the street where I-10 was being constructed and piles of tore up trees and excavated dirt combined to create ready made easily defended fortifications)
Every Friday we gathered at my house under the shade of a giant Mimosa tree in our backyard and my Momma made us Kool Aid or lemonade and tuna fish sandwiches for us to gobble down and head back into the fray of battle. When I said devout, I meant devout. Meat was off their menu every Friday, not just during Lent.
So Momma perfected the art of Tuna fish sandwiches that according to them, in strict confidences told to Momma, were better than their Mom’s.
One Friday, Momma got her summer days confused and brought out Grape Kool Aid and a platter of ham and cheese sandwiches which the gang of miscreant savages fell on like sharks in a feeding Frenzy…until the middle boy, my age, yells out “Jesus, Mary, and Joseph!” (classic RC swearing for my friends which always earned them a beating from their Dad if he heard it or found out about it) “We’re eating MEAT!”.
Momma freaks out, is saying how sorry she is, “I forgot it’s Friday!”, the youngest kid at the table is saying through his tears “We’re going to hell and Dad is going to kill us!” The middle kid has turned on me, his best friend, punches me hard on the arm, and blames me for not reminding my Momma it was Friday. And-in the midst of all the chaos-a calm voice of reason, the oldest brother, says, “It’s okay. His Momma didn’t remember it was Friday and gave us meat accidentally and we didn’t know it was meat and ate it accidentally. Wise beyond his years, he should’ve become an attorney. He didn’t, following in the footsteps of his Dad, he became a physician.
My friends confessed to their parents, the oldest brother acting as spokesperson, my Momma apologized to their Mom profusely, and my Dad and their Dad had a big laugh about it. Afterwards, when the incident was discussed among ourselves, my best friend was always quick to loudly and publicly exonerate my Momma and claim equally loudly the whole affair had been my fault because I didn’t remind my Momma it was Friday.
The pleasant indolence of childhood was restored, we played every day for the rest of the summer, and every Friday we sat under my giant Mimosa tree, drank Kool Aid, and ate my Momma’s tuna fish sandwiches.
This post was edited on 2/23/24 at 11:11 pm
Posted on 2/19/24 at 11:47 pm to Cheese Grits
Is it Ramadan again already?
Posted on 2/20/24 at 12:06 am to FooManChoo
Here is a site that explains in detail on why these books were removed and it includes arguments from different angles.
I try to find sources that are unbiased and don't point fingers. I can't read all of it right now as it is a bit long.
Books
I try to find sources that are unbiased and don't point fingers. I can't read all of it right now as it is a bit long.
Books
Posted on 2/20/24 at 12:11 am to Squirrelmeister
How do you know a hell exists?
Posted on 2/20/24 at 2:00 am to Squirrelmeister
quote:Being credited with starting the Reformation has nothing to do with what the other Reformers taught in regards to his specific beliefs about which books of the Bible are authoritative. Calvin had a different view on the Mass than Luther did, for instance. The Westminster Divines came to different conclusions on other things than Luther did. He may have helped start the avalanche but that has nothing to do with why Protestants reject the apocrypha.
Well, he is credited with the start of the Protestant reformation and as the one responsible for declaring Judith, Tobit, Maccabees, etc. as being non-divinely inspired.
In fact, those books were not agreed upon as authoritative Scripture by many men of the Church, including Pope Gregory the Great, so questioning their place in the Bible didn’t start with Luther, but I’m sure you knew that since you are mocking my grasp of history.
quote:Is he? I thought it was Jerome, over 1,000 years earlier. Mind checking that for me since you were mocking my grasp of history?
Luther is credited with coining the term “apocrypha”.
quote:Perhaps you shouldn’t throw stones if you live in a glass house.
Luther started it, and it was precisely because of his theology and personal views. Did you not get through like 10th grade social studies? This is simple stuff that everyone knows.
quote:First you implied that the apocryphal books were authentically part of the Bible by saying Protestants deleted them from the Bible (assuming the Roman Catholic position from the start). Then you clarified that they weren’t simply removed but moved to a different place in the Bible due to not considering them part of authoritative Scripture. It was only later on that Protestants consistently removed them altogether because they are not authoritative and therefore don’t belong in the same bindings as Scripture.
What corrected statement?
What I was clarifying to you was that the Protestant position is not that we deleted Scripture from the Bible but that they were never Scripture to begin with based on the standard of divine inspiration, so to leave them out is not to delete Scripture at all.
quote:You frequently represent a view as true that is not your own for the sake of argument. You are twisted.
Foo, snap out of it. You know I am an atheist. Why would I claim the “truth” is that any of those books are “God-inspired”?
quote:Formal acceptance is not universal acceptance, as I actually stated. There have been disagreements from Catholics on this topic all the way up until Trent.
Among the Catholic Church (excluding Marcionite and Gnostic and Ebionites heretics) spanning North Africa, the Middle East, Anatolia, and most of southern Europe, there was formal acceptance of the books Luther declared to be non-inspired. Council of Rome 382CE Canon
quote:Error crept in early.
So Foo, it is a fact that in 382 the church declared that they accepted the books as divinely inspired that your Protestants have since relegated to the trash heap 1200 years later.
quote:I’m not surprised you still don’t understand the point. You can’t even get history right when you look it up
Nope I got the point that you are trying to somehow compare rejecting a book a conman made up in the 1800s to deleting several books out of the Bible that Christians have used for the last 2200 years. Lay off the drugs man
Page 6 of 20
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News