26 Jan 14
Originally posted by RJHindsPhilip Schaff ignored the basic fact that the Apostles when preaching to the Greeks would have had to use the Septuagint which was first Greek Bible. In addition with the Hellenization of the Jews which started a couple hundred years before Christ a Greek Bible would have been quite common. They could not have used the Hebrew Bible.
You make the assumption that the Holy Bible included those books as being recognized as inspired, however that was never the case. Check out my reference for an answer.
Is it your point that the Apostles used an uninspired Bible to preach ?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
26 Jan 14
Originally posted by Rajk999Give me a break. Like you know more about church history then Phillip Schaff ?
Philip Schaff ignored the basic fact that the Apostles when preaching to the Greeks would have had to use the Septuagint which was first Greek Bible. In addition with the Hellenization of the Jews which started a couple hundred years before Christ a Greek Bible would have been quite common. They could not have used the Hebrew Bible.
Is it your point that the Apostles used an uninspired Bible to preach ?
Right, like Einstein needs to come to me to learn his multiplication tables.
26 Jan 14
Originally posted by sonshipDo you have an answer to the issue at hand?
Give me a break. Like you know more about church history then Phillip Schaff ?
Right, like Einstein needs to come to me to learn his multiplication tables.
Idolizing some man [which I know you enjoy doing] is not dealing with the issue? Do you have some input of value?
26 Jan 14
2 edits
Originally posted by Rajk999I don't see why you think I enjoying idolizing a man. Are you referring to the man Jesus? Or some other man? No, I was not there when they made the decision on those 7 books. All I can provide is what others say about the reasons for the decision not to include them as inspired text. Sorry, I just realized your reply was addressed to another person that had tried to comment on the issue.
Do you have an answer to the issue at hand?
Idolizing some man [which I know you enjoy doing] is not dealing with the issue? Do you have some input of value?
26 Jan 14
Originally posted by Rajk999There is no evidence that those 7 books were part of the Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures that the apostles used. Certainly Jesus never preached from any of them from what we know from the New Testament.
Philip Schaff ignored the basic fact that the Apostles when preaching to the Greeks would have had to use the Septuagint which was first Greek Bible. In addition with the Hellenization of the Jews which started a couple hundred years before Christ a Greek Bible would have been quite common. They could not have used the Hebrew Bible.
Is it your point that the Apostles used an uninspired Bible to preach ?
26 Jan 14
Originally posted by RJHindsIt's really funny, this 'debate' over supposedly godly inspired books.
You make the assumption that the Holy Bible included those books as being recognized as inspired, however that was never the case. Check out my reference for an answer.
Don't know when you all will figure out they were not inspired by anything more than desert mushrooms.
Nice stories but totally man made. No different than the creation tales of the Australian Aborigines.
26 Jan 14
Originally posted by sonhouseWhat about the evilution tales of frog to prince, there is no god, etc of the atheists?
It's really funny, this 'debate' over supposedly godly inspired books.
Don't know when you all will figure out they were not inspired by anything more than desert mushrooms.
Nice stories but totally man made. No different than the creation tales of the Australian Aborigines.
26 Jan 14
Originally posted by sonhouseGo ahead and crawl back into your cave of disbelief, alright?
It's really funny, this 'debate' over supposedly godly inspired books.
Don't know when you all will figure out they were not inspired by anything more than desert mushrooms.
Nice stories but totally man made. No different than the creation tales of the Australian Aborigines.
I daresay you probably know even less about it than the two arguing.
27 Jan 14
Originally posted by Suziannecave of disbelief? LOL what about, canopy of ignorance? or vacuous region of emptiness? or room full of mirrors?
Go ahead and crawl back into your cave of disbelief, alright?
I daresay you probably know even less about it than the two arguing.
30 Jan 14
Originally posted by RJHindsIf you want to go this route, then many other books should not be in the bible either. What made these particular books so dangerous to the thinking of the Protestant church? And if it was all about books that were not of the mindset of Jesus and the Apostles, why were all those ather books included? Please if you can, show us which books were accepted by Jesus and the Apostles.
It is by the authority of the Holy Spirit and the inspired scripture that those uninspired books were removed. Christ nor the apostles never referred to any of them as being part of inspired scripture.
Just a note; the bible wasn't completed until the 300's. It had been passed down by the Jews in a verble memory, then it went to scrolls and later writtings. The printing press revolutionized the world with it's mass volumes, and soon after the bound volumes of books.
30 Jan 14
Originally posted by HandyAndyThe origional church is the one set up by Jesus to Peter. This we all know.
Which is the "original" church?
In at least the first 300 years of that church it spred the Word and grew. That church sellected a counsil to determin the books that would eventually become the Bible. After much prayer, fasting and debate, the origional bible was formed. It has always been refered to as the inspired word of God.
This bible remained untill the Protestant Reformation. Martin Luther, a priest of the Catholic church, argued against the standing religion on varios points. Some points were valid, others off the wall.
(In my personal opinion, the only real mistake Rev. Martin Luther made is that he rebeled against God too. He broke from the church and eventually formed his own church. The rebelion i speak of is not that he broke from the church. The vow as a priest is to God as well. And it is the vow to God that he broke.)
31 Jan 14
Originally posted by PudgenikYou are wrong. Here is the truth:
The origional church is the one set up by Jesus to Peter. This we all know.
In at least the first 300 years of that church it spred the Word and grew. That church sellected a counsil to determin the books that would eventually become the Bible. After much prayer, fasting and debate, the origional bible was formed. It has always been refered to as the ins ...[text shortened]... from the church. The vow as a priest is to God as well. And it is the vow to God that he broke.)
Martin Luther OSA (German: 10 November 1483 – 18 February 1546) was a German monk, former Catholic priest, professor of theology and seminal figure of a reform movement in 16th century Christianity, subsequently known as the Protestant Reformation. He strongly disputed the claim that freedom from God's punishment for sin could be purchased with monetary values. He confronted indulgence salesman Johann Tetzel, a Dominican friar, with his Ninety-Five Theses in 1517. His refusal to retract all of his writings at the demand of Pope Leo X in 1520 and the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V at the Diet of Worms in 1521 resulted in his excommunication by the Pope and condemnation as an outlaw by the Emperor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther
The Roman Catholic leadership (including the Pope) rebelled from God, not the Priest, Martin Luther. They were the ones deep in sin while claiming to be righteous. They did not want to confess their sins and excommunicated the only one that would challenge their evil actions.
31 Jan 14
Originally posted by RJHindsRj i don't see where my statement was wrong. You only confirmed what i posted. But your point is off. A catholic priest makes two vows at his ordination. One is to follow the laws of his order and the second is to God.(that he will remain a priest forever in the eyes of God)
[b]You are wrong. Here is the truth:
Martin Luther OSA (German: 10 November 1483 – 18 February 1546) was a German monk, former Catholic priest, professor of theology and seminal figure of a reform movement in 16th century Christianity, subsequently known as the Protestant Reformation. He strongly disputed the claim that freedom from God's punishment ...[text shortened]... t to confess their sins and excommunicated the only one that would challenge their evil actions.[/b]
31 Jan 14
1 edit
Originally posted by PudgenikThe most important of those two vows is to God. You have to understand that he was forced out of his so-called ordination because he choose not to abandon his vow to God. He was declared a heretic and a criminal just because he refused to recant his objections to the sinful practices of the Roman Catholic leadership of that time. So I will also not recant my statement that you are wrong, wrong, wrong.
Rj i don't see where my statement was wrong. You only confirmed what i posted. But your point is off. A catholic priest makes two vows at his ordination. One is to follow the laws of his order and the second is to God.(that he will remain a priest forever in the eyes of God)
31 Jan 14
1 edit
Luther translated the New Testament into German to make it more accessible to the commoners and to erode the influence of priests. He used the recent critical Greek edition of Erasmus, a text which was later called Textus Receptus.
Luther chose to omit the portions of the Old Testament found in the Greek Septuagint, but not in the Hebrew Masoretic texts then available, on the ground that they were recognized as authoritative Hebrew scriptures neither in Christ's time nor in his own. These were included in his earliest translation, but were later set aside as 'good to read', but not as the inspired Word of God. The setting-aside (or simple exclusion) of these texts in/from Bibles was eventually adopted by nearly all Protestants.
The Reformation-Martin Luther