***CONSTANTINE and the CHURCH HISTORY!!!

[redhorse1L]

---

^^ So, prior to Luther, can you cite a significant person / group who you can call the true Christians?

[dcuenco]

The old testaments and new testaments should never be fooled around with. These are Holy Scriptures containing Word of God and Jesus Himself. The real meaning of salvation and the death and resurrection of Jesus should be emphasized.

Take this for example: The Koran mentions Jesus as a prophet and even the messiah. HOWEVER it also says that Jesus did not ressurect from the dead which entirely corrupts the message of salvation.

[yanong_banikanhon]

Oh boy. Some people really do not get it.
I repeat what was earlier claimed:
"Jesus never quoted from the apocrypha books".

Can you show an unedited, previous post of yours that exactly mentioned these words: "Jesus never quoted from the apocrypha books" ?

As far as I can remember, you never made an earlier claim like that. Ang akong nahinumdoman mao ang imong post nga nag-ingon:

No apocryphal book is referred to in the New Testament whereas the Old Testament is referred to hundreds of times.

Unless imo ng i-edit karon, klaro kaayo nga wala ka nag-mentioned bahin ni Jesus nga nag-quote og text gikan sa mga books sa 'apocrypha' (deuterocanon). I presented you several verses from 'apocrypha' that is referred in the new testament. You cannot deny that you lied that's why imong giusab ang imong criteria. Giaapil na nimo si Jesus nga wala nag-quote sa apocrypha. Tsk.tsk.tsk...hangtud asa taman ang imong pagpamakak, bro?

Jesus Himself did not recognize these as scriputures because He never talked about it.

Huh? Sigurado ka ani? Did Jesus talk about any passage from books of Numbers, Ezra or Chronicles? Did Jesus talk about all the books from the old testament? If not, would you conclude that Numbers, Ezra or Chronicles were also not recognized by Jesus?

Taronga imong logic, bay. Kay aron dili maulaw ang imong pastor sa imo.

[yanong_banikanhon]

Regarding church history, though I am not a protestant or a Lutheran, I think everyone including catholics should be thankful about what Luther did.

Actually it was Luther who was thankful to the catholic church.

Nia ay:

We are obliged to yield many things to the Papists (Catholics) -- that they possess the Word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should know nothing at all about it.

[THE SKULLS]

Jesus is my friend.

[yanong_banikanhon]

Kani o, si Jesus na gyud ang nagsulti ani.

Matthew 06:19-20
Lay not up to yourselves treasures on earth...But lay up to yourselves treasures in heaven: where neither the rust nor moth doth consume.

Asa mang bahina sa old testament ninyong mga protestante imong mabasa kanang laying up of treasures in heaven? Sa scriptures nga gigamit sa mga early christians, even by the educated people at the time of Jesus imo ning mabasahan:

Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) 29:13
Place thy treasure in the commandments of the most High, and it shall bring thee more profit than gold.

Isn't it wonderful? Pasensya na, dili gyud na nimo mabasa sa bible sa mga protestante. Unsaon nga gipatanggal man ni Luther ang mga books sa deuterocanon (gani gitawag ni sa iyang mga apo og apocrypha).

Diin gyud kaha gikan ang authority ni Luther pagtanggal sa pipila ka basahon sa bible no?

[dcuenco]

back read. page #12, post #179, Gi post ni sya by someone else which I completely agreed with and quoted in the subsequent post that Jesus never quoted from the apocrypha books. The fact remains, Jesus never quoted from the apocrypha books. I hope arguments here will be more substantive rather than childish.

Just because a certain statement from a book is the same as that in the new testament does not mean that Jesus quoted from it or is even referred to by writers of the new testament. Quoting something is different from saying something similar. Simple logic. Common sense.

[yanong_banikanhon]

^^ Aya'y nagpabuta2x man. Tan-awa ang akong post ibabaw sa imong post. Hint: Matthew 06:19-20, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) 29:13.

Ka-klaro ana. Unya kadtong Numbers, Ezra or Chronicles, nag-quote si Jesus adto? Kun atong sundon ang imong logic (or illogic), mas gi-recognized diay ni Jesus kanang book of Sirach nga gikan sa 'apocrypha' kaysa sa Numbers, Ezra or Chronicles.

[yanong_banikanhon]

Just because a certain statement from a book is the same as that in the new testament does not mean that Jesus quoted from it or is even referred to by writers of the new testament. Quoting something is different from saying something similar. Simple logic. Common sense.

Na, nisamot na gyud og kayabo ang imong argumento, bro. Kay murag ang imong gipasabot sa term nga 'quoting' is kanang explicit gyud nga gi-mention ang name sa book, chapter ug verse. Asa mang partiha sa new testament nga niingon si Jesus 'I quote from the book of Numbers' or 'This is taken from the book of Ezra' ? ASA MAN?

Kun wala kay mabasa, so wala diay pud mag-quote si Jesus sa old testament books of Numbers and Ezra. So kun imong illogic atong sundon, wala lugar pud gi-recognize ni Jesus ang book of Numbers ug Ezra. Mao na ni ron.

[malic_2]

wa na nagka anam na ka obvious, bai dcuenco kong mosolod gani ka og gobat pag andam pod og saktong weapon bai, imong logic habol man gud.


ang gigamit nimong mga criteria against Deutorocanonical books kong atong gamiton pod sa imong Protestant Bible, hagbong pod ang imong Edited Bible.