RELIGION

[misfit]

---

i was not able to read the whole thread, kay taas na kaayo...

i do not intend to preach, and people are left to themselves to decide which path to choose...pero i've found mine.

i'm a muslim convert, and trying to be a practicing muslima as i can be although very hard in this community. my parents and all of my family are christians, i do not have muslim friends diri, and there are only few muslim orgs sa cebu, plus i do not trust just anybody preaching islam kay tingali giusab or nausab.

anyway, may Allah help us all and guide us to the right path.

[tolstoi]

^^is it true that your bible/koran teaches all muslims to kill..im refering to that jihad thing..i dunno but i think it's not right..some muslim extremist are exploiting these verses to sow terror on their enemies..just plainly twisted.

[MrBiddle]

By the way since the Deuterocanonicals have been brought up as an issue, it won't make any sense for the Holy Spirit to add those in the 15th century when the books that versions like the NIV have were the same ones widely used in the early churches for the first 3 centuries Anno Domini.

One way to test that is if there is an equidistant skip so mangutana ta ni Michael Drosnin ;-b

But knowing it's been declared canonical from the same institution who has enthroned the Antichrist? http://onemediator.4t.com/whats_new.html

People should have their reservations.

[MrBiddle]

duda lang nako ha... duda lang, naa man gud mogamit dri ug copy-edit-read-edit-add a bit to the actual doc-paste-post nga style.

I think users like Meganda do this... it makes it easier to read. Kind of like annotating it if you edit it otherwise it will be too verbose.

[Von!-x]

Bitaw, religion man gud title sa thread ni richard. Â*It would certainly include all other religions, which may also include atheism. Â*If the title were "Christianity" Â*perhaps we can exclude the discussions on other religion.

I understand the sentiments of the others nga gisamukan sa mga copy paste and the dogmas nga wa nila mahibaw-i until now.

Our time on earth is very short. Â*With such limited time, do we want to be bound by the restrictions of religion? Â* Would following every letter of what my religion tells me, warrant a place for myself in heaven? Â*Such uncertainty! Â*The present crisis led a lot of people to question the existence of God. Â*For others, it led them to God. Â*

Why would someone die for another man's sins? Why is eternal life a free gift as stated in the bible when my religion tells me to follow this or that before attaining such?

It's up to us to choose whom to believe and to whom we shall serve, whether the gods of other nations, the god of our forefathers, the god of our religion or the True and Living God as mentioned in the bible.

[HoundedbyHeaven]

That's NOT literal you know. Rome, historically IS the City of 7 hills.

So the "seven mountains" are interpreted as "one hill"-- that is Vatican Hill --and the "harlot sitting" upon those "mountains" is interpreted as "the Vatican" which is not mounted on any of those "seven hills". What a scholarly "non-literal" interpretation! So what's the "seven days of creation" like? An "hour"? Sure, Rome is historically the City of Seven Hills, but you have to interpret your "mountains" as "hills", divide it by itself and take it across the Tiber River and drop it upon the Holy See.

Looks to me like this is a case of "reading or smuggling prejudice into the text", twisting it to mean what you want it to mean.

Besides, the Vatican ain't part of ancient Rome, anyway. Ancient Rome, which is actually the City of Seven Hills, is now part of Italy, an independent nation-state all its own. The charge still won't stick. Like I said, Istanbul is better suited for that charge.

And you seem to forget verse 17: 15 (connected to Daniel 7: 23 ) proving beyond a doubt that God condemns the RCC for their heterodoxal ways! ;b

Heterodoxal? Not orthodox? What an absurd charge, Mother Church has always been faithful to the Deposit of Faith, which is based in part by the Apostolic Tradition and she's not orthodox? Those who invented and embraced Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura, which you can't even read between the lines of their "proof texts" rip out of context, are more like it.

By the way since the Deuterocanonicals have been brought up as an issue, it won't make any sense for the Holy Spirit to add those in the 15th century when the books that versions like the NIV have were the same ones widely used in the early churches for the first 3 centuries Anno Domini.

What a nice shift of offense: first you accuse Mother Church of adding the so-called "Apocrypha", and, when shown that Protestants like Luther included it in their translations by the 16th (not 15th) century, you then allude that their inclusion would make no sense. You are either sincerely ignorant or playing dumb if you imagine that the so-called "Apocrypha" was not part of Holy Writ despite its inclusion in translations of Protestants like Luther. What were guys like Luther thinking then?

As to your allegation of the similarity of books between those in modern versions like the NIV and the versions "widely" used in the early churches of the first three centuries of Christianity, how "deep" in history are you really? Before Protestantism came into the picture, only Judaism excluded the so-called "Apocrypha" at the so-called "Council of Jamnia" in 92 AD. The Jews excluded it to distinguished their version of Holy Writ from-- surprise, surprise --the Christians, even when groups within the Jewish community can't even agree with the number and kind of books to be considered canonical. Protestantism used the so-called "Council of Jamnia" to justify its attempt to marginalize and remove the so-called "Apocrypha" from the Bible. How else can you explain their appearance in translations of Protestants from the 16th century up until the 19th century, Shallow Hal?

People should have reservations at those who claim to be "deep in history" until they show it beyond preposterous allegations.

Shalom.

[misfit]

^^is it true that your bible/koran teaches all muslims to kill..im refering to that jihad thing..i dunno but i think it's not right..some muslim extremist are exploiting these verses to sow terror on their enemies..just plainly twisted.

i don't claim to know everything but as for this question, no it doesn't. although we are obliged to protect Islam.

[MrBiddle]

What a nice shift of offense: first you accuse Mother Church of adding the so-called "Apocrypha", and, when shown that Protestants like Luther included it in their translations by the 16th (not 15th) century, you then allude that their inclusion would make no sense. You are either sincerely ignorant or playing dumb if you imagine that the so-called "Apocrypha" was not part of Holy Writ despite its inclusion in translations of Protestants like Luther. What were guys like Luther thinking then?

As to your allegation of the similarity of books between those in modern versions like the NIV and the versions "widely" used in the early churches of the first three centuries of Christianity, how "deep" in history are you really? Before Protestantism came into the picture, only Judaism excluded the so-called "Apocrypha" at the so-called "Council of Jamnia" in 92 AD. The Jews excluded it to distinguished their version of Holy Writ from-- surprise, surprise --the Christians, even when groups within the Jewish community can't even agree with the number and kind of books to be considered canonical. Protestantism used the so-called "Council of Jamnia" to justify its attempt to marginalize and remove the so-called "Apocrypha" from the Bible. How else can you explain their appearance in translations of Protestants from the 16th century up until the 19th century, Shallow Hal?

People should have reservations at those who claim to be "deep in history" until they show it beyond preposterous allegations.

Shalom.

I didn't imply I was "deep in history" but I did state earlier that I know enough while I am sincerely stupid, I ain't that stupid.

By the way I hate to remind you but you're the one who started this "including the books that the Protestants took away" .... Fear NOT though for what I use is the NAB and the CCB Catholic Pastoral Edition you know what?

And I didn't say I was a Protestant! In fact I'm against those who use the names of other people besides the Messiah to identify their sectors. Or sectors within their sectors.

Those who respond with faith to the Scriptures mahagbong la'g naluto sila sa ilang kaugalingong mantika. No matter how much is presented, some of the principles of Sacred Traditions of the Roman Catholic Church are extremely Anti-Biblical no matter how the clergy reasons that this was part of Christ's deposit alongside the Book of Life.

Unsa ma'y sala sa Istambul og Turkey? Â*;-b Certainly NOT so much "idolatrous sacramentals" in there and whatever institutions rest in that part of the world definitely isn't a catholic institution (17: 15 )

Before Protestantism came into the picture, only Judaism excluded the so-called "Apocrypha" at the so-called "Council of Jamnia" in 92 AD

And did they believe parts of the N.T.? Â*If so this reminds me of Islam, where they believe in the Queen of Rome because of this farce called ecumenicalism. Marah also means Rebellion otherwise it means "grieved" Mary was indeed grieved and what is the disguise used by the Antichrist?

--------

Protestantism used the so-called "Council of Jamnia" to justify its attempt to marginalize and remove the so-called "Apocrypha" from the Bible. How else can you explain their appearance in translations of Protestants from the 16th century up until the 19th century, Shallow Hal?

16th century?? Because history says the RCC added them a centennial amount of years earlier.

Again, in my previous arguments I never made this an issue... but to settle this let's just check the originals for equidistant skip ;-b

But I still maintain, history is silent. The Bible is silent about the hierarchy of Rome coming from Christ, or the apostle Paul or Peter.Â* Daniel, however tells us about the hierarchy of Rome and the empirical origins of the RCC (Dan. 7: 23 )

so-called "Council of Jamnia" to justify its attempt to marginalize and remove the so-called "Apocrypha" from the Bible.

This sounds made-up to me ;-b

[mannyamador]

"But to be deep in historical facts and Scriptural truths is to cease being a Roman Catholic"

But to be deep in the TRUTH is to be Roman Catholic.

Remember, it was the Catholic Church that gave us the Bible. Jesus wrote nothing (except perhaps on sand) and He never commandd that a Bible be created. It was the Church that decided which books were to be in the Bible. And one of the most important criteria for deciding which books were to be in the Bible was that the books must agree with Catholic Doctrine.

Thus, to reject the authoroty of the Catholic Church is to reject the authority of the Bible.

[mannyamador]

By the way, the Jewish Council of Jamnia DID occur and Luther DID use it as a justification to remove the deuterocanonicals. Of course to protect his rear, Luther had to declare other books of the New Testament as apocryphal since they also made references to the deuterocanonicals!

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm

The negative argument drawn from the non-citation of the deuterocanonicals
in the New Testament is especially minimized by the indirect use made of them
by the same Testament. This takes the form of allusions and reminiscences,
and shows unquestionably that the Apostles and Evangelists were acquainted
with the Alexandrian increment, regarded its books as at least respectable
sources, and wrote more or less under its influence. A comparison of Hebrews,
xi and II Machabees, vi and vii reveals unmistakable references in the former to
the heroism of the martyrs glorified in the latter. There are close affinities of
thought, and in some cases also of language, between I Peter, i, 6, 7, and
Wisdom, iii, 5, 6; Hebrews, i, 3, and Wisdom, vii, 26, 27; I Corinthians, x, 9, 10,
and Judith, viii, 24-25; I Corinthians, vi, 13, and Ecclesiasticus, xxxvi, 20.

The strangest part is that the Council of Jamnia was explicitly anti-christian in nature. One of the reasons it made declarations about the Jewish canon was precisely to counter the fact that Christians were using the Septuagint (Alexandrian canon) version of the Jewish scriptures in their preaching. The Jews wanted to counter the spread of Christianity by declaring the Alexandrian canon as not orthodox. This, of course, was rejected by Christians (the Jewish Council had no authority over Christians) and they continued to use the Septuagint. This Septuagint has the same canon as the Catholic Old Testament. Thus the Protestant idea of declaring the deuterocanonicals as "apocrypha" has as its basis an anti-christian council!

In other words, the "apocrypha" of Luther is an absurdity! And the often-repeated accusation that the Council of Trent simply added the deuterocanonicals to the Bible is a bare-faced lie.

http://www.newadvent.org/library/almanac_thisrock93.htm

Is it true that at Trent the Church added the seven deuterocanonical books
(Judith, Tobit, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Baruch, and Ecclesiasticus) to the Bible?

No. The Council of Trent (1545-1564) infallibly reiterated what the Church had long
taught regarding the canons of the Old and New Testaments. Pope Damasus
promulgated the Catholic canons at the Synod of Rome in A.D. 382, and later,
at the regional councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397, 419), the Church again
defined the same list of books as inspired.

The canons of the Old and New Testaments, as defined by Pope Damasus and the
Councils of Hippo and Carthage, were later ratified (thought the books were not
enumerated individually) by the later Ecumenical councils of II Nicaea (787) and
Florence (1438-1445). Although the Council of Trent, in response to the Protestant
violation of the Bible by deleting the seven Deuterocanonical books plus portions of
Daniel and Esther, was the first infallible conciliar listing of each individual book, it
certainly did not add those books to the canon.

If that were the case, how could Martin Luther and the other Reformers have
objected to the presence of those books decades before the Council of Trent if
they weren't in the canon to begin with and were added by the Council of Trent?

God bless!