Featured Catholic tradition, not the Bible, teaches a change to Sundaykeeping.

Or realize that in Jesus, new order has broken in now, and the Sabbath no longer instituted, as He now is the Christian Sabbath!

 

I pointed that out to him before. But apparently, he prefers to follow the law all the way to Hell.

 

So if you think the Catholic Church was wrong about the Deuterocanonical (what you call "Apocrypha") books being the word of God, what makes you think they got it right with the New Testament books?

Please explain your logic.

 

Easy ! The NT boox were all written by an apostle, fit together readily, & have been in constant use from the time they were written. The Apocrypha are somewhat different from the canonical boox & have not been in constant use since ancient times.

Can you please tell us why you believe they belong in the canon ?

 

That is incorrect. Mark and Luke were not Apostles. As for the other Gospels, "The Gospel According to John" is not part of the original manuscript. It was added by the Church based on the tradition of the Church.

You are incorrect again. The Deuterocanonical books ("Apocrypha") were contained in the Septuagint, which is the Scriptures used by Jesus, the Apostles and the early Church. Greek-speaking Jews used the Septuagint, but so many converted to Christianity that Greek-speaking Judaism ceased to exist not long after the time of the apostles. The canon of the Catholic Old Testament is a Jewish canon; it is the canon of Jews who accepted Christ.

Modern rabbinical Judaism is descended from the practices of the Pharisees, who fixed the Hebrew canon after the development of Christianity and in response to Christianity. Protestants have chosen the Old Testament canon of Jews (Masoretic) who rejected Christ. Ironically, Protestant Bibles like the NIV had to refer to the Septuagint to correct certain portions of their translations from the Tanakh to match the Christological meaning!

The New Testament actually affirms the authority of the Septuagint, which includes the Deuterocanonical books ("Apocrypha"). Here are a few examples...

Acts 15:17 ---> Amos 9:12 in the Septuagint. The Masoretic text contradicts the interpretation given by the Apostles.

Hebrews 1:6 ---> Deuteronomy 32:33 in the Septuagint. In the Masoretic text, this verse is missing.

Luke 4:18 ---> Isaiah 61:1 in the Septuagint. Jesus quotes the prophet Isaiah, which is missing in the Masoretic text.


Thus, either the Septuagint (containing the Deuterocanonical books) is authoritative, or the Apostles were in error. You can't have it both ways.

 

He follows his pied piper, Ellen White!

 

The Septuagint was never received as inspired text from God, as that was always reserves for Hebrew text!

 

NT canon book either written by an Apostle, or else had Apostle approval and backing, mark and peter, Luke and Paul!
And the Jews at time of Jesus had settled and fixed already what we call the OT canon!

 

Lest you accuse me of special pleading, Protestant scholars Gleason Archer and Gregory Chirichigno listed 340 places where the New Testament cites the Septuagint, but only 33 places where it cites from the Masoretic Text rather than the Septuagint.

---> Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament


So, either the Septuagint held authority with Jesus, the Apostles and the early Church, or they were all wrong and you are right.

 

Your ignorance and inability to process the truth when it is given to you is breathtaking.

 

He ignores evidence which proves his emphatic declarations and accusations are rubbish. I have observed Yeshua1 persistently refuse to debate or discuss evidence presented to him by Catholics on this board. He wears blinders and will never take an honest look at anything a Catholic posts. I respond to him solely because there are many people who read these threads which are not BB members but are here out of curiosity or to learn. I came here just as pig headed and with the same mind set as Yeshua1 expecting the Catholic participants to be easily defeated. I finally took my 'Baptist Blinders' off, studied both Baptist and Catholic apologetics and realized I had been very wrong about Catholicism.

 

The Holy Spirit had them lift those passages, but does not mean that the entire Septuagint was inspired! Same way the Spirit quoted from book of Enoch, but did not say entire book inspired!

 

Rome teaches another Gospel as in Trent, and is not the Mother Church, nor even a true NT church!

 

You have parroted this countless times and is your most common accusation. You also constantly denounce E.G. White as a false prophetess but are unwilling or unable to intelligently defend such accusations. You believe if you end each post with an exclamation point somehow that means you are correct. It is obvious that often times you do not bother to even read the posts of those who disagree with your particular flavor of the Christian Faith.

 

Just keep spreading seeds in charity. There is always the hope that God's grace will till the rocky ground of their hardened hearts into good soil where the seeds of truth can grow.

May the joy of the risen Christ be with you and your family.

 

Eillen White claims that Sabbath keeping required to be saved, as in meeting the final Investigative Judgement, which is false, as we have been already fully justified by death of Christ!
Rome repudiated Pauline Justification, hence, false Gospel now!

 

Yep. Following her all the way to the bottom.

 

I was wondering, are you the hard core Baptist also named Walter that I read on this board years ago?

 

Yes, I am! I was challenged to study by another former Baptist on this board (Thinkingstuff) and eventually attended RCIA and over time realized the Early Church looked NOTHING like Baptist churches of today.