I'd kinda figured you'd say that. I never left a faith. I don't know why Pope Martin Marprelate abandoned me here.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
This seems bigger...
- Thread starter Bro. James
- Start date
I'd kinda figured you'd say that. I never left a faith. I don't know why Pope Martin Marprelate abandoned me here.
And you know this how?
Because the plot of Tobit revolves around the same thing. Cinderella is probably not holy scripture for you. But if I came up to you and say HAY what if stick my dogs foot in that glass slipper, what then?
You wouldn't care because Cinderella its not scripture for you.
If the saducees came up and challenged 2 brothers or 50 or some other scenario, fine.
No they picked the one that was try to push Jesus' buttons. They wanted to make Jesus look stupid.
And how does Jesus reply?
29But Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God.
Well I guess the saducees couldn't figure scripture out on their own. What scripture to be misunderstood mentions a plot about 7 brothers marrying the same woman?
The Saducees do not believe the Book of Tobit is holy scripture.
I think this is one of those things the internet is going to fix as people will be open to history:
Biblical apocrypha - Wikipedia
Because the first thing folks are sold is the Catholics added those books. And history is going to show they got removed. First by moving them around the bible to making them footnotes, to what we got today where folks swear it is not holy scripture.
It is too bad that Catholics are not as open to history as we schismatics. You will find nothing in the earliest Christian writings that pretends that Peter was "vicar of Christ on Earth" or that he even was pastor of the church at Rome. Even honest Catholic historians admit that. The practice was a plurality of elders (see Acts) and Peter deferred to James in the very first "church council." Eusebius wrote that Peter and Paul founded the church in Rome and neither of them was the first bishop.
I have high regard for Catholic systematic theology and tradition, but the primacy of Rome is a fiction of later generations and is based on Rome's being the capital of the empire. Tradition also holds that Peter founded the church in Antioch. So why doesn't Antioch have precedence since it was founded first? The answer, of course, is that Catholics argue from the conclusion, not the premises.
I have high regard for Catholic systematic theology and tradition, but the primacy of Rome is a fiction of later generations and is based on Rome's being the capital of the empire. Tradition also holds that Peter founded the church in Antioch. So why doesn't Antioch have precedence since it was founded first? The answer, of course, is that Catholics argue from the conclusion, not the premises.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Well Wycliffe was not murdered - but his books were burned and as you point out the Catholics thought it wise to dig up his bones and burn them - since they had a lot of doctrine-by-superstition that was used to influence the masses.
BTW there was a post recently claiming that someone who like Wycliffe - dies of some natural cause -- was "killed by God" which means a lot of Popes apparently were taken out of office - by God.
Ahh yes -- there it is.
Apparently Wycliffe was more evil than Luther or Calvin since God didn't see fit to murder them. In fact, God has been rather lackadaisical in polishing off heretics, except perhaps at the hands of other humans. He really should be more consistent.
But it's nice to know God is a murderer.
The Latin Rite is an unstable amalgam of scholarship and superstition. You know, I can read many Catholic theologians with some sense of edification, and then the superstition ruins the moment.
But it's nice to know God is a murderer.
The Latin Rite is an unstable amalgam of scholarship and superstition. You know, I can read many Catholic theologians with some sense of edification, and then the superstition ruins the moment.
The Reformation creed of Sola Fide (faith alone) is directed towards the salvific aspect of faith. Works in James 2:24 is not being referred to as necessary in a salvific manner. James is saying that true saving faith will produce [good] works. Another way of stating it is that saving faith will be evidenced by works. This is the point that Paul makes in Ephesians 2:8-10:
Paul negates salvation as having anything to do with works, although works are an evidence of salvation. More than that, Christians are saved in order to perform good works.
In Mark 11:12-25 we read the account of Jesus cursing a fig tree because it did not bear fruit. Understanding the analogy, we know that the fig tree represented faithless Israel. Israel was to bear fruit in season and out of season, but it did not. Likewise, Christians are to bear fruit by doing good works. Just like bearing figs proves a tree to be fruitful, so does good works prove that a Christian is fruitful. A faith that lacks proof of the very thing it claims is no faith at all, ergo that faith cannot save (justify).
To require works to accompany faith is Synergism (two separate things working together to produce a result). That is what the papacy teaches, not biblical Christianity.
Paul negates salvation as having anything to do with works, although works are an evidence of salvation. More than that, Christians are saved in order to perform good works.
In Mark 11:12-25 we read the account of Jesus cursing a fig tree because it did not bear fruit. Understanding the analogy, we know that the fig tree represented faithless Israel. Israel was to bear fruit in season and out of season, but it did not. Likewise, Christians are to bear fruit by doing good works. Just like bearing figs proves a tree to be fruitful, so does good works prove that a Christian is fruitful. A faith that lacks proof of the very thing it claims is no faith at all, ergo that faith cannot save (justify).
To require works to accompany faith is Synergism (two separate things working together to produce a result). That is what the papacy teaches, not biblical Christianity.
If you knew anything about Saducees you would know that they only accepted the Pentateuch as Scripture. That is why our Lord replies to them, not merely out of the O.T., but out of the Pentateuch itselfSo what Scriptures do the Saducees not understand? "Have you not read what was said to you by God?" Is Jesus quoting Tobit to them? What do you think?
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
That is a quote "of you" . Were you about to quote Jerome as saying "Apocrypha was not canonical to MODERN JEWS, who recently created their canon decades AFTER the Death of Jesus"??
Or are you settling for "just making stuff up"??
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Catholic practice of "just making stuff up" can hardly be better illustrated than by the so-called "Donation of Constantine" and the confirmed Ignatius forgeries
By contrast - Josephus says --
We have but twenty-two [books] containing the history of all time, books that are justly believed in; and of these, five are the books of Moses, which comprise the law and earliest traditions from the creation of mankind down to his death. From the death of Moses to the reign of Artaxerxes, King of Persia, the successor of Xerxes, the prophets who succeeded Moses wrote the history of the events that occurred in their own time, in thirteen books. The remaining four documents comprise hymns to God and practical precepts to men (William Whiston, trans., Flavius Josephus against Apion, Vol. I, in Josephus, Complete Works, Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1960, p. 8).
That is over 300 years that the canon had not changed from Artaxerxes to the time of Christ
And how firmly we have given credit to those books of our own nation is evident by what we do; for during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add anything to them or take anything from them, or to make any change in them; but it becomes natural to all Jews, immediately and from their very birth, to esteem those books to contain divine doctrines, and to persist in them, and, if occasion be, willing to die for them. For it is no new thing for our captives, many of them in numbers, and frequently in time, to be seen to endure racks and deaths of all kinds upon the theatres, that they may not be obliged to say one word against our laws, and the records that contain them (Josephus, Ibid. p. 609).
He says there has been no more authoritative writings since the reign of Artaxerxes, son of Xerxes (464-424 B.C.). This is the same time of Malachi – the last book in the Old Testament. We know that Artaxerxes ruled for forty years. Ezra came to Jerusalem in the seventh year of his rule.
By contrast - Josephus says --
We have but twenty-two [books] containing the history of all time, books that are justly believed in; and of these, five are the books of Moses, which comprise the law and earliest traditions from the creation of mankind down to his death. From the death of Moses to the reign of Artaxerxes, King of Persia, the successor of Xerxes, the prophets who succeeded Moses wrote the history of the events that occurred in their own time, in thirteen books. The remaining four documents comprise hymns to God and practical precepts to men (William Whiston, trans., Flavius Josephus against Apion, Vol. I, in Josephus, Complete Works, Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1960, p. 8).
That is over 300 years that the canon had not changed from Artaxerxes to the time of Christ
And how firmly we have given credit to those books of our own nation is evident by what we do; for during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add anything to them or take anything from them, or to make any change in them; but it becomes natural to all Jews, immediately and from their very birth, to esteem those books to contain divine doctrines, and to persist in them, and, if occasion be, willing to die for them. For it is no new thing for our captives, many of them in numbers, and frequently in time, to be seen to endure racks and deaths of all kinds upon the theatres, that they may not be obliged to say one word against our laws, and the records that contain them (Josephus, Ibid. p. 609).
He says there has been no more authoritative writings since the reign of Artaxerxes, son of Xerxes (464-424 B.C.). This is the same time of Malachi – the last book in the Old Testament. We know that Artaxerxes ruled for forty years. Ezra came to Jerusalem in the seventh year of his rule.
Last edited:
No kidding thats why i put the quote below its from his BOOK! time for some new glasses bob!
He said exactly:
But when I repeat what the Jews say against the Story of Susanna and the Hymn of the Three Children, and the fables of Bel and the Dragon, which are not contained in the Hebrew Bible, the man who makes this a charge against me proves himself to be a fool and a slanderer; for I explained not what I thought but what they commonly say against us.
So who is he calling a fool and slanderer? its the man who charges that he is against those books.
for I explained not what I thought but what they commonly say against us.
Abortion is it a sin BOB? BOB IS ABORTION A SIN? abortion?
Don't get angry at me because you support murder.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
A sin we cannot get the Catholic judges on the Supreme court to vote against - because if they did we would not have this problem. (As you have been told about a dozen times by now -)
BTW - topic derailing much??
What part of scripture is not biblical?
"Martin Marprelate"-
Respectfully, I'd like to chime in for just a moment here to point out the fact that St. Augustine, as a Bishop in the Catholic Church, was responsible for teaching, correcting, and generally shepherding many confused people over the course of his decades-long earthly ministry. And each time, depending upon the unique misunderstandings of particular audiences, he might stress a particular point or reading of a text while leaving another secondary reading less focused-upon or possibly not mentioned at all, perhaps. Over the course of his life, naturally, he wrote many things pertaining to Matthew 16:18 and the surrounding verses. It is my opinion that you are grossly oversimplifying his sophisticated and entirely Catholic view concerning the multivalent text in question with your reference to Mr. Webster's work above. And far from being "diametrically opposed" to Catholic teaching concerning this verse, as far as intellect is concerned, at least, as a Doctor of the Church, St. Augustine provides much "grounding" for later-developed perspectives concerning the text in question.
In Him,
Herbert
Respectfully, I'd like to chime in for just a moment here to point out the fact that St. Augustine, as a Bishop in the Catholic Church, was responsible for teaching, correcting, and generally shepherding many confused people over the course of his decades-long earthly ministry. And each time, depending upon the unique misunderstandings of particular audiences, he might stress a particular point or reading of a text while leaving another secondary reading less focused-upon or possibly not mentioned at all, perhaps. Over the course of his life, naturally, he wrote many things pertaining to Matthew 16:18 and the surrounding verses. It is my opinion that you are grossly oversimplifying his sophisticated and entirely Catholic view concerning the multivalent text in question with your reference to Mr. Webster's work above. And far from being "diametrically opposed" to Catholic teaching concerning this verse, as far as intellect is concerned, at least, as a Doctor of the Church, St. Augustine provides much "grounding" for later-developed perspectives concerning the text in question.
In Him,
Herbert
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
That is a quote "of you" . Were you about to quote Jerome as saying "Apocrypha was not canonical to MODERN JEWS, who recently created their canon decades AFTER the Death of Jesus"??
Or are you settling for "just making stuff up"??
By contrast you said -- "the Apocrypha was not canonical to MODERN JEWS, who recently created their canon decades AFTER the Death of Jesus, ."
Jerome said -- "As to Daniel, it was necessary to point out that Bel and the Dragon, and similar stories were not found in the Hebrew."
Then Jerome goes on to point out that those documents are fables even in your own quote of it - and he states why the Hebrew text is superior.
And what is more -- he said the false accusation he was refuting was the one stating that Daniel was not a prophet as if this was Jerome's opinion--
===================================
The quote was in this context -- showing how they lumped the spurious works in with the actual book of Daniel
As to Daniel, it was necessary to point out that Bel and the Dragon, and similar stories were not found in the Hebrew.
33. In reference to Daniel my answer will be that I did not say that he was not a prophet; on the contrary, I confessed in the very beginning of the Preface that he was a prophet.
in that quote alone we have the same defense of Daniel as a prophet - that we all make -- even though WE reject the spurious books.
Note that the last 6 chapters of Daniel are in HEBREW. The first six in Aramaic.
This is a specific response to attacks made against Jerome in regard to claiming that Daniel was not a true prophet.
It does nothing to extricate the Catholics from Jerome's devastating claims regarding the Apocrypha in the prologues to the apocryphal books - in his Vulgate which he himself freely admits - the apocryphal works were included solely as a result of arm-twisting by Catholic adminstrators.
,,...
A vindication of the importance of the Hebrew Text of Scripture.
34. I beg you, my most sweet friend, who are so curious that you even know my dreams, and that you scrutinize for purposes of accusations all that I have written during these many years without fear of future calumny; answer me, how is it you do not know the prefaces of the very books on which you ground your charges against me? These prefaces, as if by some prophetic foresight, gave the answer to the calumnies that were coming, thus fulfilling the proverb, The antidote before the poison. What harm has been done to the churches by my translation? You bought up, as I knew, at great cost the versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, and the Jewish authors of the fifth and sixth translations. Your Origen, or, that I may not seem to be wounding you with fictitious praises, our Origen, (for I may call him ours for his genius and learning, though not for the truth of his doctrines) in all his books explains and expounds not only the Septuagint but the Jewish versions. Eusebius and Didymus do the same. I do not mention Apollinarius, who, with a laudable zeal though not according to knowledge, attempted to patch up into one garment the rags of all the translations, and to weave a consistent text of Scripture at his own discretion, not according to any sound rule of criticism. The Hebrew Scriptures are used by apostolic men; they are used, as is evident, by the apostles and evangelists. Our Lord and Saviour himself whenever he refers to the Scriptures, takes his quotations from the Hebrew; as in the instance of the words He that believes in me, as the Scripture has said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water, and in the words used on the cross itself, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani, which is by interpretation My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? not, as it is given by the Septuagint, My God, my God, look upon me, why have you forsaken me? and many similar cases. ...
Jerome says this -
I assert that the Apostles of Christ have an authority superior to theirs.
Wherever the Seventy agree with the Hebrew, the apostles took their quotations from that translation; but, where they disagree, they set down in Greek what they had found in the Hebrew. And further, I give a challenge to my accuser. I have shown that many things are set down in the New Testament as coming from the older books, which are not to be found in the Septuagint; and I have pointed out that these exist in the Hebrew. Now let him show that there is anything in the New Testament which comes from the Septuagint but which is not found in the Hebrew, and our controversy is at an end
Last edited:
Herbert,
Augustine of Hippo has historical value to Protestants and Romanists. Both "claim him" as their own, but I have issues with either party making such claims. Augustine lived during a time when the ecumenical councils were embracing the Theotokos of Mary, and the veneration of icons. But while these councils were heading further and further into error, they also rightly condemned various heresies of their day. This is why Augustine has such value to all of Christendom. I have written extensively (in and outside of this forum) about the danger of drawing theological conclusions from the Early Church Fathers and the Patristic Age.
Back on track: Pontiffs, infallibility, ex-cathedral and such;
May we consider: Apologies of John Paul II, False Decretals, Donation of Constantine, or your choice.
Even so, come, Lord Jesus,
Bro. James
May we consider: Apologies of John Paul II, False Decretals, Donation of Constantine, or your choice.
Even so, come, Lord Jesus,
Bro. James
And the local "churches" received guidance from the central authority. Good grief, that was what the letters of St. Paul were all about, giving guidance, laying down the law as to the proper belief's Christians should have as they practiced their faith.
People were not meant to go their own way and to decide things for themselves and have varying doctrines and dogmas from church to church. No, that is not what Jesus had planned and he gave us the One Universal (Catholic) Christian Church. It was only as millennia went on that some people decided that they knew more than what had been passed on and deviated from it.
Last edited:
The central authority is The Holy Spirit indwelling each New Testament Church (visible, local). See seven churches of Asia, Book of Revelation Ch. 2,3. See: removal of candlestick from out of His place. Some churches have had their candlesticks removed. Some churches never had a candlestick.
Centrality is an interesting issue. The First New Testament Church was in Jerusalem. A centralized Roman style church shows up in Rome in the 4th century via "in hoc signo vinces" from Constantine the Great one. Connie moves his Government and religion to Turkey--Constantinople. Then you got East and West--excommunicating each other about a major schism: The east does not bow to the primacy of Peter's never ending bishopric. They have since un-excommunicated each other. The schism is still unresolved. So much for central authority.
Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
Bro. James
Centrality is an interesting issue. The First New Testament Church was in Jerusalem. A centralized Roman style church shows up in Rome in the 4th century via "in hoc signo vinces" from Constantine the Great one. Connie moves his Government and religion to Turkey--Constantinople. Then you got East and West--excommunicating each other about a major schism: The east does not bow to the primacy of Peter's never ending bishopric. They have since un-excommunicated each other. The schism is still unresolved. So much for central authority.
Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
Bro. James