Leaderboard

James 1:19-20 19 Know this, my beloved brothers: let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger; 20 for the anger of man does not produce the righteousness of God. Proverbs 29:11 Fools give full vent to their rage, but the wise bring calm in the end.

I'll be checking for errors in future.... No pressure Gary That's our girl! no wait His Girl....

I'll be checking for errors in future....

Why beautiful? For I am the thief on the cross. Gary

The first option is worse. The Bible makes it clear that we must forgive anyone who wrongs us, and it doesn't add any qualifiers about forgiving them after they've been punished. Matthew 18 specifically mentions a king who chooses to forgive someone who owes a debt. We're not told the premise of that debt. We can't assume that guy was just a victim with no money. There is always hope a guilty person can eventually apologize. If an innocent person goes to prison for no reason, their life is pretty much over.

Interesting info Gary. Thanks.

Maybe just maybe....

I have seen a lot of pro-Palestinian rhetoric here in this thread. Not surprising given the spirit of antisemitism is not bounded by Gentile-born Christians. Think not? Acid test: God's chosen people (of the world) are still Jews. Do you believe this? Romans 11:28 (NKJV) 28 Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. We are the elect / chosen of heaven ambassadors to this world whose home and mother is the Jerusalem above (Galatians 4:21-31). But your ire was worked up when I posed the question wasn't it? Why? Because non-Jews have a jealousy and a hatred that comes from where they do not know... or do they? They just don't want to admit to themselves that it is from the devil. The devil hates Jewish people with a purple faced passion. Because despite their flaws, they ushered the Truth into this realm in two forms: the written form the Bible God's Word (through their priesthood), and the Truth Personified Jesus the Christ Son of the living God (through their lineage). And they have suffered at the hand of the evil one from the beginning for these facts. Let us also remember that the Holy Land is the Lord's. Leviticus 25:23 (NKJV) 23 ‘The land shall not be sold permanently, for the land is Mine; for you are strangers and sojourners with Me. And the people God sublets the land to are the descendents of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Not Abraham's Keturan descendants nor his Hagari descendents. Not through Isaac's Esau descendants. But Abraham - Isaac - Jacob descendants. Ezekiel 37 speaks of God returning the scattered Jews to the Holy Land and this began in WWI with a prominent Jewish inventor inventing smokeless gunpowder which gave the British the edge they needed to win WWI. He was offered a king's ransom reward for his invention but only wanted a homeland for his Jewish people. "It just so happened" (there is no such thing as coincidence) the British had nearly all of the holy land: The original draft of Balfour's declaration would have given that entire mandate (British held territory) to the Jews. This brought unrest to the region and to officials in Britain. Antisemitism reaches into every human sector. Also Hashem, the leader of Bedouins in the Transjordan area, declared Transjordan their homeland. Nomads have no homeland, but the British under secretary Churchill granted them this 2/3 of the British Mandate. The Jews were not too worked up about it. After all they holy land was still on their side of the Jordan river. Then came other bellyaching nomads and a small number of Arab settlers who live in what Mark Twain described as: Mark Twain visited Israel in 1867, and published his impressions in Innocents Abroad. He described a desolate country – devoid of both vegetation and human population: “….. A desolate country whose soil is rich enough, but is given over wholly to weeds… a silent mournful expanse…. a desolation…. we never saw a human being on the whole route…. hardly a tree or shrub anywhere. Even the olive tree and the cactus, those fast friends of a worthless soil, had almost deserted the country.” Those "natives" who lived there (squatters in God's eyes) did not take care of the land nor care about it in any particular way... until the Jews wanted it back. Balfour was doing this around 1915 or so (some 50 years after Twain's visit). It's as though the squatters didn't care about the and and the land rejected the foreigners on it. The bellyaching continued until Israel was whittled down to this before the actual declaration was implemented in 1948: Still the Jews did not complain and were happy to have any home in the holy land. Any gain of land in present day Israel is due to the outcome of wars fought that the Jews did not start. Eventually the Arabs learned it's better to bellyache to the League of Nations / United Nations than to fight Israel outright. And the opinions formed even here on this board in this thread are shaped by the bellyachers and the public opinions formed by these artists of controlling your thoughts. Oh, and the "palestinians" were not a settled people west of the Jordan river. They were from Jordan and were expelled as anarchists. Israel (the Jews) welcomed then into their land... and the hell and the killing and terrorist attacks they have in Israel are the thanks they get. THAT'S the claim they have on the holy land. God gave it to them, and when he brought them back he put Britain over the land to insure the people would get the homeland back. Incidentally, for all their giving into the the Arabs Britain went from a world Empire to a single nation in less than a generation. You should read up on the various wars fought in Israel since 1948, who stared them, and how Israel grew at one point possessing even the Sinai peninsula. You should also read how the land itself has come back to life again.

That's fine by me, but note that the weblink I provided in my post is NOT Roman Catholic. It is also NOT even a Christian website. It is based on historical fact. It even mentions the Dead Sea Scrolls, which was uncovered by archaeologists in 1947. Your link is not the issue. You are aware of the issue I speak of. To bring in a book that has been rejected as if it is scripture is the issue. Those who belong to the RCC do not want to attacked for their beliefs, it would be wise not to bring them here is such a manner. If people want to discuss the book itself, then it should not be place it in the same light as scripture, calling it the "words of God". I wasn't the one who brought in the book. In fact, I never even quoted any scripture from that book. That was 7angels who did that. Just look at the very first post. The only thing I did was confirm what other posters have said because they said it came from the Douay-Rhimes, which is a Catholic Bible. And that is true. It came from a Catholic Bible, and I stated that only the Catholics believed that the books in the Alexandrian canon were inspired. but I was never the one who brought in the Book of Sirach in the first place. Now, why 7angels quoted from Sirach......only he can tell you that. But I can tell you for certain that 7angels is NOT Catholic. No Catholic would disregard apostolic authority, which is what he did. I never said you did. You stepped in and started the conversation with me after I posted a general statement.

That's fine by me, but note that the weblink I provided in my post is NOT Roman Catholic. It is also NOT even a Christian website. It is based on historical fact. It even mentions the Dead Sea Scrolls, which was uncovered by archaeologists in 1947. Your link is not the issue. You are aware of the issue I speak of. To bring in a book that has been rejected as if it is scripture is the issue. Those who belong to the RCC do not want to be attacked for their beliefs, so it would be wise not to bring them here is such a manner. If people want to discuss the book itself, then it should not be place it in the same light as scripture, calling it the "words of God".

As I mentioned, the book of Sirach, written by Simeon ben Jeshua ben Elazar ben Sira, was rejected by the Hebrews. I suspect it was rejected after it was written sometime around 180 BC, far before the Council of Jamnia. If you wish to discuss the reasons why it was rejected, that is fine, but you may not promote it as part of scripture. Part of the sites Statement of Faith is as follows: "We believe that the 66 books of the Canon, from Genesis to Revelation are the exhaustive, inerrant and inspired word of God." If you wish to promote other books as scripture there are many other sites out there that will welcome the debate. Our brothers and sisters in Christ who belong to the Roman Catholic Church are welcomed here. We do not allow the bashing of their faith, nor will we allow teachings from their church. There is enough in scripture we can agree upon and discuss. RCC Apologetic threads are not allowed.

This is not one of the books of the bible. The Hebrews rejected it.