whatdoIwant2callmyself Posted December 19, 2016 Group: Junior Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 5 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 187 Content Per Day: 0.07 Reputation: 128 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/12/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted December 19, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, TheMatrixHasU71 said: Umm yeah that's what I just said Not really. Your remarks were vague while mine were more precise. Edited December 19, 2016 by whatdoIwant2callmyself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SavedOnebyGrace Posted December 19, 2016 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 11 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 4,056 Content Per Day: 15.13 Reputation: 5,191 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/30/2023 Status: Offline Author Share Posted December 19, 2016 1 minute ago, TheMatrixHasU71 said: UN-RE-LI-A-BLE since they are not the originals and likely not even close. I am not arguing these books should be in the Jewish or Christian Canons. I am saying that these books exist and were quoted from by authors in the Old and New Testaments. It was you who falsely claimed these books did not exist: " Very simple, its because no copies of Jasher exist". This is a false statement. Your are spreading a falsehood claiming it as truth. I was politely trying to correct you before you proceeded down this false path. Now you switch to saying they are unreliable. If they are unreliable, why did OT patriarchs and prophets, and New Testament figures like Jesus, Jude, Peter and others quote from them? Are you claiming we should strike out any Biblical reference to these books, even the words of Jesus? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMatrixHasU71 Posted December 19, 2016 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 21 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,573 Content Per Day: 0.51 Reputation: 723 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/10/2015 Status: Offline Share Posted December 19, 2016 18 minutes ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said: I am not arguing these books should be in the Jewish or Christian Canons. I am saying that these books exist and were quoted from by authors in the Old and New Testaments. It was you who falsely claimed these books did not exist: " Very simple, its because no copies of Jasher exist". This is a false statement. Your are spreading a falsehood claiming it as truth. I was politely trying to correct you before you proceeded down this false path. Now you switch to saying they are unreliable. If they are unreliable, why did OT patriarchs and prophets, and New Testament figures like Jesus, Jude, Peter and others quote from them? Are you claiming we should strike out any Biblical reference to these books, even the words of Jesus? Very simple. Because, take, for example, the book of Enoch. Enoch was purely passed down by oral tradition since Enoch lived before the invention of writing. Therefore any copies that exist are completely unreliable because something that is written down only centuries after the fact cannot be trustworthy. YES I am aware that the bible quotes a few of these books. But the Spirit directed these men to quote only the passages that can be relied on as truthful. I am not spreading lies or 'switching' anything. I am speaking the truth. There may be such books in existence today but nothing even approaching the originals of these works exists today so you cannot trust that what you have is even close to what the originals contained. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealPresence Posted December 19, 2016 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 3 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 625 Content Per Day: 0.23 Reputation: 503 Days Won: 2 Joined: 11/28/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted December 19, 2016 (edited) On 12/7/2016 at 7:55 AM, Saved.One.by.Grace said: There has been much discussion about the differences between the Christian Canon of Scripture, and the Roman Catholic Canon of Scripture. The article hyperlinked should clear some of the confusion. Source: The Canon of Scripture and How Did We Get It The Roman Catholic Canon contains extra books. The ten "books interpreted in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures) were rejected because of the strict guidelines for canon: books must have conformed to the Torah, and had to have been written in Palestine, in Hebrew, and not after the time of Ezra (about 400 BC). Although the Catholic Bible today includes the Apocrypha, the vast majority of Hebrew scholars considered them to be good historical and religious documents, but not on the same level as the inspired Hebrew Scriptures. The Dead Sea Scrolls, discovered in 1947, have a few minor differences, but they are remarkably similar to the accepted Hebrew Scriptures we have today." This is nothing more than yet another anti-Catholic thread disguised as a "history lesson." For starters the terms "Christian Canon" vs. "Catholic Canon" are based in ignorance. Catholics were the very FIRST Christians. Protestant Christians came about 1500 years later. A more correct terminology would be the "Protestant Canon" vs. "Catholic Canon." Protestants got their Canon of Scripture from the Catholic Church who declared it under the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the 4th century. After deleting 7 Books, they also deleted portions of Daniel and Esther. The Protestant Fathers ALSO debated the deletion of Books such as James, Hebrews, Jude and Revelation. Had it not been for the fact that some Protestant Fathers fought against this - YOUR Bible woul;d have been a LOT smaller. the ONLY suthority the Protestants had for deleting the 7 Books from the OT - Books that Jesus and the NT writers studied from - was a POST Christ, POST Temple Rabbinical school. The books were deleted AFTER Jesus ascended and AFTER the destruction of the Temple because of the influence they were having on the conversion of the Diaspora (Dispersed Jews). We Catholics adhere to othe SAME Canon that Jesus and the NT writers studied from and referenced over 150 times in the NT. You Protestants, on the other hand, accepted the POST Christ, POST Temple Rabbinical Canon that was edited without proper authority. Them's the facts . . .PS - If you had done your homework properly, you would have mentioned the fact that the Dead Sea Scrolls contained the 7 Books that you guys deleted . . . Edited December 19, 2016 by RealPresence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whatdoIwant2callmyself Posted December 19, 2016 Group: Junior Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 5 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 187 Content Per Day: 0.07 Reputation: 128 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/12/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted December 19, 2016 2 hours ago, TheMatrixHasU71 said: UN-RE-LI-A-BLE since they are not the originals and likely not even close. If we go by that standard then the entire Bible can be called into question because the autographs themselves, the original writings from which the 66 books, or 72 books, are gleaned were not used to create today's Bible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SavedOnebyGrace Posted December 19, 2016 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 11 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 4,056 Content Per Day: 15.13 Reputation: 5,191 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/30/2023 Status: Offline Author Share Posted December 19, 2016 2 hours ago, TheMatrixHasU71 said: Very simple. Because, take, for example, the book of Enoch. Enoch was purely passed down by oral tradition since Enoch lived before the invention of writing. Therefore any copies that exist are completely unreliable because something that is written down only centuries after the fact cannot be trustworthy. YES I am aware that the bible quotes a few of these books. But the Spirit directed these men to quote only the passages that can be relied on as truthful. I am not spreading lies or 'switching' anything. I am speaking the truth. There may be such books in existence today but nothing even approaching the originals of these works exists today so you cannot trust that what you have is even close to what the originals contained. As whatdoIwant2callmyself said above, this line of reasoning questions the whole Bible and by extension, Christianity itself. Is that what you're trying to do here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMatrixHasU71 Posted December 22, 2016 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 21 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,573 Content Per Day: 0.51 Reputation: 723 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/10/2015 Status: Offline Share Posted December 22, 2016 On 12/19/2016 at 3:28 PM, whatdoIwant2callmyself said: If we go by that standard then the entire Bible can be called into question because the autographs themselves, the original writings from which the 66 books, or 72 books, are gleaned were not used to create today's Bible. The Nicean Council would still have had access to the original autographs which would not have decayed to dust by then. And there were other sources too used to confirm their veracity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMatrixHasU71 Posted December 22, 2016 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 21 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,573 Content Per Day: 0.51 Reputation: 723 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/10/2015 Status: Offline Share Posted December 22, 2016 On 12/19/2016 at 3:44 PM, Saved.One.by.Grace said: As whatdoIwant2callmyself said above, this line of reasoning questions the whole Bible and by extension, Christianity itself. Is that what you're trying to do here? Not at all. Don't know what you are trying to do here but books that were written only centuries or longer after the fact cannot be relied upon as being accurate. Every single gospel and epistle save for Revelation was written before AD 70. The fact alone that none of them mention the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 is yet one proof alone of that fact Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMatrixHasU71 Posted December 22, 2016 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 21 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,573 Content Per Day: 0.51 Reputation: 723 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/10/2015 Status: Offline Share Posted December 22, 2016 On 12/19/2016 at 3:02 PM, RealPresence said: This is nothing more than yet another anti-Catholic thread disguised as a "history lesson." For starters the terms "Christian Canon" vs. "Catholic Canon" are based in ignorance. Catholics were the very FIRST Christians. Protestant Christians came about 1500 years later. A more correct terminology would be the "Protestant Canon" vs. "Catholic Canon." Protestants got their Canon of Scripture from the Catholic Church who declared it under the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the 4th century. After deleting 7 Books, they also deleted portions of Daniel and Esther. The Protestant Fathers ALSO debated the deletion of Books such as James, Hebrews, Jude and Revelation. Had it not been for the fact that some Protestant Fathers fought against this - YOUR Bible woul;d have been a LOT smaller. the ONLY suthority the Protestants had for deleting the 7 Books from the OT - Books that Jesus and the NT writers studied from - was a POST Christ, POST Temple Rabbinical school. The books were deleted AFTER Jesus ascended and AFTER the destruction of the Temple because of the influence they were having on the conversion of the Diaspora (Dispersed Jews). We Catholics adhere to othe SAME Canon that Jesus and the NT writers studied from and referenced over 150 times in the NT. You Protestants, on the other hand, accepted the POST Christ, POST Temple Rabbinical Canon that was edited without proper authority. Them's the facts . . .PS - If you had done your homework properly, you would have mentioned the fact that the Dead Sea Scrolls contained the 7 Books that you guys deleted . . . Again yet another one who gives glory to fallible sinful men over God. GOD ALONE gave us the canon, don't know how many times I can repeat that, using men to do His will. This was not the will of men but God alone. And if you tried to read real history instead of the rewritten Catholic nonsense (1984 sound familiar to you?) You would understand why those books that were deleted were left out. The portion of "Daniel" and "Esther" that got deleted couldn't be proven to be part of the original texts!! You said ****Had it not been for the fact that some Protestant Fathers fought against this - YOUR Bible woul;d have been a LOT smaller.**** WRONG. Had it not been for GOD knocking some sense into these men, then our bible would have been smaller. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SavedOnebyGrace Posted December 22, 2016 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 11 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 4,056 Content Per Day: 15.13 Reputation: 5,191 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/30/2023 Status: Offline Author Share Posted December 22, 2016 10 minutes ago, TheMatrixHasU71 said: Not at all. Don't know what you are trying to do here but books that were written only centuries or longer after the fact cannot be relied upon as being accurate. Every single gospel and epistle save for Revelation was written before AD 70. The fact alone that none of them mention the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 is yet one proof alone of that fact I am specifically talking about books already in existence, written about and quoted from in both the Old and New Testaments. That's a fact you cannot deny unless you believe in a revisionist history. Revelation was written about 94 AD. The earlier date you quote is so people can support the false doctrines being preached regarding the End Times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts