Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The "Apocrypha": Why It's Part of the Bible
Biblical Evidence for Catholicism ^ | Friday, November 10, 2006 | Dave Armstrong

Posted on 10/28/2013 12:50:17 PM PDT by GonzoII

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 161-180 next last
Comment #101 Removed by Moderator

Comment #102 Removed by Moderator

Comment #103 Removed by Moderator

Comment #104 Removed by Moderator

To: redleghunter

Go for it. Anything Catholic are you?


105 posted on 10/29/2013 4:13:14 PM PDT by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

Comment #106 Removed by Moderator

To: roamer_1

“Oh yeah. ME TOO. Funny how the liberals and the Roman church have to hide behind that ‘hate’ label.”

So, is FR run by liberals or the Roman Church?


107 posted on 10/29/2013 4:25:57 PM PDT by vladimir998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

Comment #108 Removed by Moderator

To: vladimir998; Jim Robinson

I’m sure that Jim would have certain opinions on that. I’ve asked him in the past if FR is substantially influenced by the Catholic Faith, and he indicated then that it wasn’t.


109 posted on 10/29/2013 5:03:18 PM PDT by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

Comment #110 Removed by Moderator

To: vladimir998

FR is run by a non-denominational Christian. I’m a believer but don’t belong to any organized religion.


111 posted on 10/29/2013 5:11:35 PM PDT by Jim Robinson (Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998

You were the poster who brought up his name. You used his name as a broad sweep against Christians. Please revisit your post.


112 posted on 10/29/2013 5:14:14 PM PDT by redleghunter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

Comment #113 Removed by Moderator

To: redleghunter

He stuck with the historical sequence of the patriarchs.


114 posted on 10/29/2013 5:23:22 PM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr

It is interesting a Roman Catholic brought up the “name that shall not be mentioned.” I responded. I responded based on “he who shall not be named” was used to broad brush Prots.

It is amazing just bringing up the name does on this forum (which initially I did not).

I am really not interested in inflammatory comic tracts or pictures. There are some who are and they are in your caucus. So please clean your side up.

I respect the RM rules. So should your caucus. “He who shall not be named” is banned those are the rules therefore all need to obey.


115 posted on 10/29/2013 5:27:05 PM PDT by redleghunter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr

There it is again. Smugness has its comfort.


116 posted on 10/29/2013 5:29:24 PM PDT by redleghunter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: dangus

Please explain.


117 posted on 10/29/2013 5:30:43 PM PDT by redleghunter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: redleghunter; MarkBsnr

This is a prime example of “baiting” the other side, IMO. Bringing up that name is done for one reason only: to lob insults in an attempt to start a war. The person who lobbed it first should be ashamed. And we ALL know who that was.


118 posted on 10/29/2013 5:33:09 PM PDT by smvoice (HELP! I'm trapped inside this body and I can't get out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: redleghunter

Abel.. Enoch... Noah... Abraham: In 3 of 4 cases, Genesis has the most info about the guy. So in 3 of 4 cases, Paul cites Genesis. There’s no reason to assume any other reason. Genesis certainly would make his point about Enoch, since it declares he was deemed righteous by God (although this directly contradicts Calvinism’s doctrine of Total depravity). But he doesn’t cite Genesis; he instead adds a detail about Enoch not made clear in Genesis. Why? Because in this 1 case, there as a bible book that had more than Genesis.


119 posted on 10/29/2013 5:59:30 PM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: redleghunter

120 posted on 10/29/2013 6:15:31 PM PDT by narses (... unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 161-180 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson