The "Apocrypha": Why It's Part of the Bible

Biblical Evidence for Catholicism ^ | Friday, November 10, 2006 | Dave Armstrong

[redleghunter]

No I did not make that claim. I posted the Hebrews reference and said the historical context was derived from the names and periods mentioned at the beginning of the passage.

I am sorry dangus, the only one stretching data here is you. I have pointed out several times none of your claims can be substantiated from the Apocrypha. There was nothing “precisely” presented from the Apocrypha in your arguments.

[OldNewYork]

Ah, I see. I can listen to opposing views without being insulted, so it would still be interesting for me to have a look at it.

[MarkBsnr]

I respect the RM as well. My offending posts were pulled. Notice how much objection I have put up.

[daniel1212]

Thanks for the work. i wanted to go thru all this, but time, energy.

Note that Tobit is quite a tale, with a a women, Sarah, who has lost seven husbands because Asmodeus, the demon of lust, and ‘the worst of demons’, abducts and kills every man she marries on their wedding night before the marriage can be consummated! The women at the well had nothing on her.

And a man, Tobias, who was sleeping with his eyes open while birds dropped dung into in his eyes (sound sleeper!) and blinded him. And who later is attacked by a fish leaping out of the river to devour him. But Raphael has him capture it and later he burns the fish’s liver and heart to drive away the demon Asmodeus away to Upper Egypt, enabling him and Sarah to consummate his marriage.

[daniel1212]

The other side of the account can be seen here .

[daniel1212]

How dare you!

[GeronL]

Always good to see more than one side

[daniel1212]

I would suggest before you post any more parroted polemics using Luther, be aware many lack documentation or are like atheists using words of Scripture out of context (Paul called the Cretans gluttons and liars!) do some research such as here first.

Not that this excuses things Luther should not have said, but which is of no consequence to us, as unlike RCs, we do not follow men as popes.

However, if you want to invoke Luther and the Jews regarding his latter exasperated negativity,

then do the same with some of your

“The Popes Against the Jews,” Part 1

The Popes Against the Jews, Part 2: Roman Catholic Defenses and the Evasion of Responsibility Listen to this article. Powered by Odiogo.com

The Popes Against the Jews, Part 3: Positing the “Big Lie,” and getting people to believe it. Listen to this article. Powered by Odiogo.com

The Popes Against the Jews, Part 4: Church Councils Against the Jews Listen to this article. Powered by Odiogo.com

The Popes Against the Jews, Part 5: “You will recognize them by their fruits.” Listen to this article. Powered by Odiogo.com

The Popes Against the Jews, Part 6: The Show So Far Listen to this article. Powered by Odiogo.com

[narses]

[OldNewYork]

Interesting to consider, thanks for the link. It’s a bit beyond my depth and it seems to be attempting to repudiate some onus assumed in Catholics toward Lutherans or other Protestants, which I don’t think I really have. I think the argument could go back and forth though, pointing out fallibility in the other but ignoring it in the self. Someone said something about motes and beams once, if I remember correctly. I remember hearing about the Torah or Pentateuch being the first five books of the Bible, and most important to Jews, which isn’t to say the other books of the Old Testament aren’t important to them. Interesting about the Book of Esther, and also interesting learning that Revelations wasn’t considered canonical in every list, so thanks for the information to ponder at some time when I have that luxury.

[Elsie]

Yup; that’s foot sized all right!

[Elsie]

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

I'm a month late to this party, and have NO idea what has already been 'discussed'; for this thread fell into the Swiss Cheese Machine!

IE - tain't nuttin' to re-visit, or much of anything else; either!

[Elsie]

I am really not interested in inflammatory comic tracts or pictures.

Oh!

Now I'm pretty sure of just what 'NAME' is being vaguely referred to!

[Elsie]

And we ALL know who that was.

I only know by hearsay; so my testimony is inadmissible in court.

[Elsie]

Certain cereal pictures are NOT inflammatory!

[Elsie]

Well, you thought you were a “non-denominational Christian” but apparently to someone in this thread you must be a liberal or Catholic.

I had gotten that idea from somewhere and have spread it around a bit.

Sorry, Jim, for spreading wrong information about you.

[Elsie]

Think up insults that actually apply!

Like...

[Elsie]

If you want to start a thread on Enoch and works based salvation please do so.

And tick off the MORMONS???

[Elsie]

by narses (... unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.)

 

  To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:

   Greetings.

 ²⁴ We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. ²⁵ So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— ²⁶ men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. ²⁷ Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. ²⁸ It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: ²⁹ You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.

   Farewell.

[Elsie]

It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us ...

Us = Early Church Fathers: CATHOLICS if you believe the story...