HMMmmm...
I've heard that this happened...
Posted on 11/29/2012 2:55:12 PM PST by DaveMSmith
Everything in the Old Testament history leads up to the crossing of the Jordan, and yet the way the story is told in Joshua 3 and 4 has major inconsistencies and problems. Is there another way to read it?
Can the Bible be taken literally?
If you love God you should be happy that millions of MORMONs have found peace and that they love their God(s) with all their hearts, all their minds and all their souls.
If you love God you should be happy that millions of MUSLIMs have found peace and that they love ALLAH with all their hearts, all their minds and all their souls.
While on one level, these statements seem to make sense; on another there is a severe disconnect!
Just like that darned ELSIE fella!
--MormonDude(I may not understand EVERYTHING about my chosen religion; but, by golly, it warms my heart in the winter!)
EVERYone says this!
But what comes AFTER that part is going to be the sticking point.
HMMmmm...
I've heard that this happened...
Acts 15:1
Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.”
Genesis 17:9-11
9 Then God said to Abraham, “As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. 10 This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you.
...the way the story is told in Joshua 3 and 4 has major inconsistencies and problems.
Apparently a lot of people have more faith in the RCC than in the BIBLE. I think that's very interesting, you don't, so be it.
Yes - there is a difference between defending yourself from physical attack and robbery and resisting evil.
In MY area of the country; someone slapping you on the cheek IS a physical attack!
Some scripture of ancient origin are found in the Septuagint but are not present in the Hebrew.
These additional books are Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach, Baruch, Letter of Jeremiah (which later became chapter 6 of Baruch in the Vulgate), additions to Daniel (The Prayer of Azarias, the Song of the Three Children, Susanna and Bel and the Dragon), additions to Esther, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees, 1 Esdras, Odes, including the Prayer of Manasseh, the Psalms of Solomon, and Psalm 151.
The canonical acceptance of these books varies among different Christian traditions, and there are canonical books not derived from the Septuagint. For more information regarding these books, see the articles Biblical apocrypha, Biblical canon, Books of the Bible, and Deuterocanonical books.
Even if any new discoveries aren't considered, both books of Maccabees are known to have originally been written in Hebrew and if the criteria is that books be originally written in Hebrew you better toss out the book of Danial along with the rest. I was originally written in Aramaic.
If non-Catholics are honest about applying their professed "Hebrew origin" rationale they should also throw out Danial. Accepting Luther's canon for the Old Testament doesn't make sense unless you also accept his views on the New Testament as well. So, Danial is gone due to not being originally written in Hebrew and Revelation would go for whatever reason Luther didn't like it. What the "Late Great Surrender" folks would preach about without both the book of Danial and the book of Revelation is something really interesting to think about.
So, throw out Danial, add in both books of Maccabees, and you're closer to actually basing things on that oft repeated canard, but there's still the matter of a couple of other books that they now know originated in Hebrew. So at the very least, people have been misled into accepting Danial since Luther and misled into not accepting Maccabees that is valid Scripture. Or, origin in Hebrew wasn't the real reason Luther shed those books from the Bible. Unless, of course, someone wants to argue that Luther was just stupid in which case, why listen to him about anything?
It’s not an out for you. I know there’s nothing in Scripture to support purgatory and you just demonstrated it.
Thank you.
To the thief on the cross...
Luke 23:43 And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.”
There is nothing that Jesus ever said or taught that gives the slightest indication that there is a purgatory. These verses show that when we die we are either with Him or not.
Just like with the rich man and Lazarus.
Jesus never indicated that we had to pay for our own sins. HE is the One who saves.
Do you turn the other cheek, duck, hit back?
This is the key question behind the rancor on the Religion Forum; if holding only the "right" version and interpretation of God's Word is necessary for Salvation, how does that make us different than the Gnostics? Does that mean that, in spite of years of devotion to a particular belief system, whether Catholic, Protestant, Jew or other, one finds just the right bit of knowledge in my studies today or this week, or next year that had I died before that discovery I would have gone to hell? How does any of that square with Luke 23:34?
Peace be with you.
LOL
I’m not looking for an out and you being in error is of no consequence to me in any way.
Scripture says that nothing unclean can enter heaven. The Church has never issued a dogmatic decree on Purgatory, but it does address the mystery of the final purification or purgation of those who died needing cleansing before entry into heaven. It is a process, without time or place, where the atonement of Christ on the Cross washes away our sins. Protestants describe and call it something different, but trust in it just as much as we Catholics do. How do you describe how OSAS works and how is that fundamentally different that what Catholics call Purgatory?
Peace be with you.
Here is some good information
In Search of Jewish Greek Scriptures:
Exposing the Obvious?
by Robert A. Kraft
(University of Pennsylvania)
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rak//temp/toronto3/report-frame.html
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.