Posted on 10/08/2014 5:36:44 PM PDT by Gamecock
pong
Is it true that the smoke from a fish's heart, when burned, drives away evil spirits? Of course not. Such a superstitious teaching has no place in the word of God.
The response is, is it true that water and a blessing can wash away the sins committed by a man? That sounds like magic, too, if you go by this guy's logic.
“the Son of man has power on earth to forgive sins”
Nope. That's wrong too.
It is identification only
There are lots of apparent contradictions in many books of the Bible; atheists and skeptics have been pointing those out for years. Actually, those are the sorts of things that Bible scholars write entire books about.
So as we Christians debate about the number of angels dancing on the head of pins, radical Islam is spreading their vile theology around the world. Please let us unite.
God bless
The early Church fathers included these books at the same time as they included the rest of the Old Testament. They stayed there until Luther decided that they did not fit his world view and he excluded them. He went back to a set of OT scriptures established in I think about 400 AD. So he relied on a bunch of Jewish scholars instead of the men who were basically the grandchildren of the apostles.
The Progressive Liebral breed would ask if the fish felt any pain as its heart was bbqed,, must take alot of fish hearts to make a meal.
Makes me wonder if a smelt cries as it deep fries
I agree,, can you identify with it?
We haven’t had any great enlightenments in a long time, oh well.
Did I miss something? Is there some band of evil Catholics somewhere that is trying to force the writer to accept these parts of the Catholic Bible?
Airborne Omega-3,, ingested in smoke and fumes.?? Ever inhale a lot of bacon smoke?? Lol
Look, if you Westerners not in communion with Rome, whether you call yourselves Protestants, “Biblical Christians” or whatever, want to debate the status of the books occurring in the LXX but not the Masorete amongst yourselves on the basis of the hypothesis that the Scriptures are a Christian Qu’ran (that’s what “inerrancy” with the strong notion of divine inspiration popular among advocates of the “inerrancy of the Bible” amounts to) that’s fine and well for you. But, stop with the rubbish about “officially accepted by the Roman Catholic Church in 1546 as being inspired.”
The Latins at Trent merely reiterated the content of the Canon of Scripture that they, in common with us Orthodox Christians, had held from long before their schism from the Church (commonly dated to 1054, though one can argue for 1009, or, as an Antiochian Orthodox Christian, I could argue for 1098 when the Crusaders forcibly replaced the Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch who had still been in communion with Rome, the unpleasantness between Rome and Constantinople.)
The books you and the article object to are in the list of the Canon of Scripture given by the Council of Carthage in 397, which was given ecumenical force by the disciplinary session of the Sixth Ecumenical Council (which the Latins call the “Trullan Synod” or “Quinsext Council”) in 692. (The Latins regard the Council of Carthage as having fixed the Canon on the basis of their ecclesiological theory that an assent by the Pope of Rome gives a council universal force.) The were always in the canon of Scripture, which when bound together in a codex is called The Bible. The fragmentary Old Testament in the Codex Sinaiticus, which manuscript contains the oldest extant complete New Testament, dating to the mid-fourth century (before the Council of Carthage!), includes fragments of most of them.
Please mentally insert the word “notwithstanding” following “Constantinople” in my last post.
(Would that I were a better proofreader!)
How do you know? Have you tried it? Does it make a difference if an emissary of the Great God YHWH tells you so?
“They stayed there until Luther decided that they did not fit his world view and he excluded them.”
More importantly, the canon has been reexamined multiple times since then and the early errors of including these books has been corrected.
Errors and witchcraft/divination rule these books out for a great many believers in Christ. They reach this decision without regard to Luther.
Jesus told a blind man to go wash his eyes with mud. I guess Jesus didn’t get the “no magic” memo.
Duh,,,,, gee yer so smrt.
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.