ANSWERING "IRREFUTABLE QUESTIONS" from bible.con

Enoch111 · Aug 30, 2018

Willie T said:
Protestant Bibles? Is that maybe, the KJV?

Yes. Among other Protestant Bibles of the Reformation. Also all modern versions (other than Catholic Bibles) follow the same canon of Scripture as the KJV -- 66 books.

We need to be clear that the canon of Scripture was established by God through men. The Hebrew canon has just 24 books, all of which correspond to the Protestant OT (where a few of those books have been split to make a total of 39 books). 39 OT books +27 NT books = 66 books.

It is Jesus Himself who put His stamp of authority on the the Law (Torah) which is 5 books, the Prophets (Nebiim) which are 8 books, and the Psalms (Kethubim) which are 11 books. A total of 24 books. That automatically excludes the so-called Deuterocanonical (apocryphal) books in Catholic Bibles.

The Catholic Church makes all kinds of claims about its faithfulness and authority, but at every turn we see the traditions of men trumping the Word of God.

Willie T · Aug 30, 2018

Enoch111 said:
Yes. Among other Protestant Bibles of the Reformation. Also all modern versions (other than Catholic Bibles) follow the same canon of Scripture as the KJV -- 66 books.

We need to be clear that the canon of Scripture was established by God through men. The Hebrew canon has just 24 books, all of which correspond to the Protestant OT (where a few of those books have been split to make a total of 39 books). 39 OT books +27 NT books = 66 books.

It is Jesus Himself who put His stamp of authority on the the Law (Torah) which is 5 books, the Prophets (Nebiim) which are 8 books, and the Psalms (Kethubim) which are 11 books. A total of 24 books. That automatically excludes the so-called Deuterocanonical (apocryphal) books in Catholic Bibles.

The Catholic Church makes all kinds of claims about its faithfulness and authority, but at every turn we see the traditions of men trumping the Word of God.

Did you know that all English translations of the Bible printed in the sixteenth century included a section or appendix for Apocryphal books? Matthew's Bible, published in 1537, contains all the Apocrypha of the later King James Version 1611, in an inter-testamental section.

The 1538 Myles Coverdale Bible contained an Apocrypha that excluded Baruch and the Prayer of Manasseh. The 1560 Geneva Bible placed the Prayer of Manasseh after 2 Chronicles; the rest of the Apocrypha were placed in an inter-testamental section.

The Douay-Rheims Bible (1582–1609) placed the Prayer of Manasseh and 3 and 4 Esdras into an Appendix of the second volume of the Old Testament.

The apocrypha was a part of the KJV for 274 years until being removed in 1885 A.D. (That's only a little over a hundred years ago..... Some of our grandparents were likely raised on those Bibles... since they didn't buy a new one every year in those days. We might even find one or two of them in our relative's attics somewhere.)

Enoch111 · Aug 30, 2018

Willie T said:
Did you know that all English translations of the Bible printed in the sixteenth century included a section or appendix for Apocryphal books?

Those books were always kept separate from the OT and NT even though they were present. In Catholic Bibles and additional seven are INCLUDED in the OT. Big difference. Indeed Coverdale (and KJV) clearly identify the Apocrypha as the Apocrypha.

epostle1 · Aug 30, 2018

Benjamin Calvary said:
Men's commentaries are only of so little use.

The answer is in the text itself. Would you like to see?

What I would like to see is a 66 book Biblical codex before the 14th century. Find that and I will forever shut up. That means identifying the years it existed up to the 14th century. Your only defense is to change the subject or distort history. #2 video tries to discredit Justin Martyr using Josephus.

"...Vespasian commissioned Josephus to write a history of the war, which he finished in 78 C.E.

Justin was tried, together with six companions, by Junius Rusticus, who was urban prefect from 163-167, and was beheaded.

That's an 85-89 year span between the time Josephus wrote and the maryrdom of Justin Martyr. Please check my math.

Justin Martyr was a teacher BEFORE becoming a Christian, not the other way around. He was the first early church Christian to identify the 4 gospels as a group.

epostle1 · Aug 30, 2018

Benjamin Calvary said:
7. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation. ..." - bro. Sam Gipp - The Answer Book by Samuel C. Gipp | Evangelist Samuel C. Gipp, Th.D. | A Friend to Churches Ministries

As for the amount of 'books' in the whole of scripture as we now have them in the KJB, we can know that ther are 66 books:

You refuse to admit a 66 book Bible did not exist before the 14th century. You are stumped. Your are just reinforcing 16th century walls and divisions. Catholics don't care if your Bibles are sknnier. Asking you to not care if our Bibles are bigger is too much to ask???
I don't play SDA numerology games.
Why all of a sudden do you bring up showbread? I don't mind following your rabbit trail. I don't do this often but...

Bread of the Presence

epostle1 · Aug 31, 2018

Benjamin Calvary said: ↑

7. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation. ..." -

Matt. 24:15 – the “desolating sacrilege” Jesus refers to is also taken from 1 Macc. 1:54 and 2 Macc. 8:17.

Matt. 24:16 – let those “flee to the mountains” is taken from 1 Macc. 2:28.

Luke 24:4 and Acts 1:10 – Luke’s description of the two men in dazzling apparel reminds us of 2 Macc. 3:26.

Acts 1:15 – Luke’s reference to the 120 may be a reference to 1 Macc. 3:55 – leaders of tens / restoration of the twelve.

1 Cor. 15:29 – if no expectation of resurrection, it would be foolish to be baptized on their behalf follows 2 Macc. 12:43-45.

1 Tim. 6:15 – Paul’s description of God as Sovereign and King of kings is from 2 Macc. 12:15; 13:4.

Rev. 11:19 – the vision of the ark of the covenant (Mary) in a cloud of glory was prophesied in 2 Macc. 2:7.

Rev. 17:14 – description of God as King of kings follows 2 Macc. 13:4.

Rev. 19:11 – the description of the Lord on a white horse in the heavens follows 2 Macc. 3:25; 11:8.

Rev. 19:16 – description of our Lord as King of kings is taken from 2 Macc. 13:4.

The Protestants attempt to defend their rejection of the deuterocanonicals on the ground that the early Jews rejected them. However, the Jewish councils that rejected them (e.g., School of Javneh (also called “Jamnia” in 90 – 100 A.D.) were the same councils that rejected the entire New Testatment canon. Thus, Protestants who reject the Catholic Bible are following a Jewish council that rejected Christ and the Revelation of the New Testament.

If you want to see the rest of the list for the other 5 books: DEUTEROCANONICAL BOOKS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT - Scripture Catholic

epostle1 · Aug 31, 2018

The Answer Book by Samuel C. Gipp | Evangelist Samuel C. Gipp, Th.D. | A Friend to Churches Ministries

All that and you think these fundamentalist baptists have told you the truth about Maccabees? Of course you do. You cannot think for yourself.

epostle1 · Aug 31, 2018

Flooding is a common tactic with certain bible cults. They bury a post or two that they have no answer to.

I've answered the first 10 questions, I didn't expect funnymentalists to swarm it.

bible.con is a non-denominational loosely knit collection of "sister churches" with a hybrid theology of SDA, KKK, Jack Chick, etc. They boast of no ecclesiology. I suspect it is an internet church, and nothing more. As I was studying the site I keep seeing familiar arguments from who-ever-they-are, posted in the board. What is needed is an online reference that exposes its garbage.
Unless asked, I wont be answering the other 19 questions, they are as stupid as the first 10.

Reggie Belafonte · Aug 31, 2018

Hey epostle1 why do you have a Remphan Star, let alone with a Cross in it.

Acts 7:43 St Stephen points out what this truly is, I do not know why people nowadays look up to such.

I also believe that the Cross is totally worthless unless we have Jesus on it, the Cross on it's own going back to it's beginning is not a good thing at all I believe and that the only thing that makes it what it represent is Jesus, that's the whole point is it not.

Jane_Doe22 · Aug 31, 2018

epostle1 said:
Irrefutable questions that Roman Catholics can't answer

I believe that it is a Christian duty to love each other and to always be truth. As such, it makes me really sad to see a Christian site doing a smear campaign like the one in the link. @epostle1 , and all the other Catholic posters, my heart goes out to you for this.

Enoch111 · Aug 31, 2018

Jane_Doe22 said:
I believe that it is a Christian duty to love each other and to always be truth. As such, it makes me really sad to see a Christian site doing a smear campaign like the one in the link. @epostle1 , and all the other Catholic posters, my heart goes out to you for this.

Genuine love includes the truth, since grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. And the truth is that those who are presently within the Catholic Church must come out of her and be separate. Just the sexual abuse scandal should be enough, but what is behind that scandal is a phony priesthood and a phony clerical hierarchy. Phony because it is not supported by the New Testament.

What you call a "smear campaign" is simply exposing the lies which the CC has promoted for a very long time. Those in the CC should be willing to take a good hard look at what this religious system has been doing for hundreds of years, examine it in the light of Scripture, and then depart from the CC. Perhaps you should read Fifty Years in the Church of Rome by (former) Father Charles Chiniquy. That is exactly what he did.

Please note from chapter 13:
"...But how shall I relate my surprise when I discovered that, in order to accept the principles of the theologians which my Church gave me for guides I had to put away all principles of truth, of justice, of honour and holiness! What long and painful efforts it cost me to extinguish, one by one, the lights of truth and of reason kindled by the hand of my merciful God in my intelligence. For to study theology in the Church of Rome signifies to learn to speak falsely, to deceive, to commit robbery, to perjure one's self! It means how to commit sins without shame, it means to plunge the soul into every kind of iniquity and turpitude without remorse!

I know that Roman Catholics will bravely and squarely deny what I now say. I am aware also that a great many Protestants, too easily deceived by the fine whitewashing of the exterior walls of Rome, will refuse to believe me. Nevertheless they may rest assured it is true, and my proof will be irrefutable..."

Philip James · Aug 31, 2018

Enoch111 said:
Genuine love includes the truth, since grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. And the truth is that those who are presently within the Catholic Church must come out of her and be separate

They went out from us, but they were not really of our number; if they had been, they would have remained with us. Their desertion shows that none of them was of our number.

Pax!

Jane_Doe22 · Aug 31, 2018

Enoch111 said:
Genuine love includes the truth, since grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. And the truth is that those who are presently within the Catholic Church must come out of her and be separate. Just the sexual abuse scandal should be enough, but what is behind that scandal is a phony priesthood and a phony clerical hierarchy. Phony because it is not supported by the New Testament.

If you believe your faith to be supiour to Catholics, I would invite you to show them Truth by your actions and words- let your light shine. No need to rely on attacking, name calling, or smear campaigns.

I have studied Catholicism for many years, and attended more Catholic events than I can count. No, I am not Catholic, and have major theological disagreements with some Catholic doctrines. But still I will acknowledge their real relationship with Christ, and the many good things about their faith. If one of them wants to know more about what I believe, I'm always open to questions. And regardless I shall keep singing "Joy to the World" along side Catholics and all other Christians.

Willie T · Sep 1, 2018

Enoch111 said:
Those books were always kept separate from the OT and NT even though they were present. In Catholic Bibles and additional seven are INCLUDED in the OT. Big difference. Indeed Coverdale (and KJV) clearly identify the Apocrypha as the Apocrypha.

Many Bibles also tell us the story of the woman caught in adultery was not originally included. Does that change anything when we read it, since it is also within the black leather covers of our sacred book?

bbyrd009 · Sep 1, 2018

Jane_Doe22 said:
If you believe your faith to be supiour to Catholics, I would invite you to show them Truth by your actions and words- let your light shine. No need to rely on attacking, name calling, or smear campaigns.

I have studied Catholicism for many years, and attended more Catholic events than I can count. No, I am not Catholic, and have major theological disagreements with some Catholic doctrines. But still I will acknowledge their real relationship with Christ, and the many good things about their faith. If one of them wants to know more about what I believe, I'm always open to questions. And regardless I shall keep singing "Joy to the World" along side Catholics and all other Christians.

BreadOfLife · Sep 1, 2018

Enoch111 said:
Actually Christ eliminated those books long before Protestants. See Luke 24. Protestants were simply trying to hold to the true Bible, and the Hebrew Tanakh (the Hebrew Bible used by Jesus of Nazareth) eliminated all of the apocryphal books.

Ummmmmmm . . . HOW did Jesus "eliminate" the Deuterocanonical Books in Luke 24??
This is without a doubt - the most inane claim I have heard on the subject.

I can't WAIT to read your answer . . .

Enoch111 · Sep 1, 2018

BreadOfLife said:
Ummmmmmm . . . HOW did Jesus "eliminate" the Deuterocanonical Books in Luke 24??
This is without a doubt - the most inane claim I have heard on the subject.

I can't WAIT to read your answer . . .

Very simple. Jesus deliberately limited "THE SCRIPTURES" to (1) the Law of Moses, (2) the Prophets, and (3) the Psalms.

And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in [1] the law of Moses, and in [2] the prophets, and in [3] the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures...(Luke 24:44,45)

Within the Hebrew Tanakh (our Old Testament) there are three major divisions, and they TOTALLY EXCLUDE any books not found in Protestant Bibles.

I TORAH = the Law of Moses = the first five books of the Bible

II NEBIIM (NEVIIM) = the Prophets = 8 books

III KETHUBIM (KETUVIM) = the Psalms = 11 books

TOTAL = 24 books = 39 books in the OT

Willie T · Sep 2, 2018

Enoch111 said:
Very simple. Jesus deliberately limited "THE SCRIPTURES" to (1) the Law of Moses, (2) the Prophets, and (3) the Psalms.

And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in [1] the law of Moses, and in [2] the prophets, and in [3] the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures...(Luke 24:44,45)

Within the Hebrew Tanakh (our Old Testament) there are three major divisions, and they TOTALLY EXCLUDE any books not found in Protestant Bibles.

I TORAH = the Law of Moses = the first five books of the Bible

II NEBIIM (NEVIIM) = the Prophets = 8 books

III KETHUBIM (KETUVIM) = the Psalms = 11 books

TOTAL = 24 books = 39 books in the OT

You have a good point, Enoch. Jesus could not have possibly ever referred to books that had not even been penned yet.

BreadOfLife · Sep 2, 2018

Enoch111 said:
Very simple. Jesus deliberately limited "THE SCRIPTURES" to (1) the Law of Moses, (2) the Prophets, and (3) the Psalms.

And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in [1] the law of Moses, and in [2] the prophets, and in [3] the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures...(Luke 24:44,45)

Within the Hebrew Tanakh (our Old Testament) there are three major divisions, and they TOTALLY EXCLUDE any books not found in Protestant Bibles.

I TORAH = the Law of Moses = the first five books of the Bible

II NEBIIM (NEVIIM) = the Prophets = 8 books

III KETHUBIM (KETUVIM) = the Psalms = 11 books

TOTAL = 24 books = 39 books in the OT

Jesus didn't "limit" anything in Luke 24. He was speaking in GENERAL terms - not absolutes.
Besides - your math DOESN'T add up.

Since when does 24 = 39?? You STILL have a discrepancy of 15 Books in your Protestant count. Books like Job are not considered the Law or the Psalms or the Prophets. By YOUR bizarre logic - the Book of Job has NO business being in the OT canon.

Get real . . .

BreadOfLife · Sep 2, 2018

Willie T said:
You have a good point, Enoch. Jesus could not have possibly ever referred to books that had not even been penned yet.

Are you actually claiming that the Deuterocanonical Books had NOT been penned before Jesus spoke in Luke 24??

ANSWERING "IRREFUTABLE QUESTIONS" from bible.con

Well-Known Member

Heaven Sent

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Heaven Sent

Groper

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Heaven Sent

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads