What does Our Savior consider Idolatry

[bbyrd009]

well i guess "hidden" is also an acceptable definition, BoL.

i just cannot describe how surreal it is to volunteer all morning with Catholic Charities, and then come here and read your utterly sad reflection of Catholicism. Why do you seek enemies?

 

[bbyrd009]

Pay attention bbyrd.

FHII was claiming to believe that these Books are inspired - while referring to them as "Apocrypha". This is a contradiction in terms.
It's what most people would refer to as an "oxymoron."

hidden can't be inspired?

 

[bbyrd009]

This is a contradiction in terms.

i see that to you it is, and i might even refrain from using the term among Catholics in the future, but tbh i've tested the term on about 5 Catholics in the last day and none of them even blinked

 

[BreadOfLife]

i see that to you it is, and i might even refrain from using the term among Catholics in the future, but tbh i've tested the term on about 5 Catholics in the last day and none of them even blinked

Did it ever occur to you that those 5 Catholics were just as ignorant of the fact that these Books are not apocryphal as most Protestants?

Funny thing about lies. You tell them long enoguh and most people start to believe in them.

 

[BreadOfLife]

hidden can't be inspired?

No.

Scripture is the REVEALED written Word of God.
It's not "hidden".

 

[bbyrd009]

Did it ever occur to you that those 5 Catholics were just as ignorant of the fact that these Books are not apocryphal as most Protestants?

Funny thing about lies. You tell them long enoguh and most people start to believe in them.

well, we are talking priests and directors here, but there still might be reasons they just declined to debate the matter, i guess.

I'm trying to perceive this in the light of the many definitions that have changed that drive me nuts, too; but i am having difficulty, because for instance "nation" can easily be shown to be a people, whereas "country" is basically a corporation that usually contains many nations...but Apocrypha has always meant "hidden" to me, and i have only ever seen "deuterocanonical" written, never spoken.

 

[bbyrd009]

No.

Scripture is the REVEALED written Word of God.
It's not "hidden".

ha well the argument against that writes itself though, doesn't it.
It is all about perspective, is what i am hearing

 

[BreadOfLife]

ha well the argument against that writes itself though, doesn't it.
It is all about perspective, is what i am hearing

No - that's a relativist cop-out.
Scripture isn't about a person's perspective. It's the Word of God - whether a person believes it to be or not.

 

[bbyrd009]

No - that's a relativist cop-out.
Scripture isn't about a person's perspective. It's the Word of God - whether a person believes it to be or not.

well BoL, hang on to that as long as it serves you ok; i believed it for 54 years myself. Have a nice aft, gotta run


you're such a lawyer, then prove it!

 

[BreadOfLife]

well, we are talking priests and directors here, but there still might be reasons they just declined to debate the matter, i guess.

I'm trying to perceive this in the light of the many definitions that have changed that drive me nuts, too; but i am having difficulty, because for instance "nation" can easily be shown to be a people, whereas "country" is basically a corporation that usually contains many nations...but Apocrypha has always meant "hidden" to me, and i have only ever seen "deuterocanonical" written, never spoken.

I'll make it easy for you.

If you claim to believe the Deuterocanonical Books to be Scripture and you still refer to them as "apocryphal" works - then you also have to accept uninspired works like the Shepherd of Hermas, The Epistles of Barnabas, the Letter of Clement, The Protoevangelium of James and others as Scripture.

An Apocryphal work by definition is NOT an inspired work.

 

[bbyrd009]

I'll make it easy for you.

If you claim to believe the Deuterocanonical Books to be Scripture and you still refer to them as "apocryphal" works - then you also have to accept uninspired works like the Shepherd of Hermas, The Epistles of Barnabas, the Letter of Clement, The Protoevangelium of James and others as Scripture.

An Apocryphal work by definition is NOT an inspired work.

ya, it's all semantics, seems like, those are often also termed "pseudoepigraphical" or something similar, pseudo-something

 

[bbyrd009]

can't think of any arguments that require ref to a...Deuterocanonical Book, can you

 

[BreadOfLife]

well BoL, hang on to that as long as it serves you ok; i believed it for 54 years myself. Have a nice aft, gotta run

you're such a lawyer, then prove it!

Prove that the Deuterocanonicals are Scripture?
I already HAVE.

- I have presented over 150 direct quotes, references and allusions to these Books in the New Testament, proving that Jesus and the NT wrioters studied from them.
- I have shown that these Books were part of the OPEN Jewish Canon that existed prior to the 2nd century.
- I have presented evidence against the false idea that Jerome rejected these Books as Scripture.

Any court of Law would have already proclaimed these arguments as proof - especially in light of the impotent arguments against it.

 

[BreadOfLife]

ya, it's all semantics, seems like, those are often also termed "pseudoepigraphical" or something similar, pseudo-something

Terms like "Apocryphal" and "pseudoepigraphical" as they pertain to the Deuterocanonicals are simply Protestant denial.

 

[aspen]

Court of law.....

I am sure the Pharasees would love your appeal to the law, BOL

 

[BreadOfLife]

can't think of any arguments that require ref to a...Deuterocanonical Book, can you

Prayers for the dead (2 Macc. 12:43-45), for one . . .

How about where Jesus accepts the inspiration of Maccabees as He analogizes the Hanukkah consecration (John 10:36) to His own consecration to the Father in 1 Macc. 4:36?
How about where Paul (Eph. 6:13-17) got the idea for the "Armor of God" (Wis. 5:17-20)?
How about Paul (Heb 11:35)teaches about the martyrdom of the mother and her sons (2 Macc. 7:1-42)?

 

[BreadOfLife]

Court of law.....

I am sure the Pharasees would love your appeal to the law, BOL

bbyrd was referring to me as a "lawyer", so I was illustrating a courtroom scene.

Pay attention to the conversation . . .

 

[aspen]

Sir! Yes, Sir!

 

[FHII]

Pay attention bbyrd.

FHII was claiming to believe that these Books are inspired - while referring to them as "Apocrypha". This is a contradiction in terms.
It's what most people would refer to as an "oxymoron."

Actually I didn't claim they were inspired. I said that those who compiled the Bible were led by the spirit.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Actually I didn't claim they were inspired. I said that those who compiled the Bible were led by the spirit.

And those who compiled the Bible being led by the Holy Spirit declared the Deuterocanonical Books as inspired.
So, why would you believe PART of what they declared and not ALL of it if they were being led by the Holy Spirit??

Where do you think that the Holy Spirit fell off-track in the process??
Finally - who told YOU that the Deuterocanonical Books were not inspired?