When did the universal Church first mentioned in 110AD stop being universal?

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mungo

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2012
4,332
643
113
England
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
heretoeternity said:
Many scriptures have been quoted to you, but you either cannot read or refuse to acknowledge the Word of God..but do not feel too bad, this is typical of someone indoctrinated by the Roman religious organization and it's cultic manmade pagan traditions, and beliefs in the supremacy of man, instead of the supremacy of God, and His Holy word.
Actually, as I pointed out earlier, I'm the one that keep posting quiotes from scriptures - none of which you can refute (or even respond to). You give very few scripture quotations, and those prove to be worthless.

Nowhere are Christians commanded to keep the Sabbath. If you want to Judaise and keep Jewish festivals then do so but Paul warned you about that.

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel-- not that there is another gospel, but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed. (Gal 1:6-9)
Did Paul preach Sabbath keeping? No

O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified? Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law, or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun with the Spirit, are you now ending with the flesh? (Gal 3:1-3)
Why are you performing works of the law and not living in the Spirit?
 

heretoeternity

New Member
Oct 11, 2014
1,237
39
0
85
Asia/Pacific
Mungo said:
Actually, as I pointed out earlier, I'm the one that keep posting quiotes from scriptures - none of which you can refute (or even respond to). You give very few scripture quotations, and those prove to be worthless.

Nowhere are Christians commanded to keep the Sabbath. If you want to Judaise and keep Jewish festivals then do so but Paul warned you about that.

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel-- not that there is another gospel, but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed. (Gal 1:6-9)
Did Paul preach Sabbath keeping? No

O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified? Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law, or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun with the Spirit, are you now ending with the flesh? (Gal 3:1-3)
Why are you performing works of the law and not living in the Spirit?
Acts 12-19 Paul kept the Sabbath...all the apostles kept the Sabbath, as it is written in stone by God Himself...as the fourth Commandment "remember the Sabbath day to keep it Holy"....it comes right from Creation, Genes 2...God blessed the day, and sanctified it (set it aside for Holy purposes)....it is the most sacred day for real Christians in the Bible....
Pagan Rome has it's man made sungod day of sunday, and fertility goddess day of easter, and its dec 25th thing, in honour of the sun gods..this together with all the statues, make for an entity which many are calling anti christ institution...do you think it should be called antichrist?
 

Mungo

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2012
4,332
643
113
England
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
heretoeternity said:
Acts 12-19 Paul kept the Sabbath...all the apostles kept the Sabbath, as it is written in stone by God Himself...as the fourth Commandment "remember the Sabbath day to keep it Holy"....it comes right from Creation, Genes 2...God blessed the day, and sanctified it (set it aside for Holy purposes)....it is the most sacred day for real Christians in the Bible....
Pagan Rome has it's man made sungod day of sunday, and fertility goddess day of easter, and its dec 25th thing, in honour of the sun gods..this together with all the statues, make for an entity which many are calling anti christ institution...do you think it should be called antichrist?
Nowhere are we told to keep the sabbath. Your vague references are uselss. They prove nothing.

.God never told anyone to keep the sabbath until Exodus 16:23 and you have provided no evidence to the contrary.
 

Mungo

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2012
4,332
643
113
England
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
heretoeternity said:
Many scriptures have been quoted to you, but you either cannot read or refuse to acknowledge the Word of God..but do not feel too bad, this is typical of someone indoctrinated by the Roman religious organization and it's cultic manmade pagan traditions, and beliefs in the supremacy of man, instead of the supremacy of God, and His Holy word.
You are big on words but are unable to back them up.

What are these "cultic manmade pagan traditions" that you speak of?
 

Mungo

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2012
4,332
643
113
England
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
heretoeternity said:
The church of scientology and Roman church have a lot of similiarities..
And what similarities do they have in common?
 

heretoeternity

New Member
Oct 11, 2014
1,237
39
0
85
Asia/Pacific
Mungo said:
heretoeternity,


God didn't createthe sabbath in Gen 2. God gave the sabbath to the Israelites in the desert as a part of the Sinai Covenant..
Sabbath means "rest"...when God created the sabbath day on the seventh day of creation, the Bible says He rested, blessed the day and sanctified it (set it aside for Holy purposes)...there were no Israelites, Hebrews, Gentiles, Jews only non denominational people. That is why when He wrote it on the stone tablets as the fourth commandments He said "Remember" the Sabbath day to keep it Holy, this is to remind them of Creation, and the 7th day He created, Read Genesis 2.
 

Mungo

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2012
4,332
643
113
England
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
heretoeternity said:
Sabbath means "rest"...when God created the sabbath day on the seventh day of creation, the Bible says He rested, blessed the day and sanctified it (set it aside for Holy purposes)...there were no Israelites, Hebrews, Gentiles, Jews only non denominational people. That is why when He wrote it on the stone tablets as the fourth commandments He said "Remember" the Sabbath day to keep it Holy, this is to remind them of Creation, and the 7th day He created, Read Genesis 2.
The word "Shabbat" comes from the root Shin-Beit-Tav, meaning to cease, to end, or to rest.” (Judaism 101)
Whilst Shabbat might be derived from rest it is much more than just resting. It is bnot a synonym for rest. Every time we rest, or cease from work we are not observing Shabbat.

Some points to consider:
1. God rested on the seventh day but scripture does not say he rested every seventh day.

2. There are no instruction in scripture for man to rest every seventh day before Exodus 16, and no evidence that anyone rested on the seventh day before Exodus 16.

3. In Exodus 16: 22-27 the Israelites are clearly unfamiliar with the idea of a Sabbath rest.
“When all the leaders of the community came and reported this to Moses, he told them, “That is what the Lord prescribed. Tomorrow is a day of complete rest, the sabbath, sacred to the Lord. You may either bake or boil the manna, as you please; but whatever is left put away and keep for the morrow.” When they put it away for the morrow, as Moses commanded, it did not become rotten or wormy. Moses then said, “Eat it today, for today is the sabbath of the Lord. On this day you will not find any of it on the ground. On the other six days you can gather it, but on the seventh day, the sabbath, none of it will be there.” Still, on the seventh day some of the people went out to gather it, although they did not find any.”
It was something new to them.

The Sabbath was given to the Israelites in the desert not before then. It was part of their Covenant:
1 And Moses summoned all Israel, and said to them, "Hear, O Israel, the statutes and the ordinances which I speak in your hearing this day, and you shall learn them and be careful to do them.
2 The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb.
3 Not with our fathers did the Lord make this covenant, but with us, who are all of us here alive this day.
4 The Lord spoke with you face to face at the mountain, out of the midst of the fire,
5 while I stood between the Lord and you at that time, to declare to you the word of the LORD; for you were afraid because of the fire, and you did not go up into the mountain. He said:
(Dt 5:1-5)
Then follows (vs 6-21) the Covenant words and then vs 22
22 "These words the Lord spoke to all your assembly at the mountain out of the midst of the fire, the cloud, and the thick darkness, with a loud voice; and he added no more. And he wrote them upon two tables of stone, and gave them to me…….”

As to God blessing the seventh day on which he rested, God blessed many things and made them holy or sacred..
"When you come into the land and plant all kinds of trees for food, then you shall count their fruit as forbidden; three years it shall be forbidden to you, it must not be eaten. And in the fourth year all their fruit shall be holy, an offering of praise to the Lord. But in the fifth year you may eat of their fruit, that they may yield more richly for you: I am the Lord your God”. (Lev 19:23-25)
Do we not eat any fruit of a tree until the fifth year. Do we offer all the fruit of a tree in the fourth year as an offering to God because he made it holy?

God made the day of Atonement holy (Lev 23:23-27). Do you keep the day of Atonement?
 

tom55

Love your neighbor as yourself
Sep 9, 2013
1,199
18
0
Mungo said:
The word "Shabbat" comes from the root Shin-Beit-Tav, meaning to cease, to end, or to rest.” (Judaism 101)
Whilst Shabbat might be derived from rest it is much more than just resting. It is bnot a synonym for rest. Every time we rest, or cease from work we are not observing Shabbat.

Some points to consider:
1. God rested on the seventh day but scripture does not say he rested every seventh day.

2. There are no instruction in scripture for man to rest every seventh day before Exodus 16, and no evidence that anyone rested on the seventh day before Exodus 16.

3. In Exodus 16: 22-27 the Israelites are clearly unfamiliar with the idea of a Sabbath rest.
“When all the leaders of the community came and reported this to Moses, he told them, “That is what the Lord prescribed. Tomorrow is a day of complete rest, the sabbath, sacred to the Lord. You may either bake or boil the manna, as you please; but whatever is left put away and keep for the morrow.” When they put it away for the morrow, as Moses commanded, it did not become rotten or wormy. Moses then said, “Eat it today, for today is the sabbath of the Lord. On this day you will not find any of it on the ground. On the other six days you can gather it, but on the seventh day, the sabbath, none of it will be there.” Still, on the seventh day some of the people went out to gather it, although they did not find any.”
It was something new to them.

The Sabbath was given to the Israelites in the desert not before then. It was part of their Covenant:
1 And Moses summoned all Israel, and said to them, "Hear, O Israel, the statutes and the ordinances which I speak in your hearing this day, and you shall learn them and be careful to do them.
2 The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb.
3 Not with our fathers did the Lord make this covenant, but with us, who are all of us here alive this day.
4 The Lord spoke with you face to face at the mountain, out of the midst of the fire,
5 while I stood between the Lord and you at that time, to declare to you the word of the LORD; for you were afraid because of the fire, and you did not go up into the mountain. He said:
(Dt 5:1-5)
Then follows (vs 6-21) the Covenant words and then vs 22
22 "These words the Lord spoke to all your assembly at the mountain out of the midst of the fire, the cloud, and the thick darkness, with a loud voice; and he added no more. And he wrote them upon two tables of stone, and gave them to me…….”

As to God blessing the seventh day on which he rested, God blessed many things and made them holy or sacred..
"When you come into the land and plant all kinds of trees for food, then you shall count their fruit as forbidden; three years it shall be forbidden to you, it must not be eaten. And in the fourth year all their fruit shall be holy, an offering of praise to the Lord. But in the fifth year you may eat of their fruit, that they may yield more richly for you: I am the Lord your God”. (Lev 19:23-25)
Do we not eat any fruit of a tree until the fifth year. Do we offer all the fruit of a tree in the fourth year as an offering to God because he made it holy?

God made the day of Atonement holy (Lev 23:23-27). Do you keep the day of Atonement?
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts. Prejudice is a great timesaver. It enables you to form opinions without bothering to get facts.
 

heretoeternity

New Member
Oct 11, 2014
1,237
39
0
85
Asia/Pacific
The day of Atonement is the MosaIc, one of the sacrificial system which ended Acts 15, except the four mentioned./
Do you keep it?
The Israelites were in capivity in Egypt for four hundred years, and that is why, when God wrote the ten commandments he put the word in "Remember"
If God makes a day, blesses it and sanctifies it, then and makes it a commandment what makes you think He does not want it kept regularily?
Why do you keep Sunday, the 1st day of the week, and non Biblical day, which is a tradition of man, and not a commandment of God?
Do you think you can earn your salvation by keeping such a day? Do you not know salvation is by grace and repentance?
 

Mungo

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2012
4,332
643
113
England
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
heretoeternity said:
The day of Atonement is the MosaIc, one of the sacrificial system which ended Acts 15, except the four mentioned./
Do you keep it?
You keep trying to split the Law in to two parts. The Law, given to the Israelites in the desert, is one Law. The Law is indivisible
“whoever keeps the whole law, but falls short in one particular, has become guilty in respect to all of it.” (Jas 2:10).
“Cursed be everyone who does not persevere in doing all the things written in the book of the law.” (Gal 3:10)

heretoeternity said:
The Israelites were in capivity in Egypt for four hundred years, and that is why, when God wrote the ten commandments he put the word in "Remember"
If God makes a day, blesses it and sanctifies it, then and makes it a commandment what makes you think He does not want it kept regularily?
Why do you keep Sunday, the 1st day of the week, and non Biblical day, which is a tradition of man, and not a commandment of God?
Do you think you can earn your salvation by keeping such a day? Do you not know salvation is by grace and repentance?

Yes God wanted the Israelites to keep the sabbath regularly because it was their covenant sign.
The Lord said to Moses, “You must also tell the Israelites: Take care to keep my sabbaths, for that is to be the token [sign] between you and me throughout the generations, to show that it is I, the Lord, who make you holy…...
So shall the Israelites observe the sabbath, keeping it throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant. Between me and the Israelites it is to be an everlasting token [sign];
(Ex 31:12-13, 16-17)

Read that again: So shall the Israelites observe the sabbath.
Read that again: Between me and the Israelites

It was a sign between God and the Israelites; not between God and Gentiles; not between God and Christians.

God NEVER told Gentiles to keep the sabbath.
Neither Jesus nor the Apostles EVER told Christians to keep the sabbath.

There is no record of anyone keeping the Sabbath before Exodus 16.

The first Christians gathered on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7 & 1Cor 16:2)) so it is Biblical.

Early Christian testimony shows that Christians assembled for worship on the first day of the week:
“On the Lord's own day, assemble in common to break bread and offer thanks”
(Didache – 1st century)

“Further, He says to them, Your new moons and your Sabbath I cannot endure. Isaiah 1:13 You perceive how He speaks: Your present Sabbaths are not acceptable to Me, but that is which I have made, [namely this,] when, giving rest to all things, I shall make a beginning of the eighth day, that is, a beginning of another world. Wherefore, also, we keep the eighth day with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead.” (Epistle of Barnabus – 1st century)
 

tom55

Love your neighbor as yourself
Sep 9, 2013
1,199
18
0
ChristianJuggarnaut said:
Tom,

Do you really want to discuss apostolic progression of doctrine in consideration of all the Catholic doctrines that the apostles never even mentioned?

Also, why would you count Ignatius as someone who could tell the church what is lawful or not? That's why we have scripture.
Where in scripture does it tell us which books of the bible are to be included in the bible? (table of contents)
 

OzSpen

Well-Known Member
Mar 30, 2015
3,728
795
113
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
spencer.gear.dyndns.org
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
tom55 said:
Where in scripture does it tell us which books of the bible are to be included in the bible? (table of contents)
Tom,

There was no need to tell the Christians of the first century. They knew which books were in and not in the OT canon. That's why Paul could say to the Berean Christians in Acts 17:11 (ESV): 'Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so'. What Scripture?

Isn't that amazing that the Book of Acts does not need to articulate a list of the Books of the OT so that the Berean Christians would know which books were in the OT and which were out of it? Paul did not have to list them and say, 'Here is a list of the books contained in Scripture that you should use to check the authenticity and validity of my teaching'. They KNEW which books were in the OT canon.

And they did not include the Apocrypha in the Hebrew OT.

There was no dispute between Jesus and the Jewish leaders over the extent of the OT canon.

Oz
 

OzSpen

Well-Known Member
Mar 30, 2015
3,728
795
113
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
spencer.gear.dyndns.org
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
heretoeternity said:
Many scriptures have been quoted to you, but you either cannot read or refuse to acknowledge the Word of God..but do not feel too bad, this is typical of someone indoctrinated by the Roman religious organization and it's cultic manmade pagan traditions, and beliefs in the supremacy of man, instead of the supremacy of God, and His Holy word.
hereto,

I urge you not to use this mixture of genetic and ad hominem fallacies. It does not deal with the issues raised by Mungo. It would be courteous and more profitable, IMO, to deal with the content of what this person writes instead of getting into name calling, etc.

Oz
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
OzSpen said:
Tom,

There was no need to tell the Christians of the first century. They knew which books were in and not in the OT canon. That's why Paul could say to the Berean Christians in Acts 17:11 (ESV): 'Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so'. What Scripture?
The Bereans, being Greek speaking Pharisees (as was Paul) had been using the deuterocanon as scripture for 200 years before Christ. Acts 17:11-12 - here we see the verse "they searched the Scriptures." This refers to the Bereans who used the Old Testament to confirm the oral teachings about the Messiah. The verses do not say the Bereans searched the Scriptures alone (which is what Protestants are attempting to prove when quoting this passage). Moreover, the Bereans accepted the oral teaching from Paul as God's word before searching the Scriptures, which disproves the Berean's use of sola Scriptura.
Acts 17:11-12 - Also, the Bereans, being more "noble" or "fair minded," meant that they were more reasonable and less violent than the Thessalonians in Acts. 17:5-9. Their greater fairmindedness was not because of their use of Scripture, which Paul directed his listeners to do as was his custom (Acts 17:3).[/background]
The Jewish Hebrew canon was in a state of flux until the first century. In 95 AD at the school of Javnia, rabbis decided to toss Greek scriptures because Christians were using them as scripture. Isn't that amazing that the Book of Acts does not need to articulate a list of the Books of the OT so that the Berean Christians would know which books were in the OT and which were out of it? Paul did not have to list them and say, 'Here is a list of the books contained in Scripture that you should use to check the authenticity and validity of my teaching'. They KNEW which books were in the OT canon.
They knew what books to search, and it wasn't from the Protestant canon.

And they did not include the Apocrypha in the Hebrew OT.

There are too many fallacies in that link, I am trying to cut down the volume of my posts. *I'll take just 2 .
Near the top the author says:
Before we can do this, however, we must know which writings belong in the Bible and which do not. This is the question of the canon of Scripture, which may be defined as follows: [/size]The canon of Scripture is the list of all the books that belong in the Bible.[/size]
​He fails to mention how the list developed, and who developed it. I think this dishonesty by omission.

This fact is confirmed by the quotations of Jesus and the New Testament authors from the Old Testament. According to one count, Jesus and the New Testament authors quote various parts of the Old Testament Scriptures as divinely authoritative over 295 times,but not once do they cite any statement from the books of the Apocrypha or any other writings as having divine authority.
This is patently false.
There was no dispute between Jesus and the Jewish leaders over the extent of the OT canon.
They didn't dispute what they had, and what they had was not the Protestant canon.

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.

Prior to this point in time there had never been any formal effort among the Jews to "define the canon" of Scripture. In fact, Scripture nowhere indicates that the Jews even had a conscious idea that the canon should be closed at some point.The group of Jews which met at Javneh became the dominant group for later Jewish history, and today most Jews accept the canon of Javneh. However, some Jews, such as those from Ethiopia, follow a different canon which is identical to the Catholic Old Testament and includes the seven deuterocanonical books (cf. Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 6, p. 1147).
When The Lord and His Apostles addressed Greek-speaking Diaspora Jews, they made use of an even bigger collection of Scripture — the Septuagint, a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek — which many Jews (the vast majority, in fact) regarded as inspired Scripture. In fact, we find that the New Testament is filled with references to the Septuagint (and its particular translation of various Old Testament passages) as Scripture. It's a strange irony that one of the favorite passages used in anti-Catholic polemics over the years is Mark 7:6-8. In this passage Christ condemns "teaching as doctrines human traditions." This verse has formed the basis for countless complaints against the Catholic Church for supposedly "adding" to Scripture man-made traditions, such as the "merely human works" of the deuterocanononical books. But few realize that in Mark 7:6-8 the Lord was quoting the version of Isaiah that is found only in the Septuagint version of the Old Testament.
Matt. 2:16 - Herod's decree of slaying innocent children was prophesied in Wis. 11:7 - slaying the holy innocents.
Matt. 6:19-20 - Jesus' statement about laying up for yourselves treasure in heaven follows Sirach 29:11 - lay up your treasure.
Matt.. 7:12 - Jesus' golden rule "do unto others" is the converse of Tobit 4:15 - what you hate, do not do to others.
Matt. 7:16,20 - Jesus' statement "you will know them by their fruits" follows Sirach 27:6 - the fruit discloses the cultivation.
Matt. 9:36 - the people were "like sheep without a shepherd" is same as Judith 11:19 - sheep without a shepherd.
Matt. 11:25 - Jesus' description "Lord of heaven and earth" is the same as Tobit 7:18 - Lord of heaven and earth.
Luke 1:42 - Elizabeth's declaration of Mary's blessedness above all women follows Uzziah's declaration in Judith 13:18.
Luke 1:52 - Mary's magnificat addressing the mighty falling from their thrones and replaced by lowly follows Sirach 10:14.
Luke 2:29 - Simeon's declaration that he is ready to die after seeing the Child Jesus follows Tobit 11:9.
Luke 13:29 - the Lord's description of men coming from east and west to rejoice in God follows Baruch 4:37.
John 1:3 - all things were made through Him, the Word, follows Wisdom 9:1.
John 3:13 - who has ascended into heaven but He who descended from heaven references Baruch 3:29.
John 4:48; Acts 5:12; 15:12; 2 Cor. 12:12 - Jesus', Luke's and Paul's usage of "signs and wonders" follows Wisdom 8:8.
John 5:18 - Jesus claiming that God is His Father follows Wisdom 2:16.
John 6:35-59 - Jesus' Eucharistic discourse is foreshadowed in Sirach 24:21.
John 10:22 - the identification of the feast of the dedication is taken from 1 Macc. 4:59.
Acts 10:34; Rom. 2:11; Gal. 2:6 - Peter's and Paul's statement that God shows no partiality references Sirach 35:12.
Acts 17:29 - description of false gods as like gold and silver made by men follows Wisdom 13:10.
Rom 1:18-25 - Paul's teaching on the knowledge of the Creator and the ignorance and sin of idolatry follows Wis. 13:1-10.
Rom. 1:20 - specifically, God's existence being evident in nature follows Wis. 13:1.
Rom. 1:23 - the sin of worshipping mortal man, birds, animals and reptiles follows Wis. 11:15; 12:24-27; 13:10; 14:8.Eph. 6:14 - Paul describing the breastplate of righteousness is the same as Wis. 5:18. See also Isaiah 59:17 and 1 Thess. 5:8.
Eph. 6:13-17 - in fact, the whole discussion of armor, helmet, breastplate, sword, shield follows Wis. 5:17-20.
1 Tim. 6:15 - Paul's description of God as Sovereign and King of kings is from 2 Macc. 12:15; 13:4.
Heb. 11:5 - Enoch being taken up is also referenced in Wis 4:10 and Sir 44:16. See also 2 Kings 2:1-13 & Sir 48:9 regarding Elijah.
Heb 11:35 - Paul teaches about the martyrdom of the mother and her sons described in 2 Macc. 7:1-42.

I have another 50 or so, but you should get the idea. "not once do they cite any statement from the books of the Apocrypha or any other writings as having divine authority." is a false teaching.

Sources:
scripturecatholic
5 Myths About 7 Books
DEFENDING THE DEUTEROCANONICALS




35226fceeed9544cd31500d5128837dd.jpg
 

OzSpen

Well-Known Member
Mar 30, 2015
3,728
795
113
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
spencer.gear.dyndns.org
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
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.


35226fceeed9544cd31500d5128837dd.jpg


kepha,

There are a number of reasons for rejecting the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonical books. Don't blame it all on the Protestants. In fact, the first KJV of the Bible of 1611 included the Apocrypha. So it is a furphy (an erroneous story) to blame the rejection of the Apocrypha on Protestants.

Among the main reasons for rejection of these books are the demonstrated errors and contradictions in the Apocrypha.

Here are 3 websites that highlight these errors:

http://www.justforcatholics.org/a109.htm

http://www.biblequery.org/Bible/BibleCanon/WhatAboutTheApocrypha.htm

http://www.johnankerberg.org/ankerberg-articles/apocrypha.html

Protestants who reject the Apocrypha that is in the Roman Catholic Bibles (there is no one Roman Catholic translation). Ever heard of the New American Bible and The Jerusalem Bible? Both are Roman Catholic translations in addition to the Douay-Rheims.

Oz
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
OzSpen said:
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.


35226fceeed9544cd31500d5128837dd.jpg


kepha,

There are a number of reasons for rejecting the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonical books. Don't blame it all on the Protestants. In fact, the first KJV of the Bible of 1611 included the Apocrypha. So it is a furphy (an erroneous story) to blame the rejection of the Apocrypha on Protestants.
Then tell me who to blame it on. The Deuterocanonical books were in the KJV, but stuck in the back as an appendix. They were later removed to save on printing costs.
Among the main reasons for rejection of these books are the demonstrated errors and contradictions in the Apocrypha.

Here are 3 websites that highlight these errors:
http://www.justforcatholics.org/a109.htm
this anti-Catholic site is loaded with misrepresentations and lies. Anti-Catholics will read it and think they have something over knowledgeable Catholics. They don't. Refuting it gets tiresome after 20 years.

http://www.biblequery.org/Bible/BibleCanon/WhatAboutTheApocrypha.htm
lt would take 5 pages of posts to counter the so called rebuttals, the site has no room for counter replies. Too bad.

http://www.johnankerberg.org/ankerberg-articles/apocrypha.html

Why should I trust a dispensationist Calvinist?


rotestants who reject the Apocrypha that is in the Roman Catholic Bibles (there is no one Roman Catholic translation).
True, there several approved translations.
Ever heard of the New American Bible and The Jerusalem Bible? Both are Roman Catholic translations in addition to the Douay-Rheims.
Yes, they all have the Deuterocanonical books.
 

tom55

Love your neighbor as yourself
Sep 9, 2013
1,199
18
0
OzSpen said:
Tom,

There was no need to tell the Christians of the first century. They knew which books were in and not in the OT canon. That's why Paul could say to the Berean Christians in Acts 17:11 (ESV): 'Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so'. What Scripture?

Isn't that amazing that the Book of Acts does not need to articulate a list of the Books of the OT so that the Berean Christians would know which books were in the OT and which were out of it? Paul did not have to list them and say, 'Here is a list of the books contained in Scripture that you should use to check the authenticity and validity of my teaching'. They KNEW which books were in the OT canon.

And they did not include the Apocrypha in the Hebrew OT.

There was no dispute between Jesus and the Jewish leaders over the extent of the OT canon.

Oz
Then how or why did the disagreement of which books belong in the OT begin 1500 years later if us Christians have known since the 1st Century which books belong in the OT? Did God change his mind 1500 years later?

For the record I never said or implied there was a "dispute between Jesus and the Jewish leaders over the extent of the OT canon".
 

tom55

Love your neighbor as yourself
Sep 9, 2013
1,199
18
0
OzSpen said:
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.


35226fceeed9544cd31500d5128837dd.jpg


kepha,

There are a number of reasons for rejecting the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonical books. Don't blame it all on the Protestants. In fact, the first KJV of the Bible of 1611 included the Apocrypha. So it is a furphy (an erroneous story) to blame the rejection of the Apocrypha on Protestants.

Among the main reasons for rejection of these books are the demonstrated errors and contradictions in the Apocrypha.

Here are 3 websites that highlight these errors:

http://www.justforcatholics.org/a109.htm

http://www.biblequery.org/Bible/BibleCanon/WhatAboutTheApocrypha.htm

http://www.johnankerberg.org/ankerberg-articles/apocrypha.html

Protestants who reject the Apocrypha that is in the Roman Catholic Bibles (there is no one Roman Catholic translation). Ever heard of the New American Bible and The Jerusalem Bible? Both are Roman Catholic translations in addition to the Douay-Rheims.

Oz
The theory that Jamnia finalized the canon has been largely discredited by all legitimate scholars.

You do make a good point though. Protestants who reject the Catholic Bible are following a Jewish council that rejected Christ and the Revelation of the New Testament.
 

OzSpen

Well-Known Member
Mar 30, 2015
3,728
795
113
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
spencer.gear.dyndns.org
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
kepha31 said:
Why should I trust a dispensationist Calvinist?
kepha,

In asking that question, you have committed a genetic logical fallacy. When you engage in such fallacious reasoning, we cannot have a logical conversation.

Among the main reasons for rejection of these books of the Apocrypha are the demonstrated errors and contradictions in them.

Oz
 

OzSpen

Well-Known Member
Mar 30, 2015
3,728
795
113
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
spencer.gear.dyndns.org
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
tom55 said:
Then how or why did the disagreement of which books belong in the OT begin 1500 years later if us Christians have known since the 1st Century which books belong in the OT? Did God change his mind 1500 years later?

For the record I never said or implied there was a "dispute between Jesus and the Jewish leaders over the extent of the OT canon".
Please document what you are talking about, instead of this generic piece of nothingness.

You did not deal with the issues I raised in #292.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.