Who has done this?
Anonymous Proxy

Manassas, VA

#103 Aug 4, 2013
Mike Peterson wrote:
<quoted text>

Prayers to the dead is in my Bible. You are short some written words.
If you say so. Who put them there would be my next question.
Mike Peterson

Jackson, MS

#104 Aug 4, 2013
Anonymous Proxy wrote:
<quoted text>It is Catholic tradition, no doubt. Problem is tradition can be from God or man, good or evil, a truth or a lie, therefore it is not equal to the word of God. Mike has been caught in false statements many times. Usually he sends Mark in to call us names like "your effing crazy" and pass out his famous peanuts. The real truth is the word of God stands above tradition.
It is a tradition of Protestantism ,started in 1520, to ignore what the written word of God says about Tradition.

The Bible denies that it is sufficient as the complete rule of faith. Paul says that much Christian teaching is to be found in the tradition which is handed down by word of mouth (2 Tim. 2:2). He instructs us to "stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15).
Mike Peterson

Jackson, MS

#105 Aug 4, 2013
Anonymous Proxy wrote:
<quoted text>If you say so. Who put them there would be my next question.
The Jews in the OT. The same Church who canonized the NT, canonized the OT.

The Protesters took out the books of the OT that did not agree with their imaginations of what belonged there in 1520.

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#106 Aug 4, 2013
Anonymous Proxy wrote:
<quoted text>It is Catholic tradition, no doubt. Problem is tradition can be from God or man, good or evil, a truth or a lie, therefore it is not equal to the word of God. Mike has been caught in false statements many times. Usually he sends Mark in to call us names like "your effing crazy" and pass out his famous peanuts. The real truth is the word of God stands above tradition.
You are effing CofC crazy. Mike has never posted a false statement and neither have I. You just happen to belong to a man made group created in the 19th century by a couple of men rather than the Church dating from the first century. And you don't appreciate when this fact is repeatedly pointed out.

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#107 Aug 4, 2013
Mike Peterson wrote:
<quoted text>
It is a tradition of Protestantism ,started in 1520, to ignore what the written word of God says about Tradition.
The Bible denies that it is sufficient as the complete rule of faith. Paul says that much Christian teaching is to be found in the tradition which is handed down by word of mouth (2 Tim. 2:2). He instructs us to "stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15).
Here is an interesting article from the Orthodox perspective http://www.oodegr.com/english/protestantism/p...

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#108 Aug 4, 2013
Anonymous Proxy wrote:
<quoted text>If you say so. Who put them there would be my next question.
My next question would be who did you allow to take them out of your Bible and by whose authority was this done? I and II Maccabees and several other books were in the first edition of the KJV. And if you claim Martin Luther was correct in removing these books was he also correct to retain infant baptism and belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist? You just can't pick and choose what you like from the Prot Commander in Chief.
Anonymous Proxy

Manassas, VA

#109 Aug 4, 2013
MarkEden wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is an interesting article from the Orthodox perspective http://www.oodegr.com/english/protestantism/p...
As usual Mark is his old deceptive self. There is a difference between praying to and for someone. The only interesting thing about the link is the deceiving that is going on. Catholics pray to the saints not for the saint. Big difference.
Anonymous Proxy

Manassas, VA

#110 Aug 4, 2013
MarkEden wrote:
<quoted text>
My next question would be who did you allow to take them out of your Bible and by whose authority was this done? I and II Maccabees and several other books were in the first edition of the KJV. And if you claim Martin Luther was correct in removing these books was he also correct to retain infant baptism and belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist? You just can't pick and choose what you like from the Prot Commander in Chief.
The Catholics had to reaffirm what they forgot to affirm to begin with. Apocrypha is not part of the New Testament and not part of the Old Testament. The Catholics make a New Testament doctrine of books that were pre New Testament. A New Testament scam is a better description as it was a get rich quick scheme to charge families money to get their loved ones out of purgatory. Jesus, nor any Old Testament prophet mentioned purgatory or tried to cash in on some ones concern for their loved one. Strictly a bunch of renegade power hungry Catholics who split from the early church. The early church did not believe in purgatory.
William

Baton Rouge, LA

#111 Aug 4, 2013
And the more cash the bereaved family drops off, the more prayers get offered up. They've got this business model figured out. Some dead saints are more valuable than others, you see.

They are kicking themselves for not getting in on the cash racket for baptisms for the dead though. The Mormons grabbed that one.
Anonymous Proxy

Manassas, VA

#112 Aug 4, 2013
Mike Peterson wrote:
<quoted text>
The Jews in the OT. The same Church who canonized the NT, canonized the OT.
The Protesters took out the books of the OT that did not agree with their imaginations of what belonged there in 1520.
They were never in the Old Testament.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon2.html

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#113 Aug 4, 2013
Anonymous Proxy wrote:
<quoted text>They were never in the Old Testament.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon2.html
So the original KJV was in error? What else might those experts might have effed up?
Mike Peterson

Jackson, MS

#114 Aug 4, 2013
Anonymous Proxy wrote:
<quoted text>The Catholics had to reaffirm what they forgot to affirm to begin with. Apocrypha is not part of the New Testament and not part of the Old Testament. The Catholics make a New Testament doctrine of books that were pre New Testament. A New Testament scam is a better description as it was a get rich quick scheme to charge families money to get their loved ones out of purgatory. Jesus, nor any Old Testament prophet mentioned purgatory or tried to cash in on some ones concern for their loved one. Strictly a bunch of renegade power hungry Catholics who split from the early church. The early church did not believe in purgatory.
Are you and killedjoe the same person?

Show me on one writing from a person from your early church starting @ ad 100
Mike Peterson

Jackson, MS

#115 Aug 4, 2013
Anonymous Proxy wrote:
<quoted text>They were never in the Old Testament.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon2.html
You know absolutely nothing about Christian history.

The version of the Bible in use at the time of Jesus was the Septuagint (abbreviated LXX, for the 70 men who translated it from Hebrew into Greek by the beginning of the first century B.C.). This version of the Bible included the seven Deuterocanonical books. This was the version of the Old Testament used by the New Testament authors and by Christians during the first century A.D.

With the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem by the Romans in the year 70 A.D. and because the Christians were seen as a threat, the Jewish leaders saw a need to get their house in order. One thing that they did was to decide officially the list of books that were to compose their Scriptures. They did this at the Council of Jamnia (about 100 A.D.), at which they rejected the seven Deuterocanonical books because they believed that they were not written in Hebrew.(In 1947, however, fragments in Hebrew of Tobit and Sirach were discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls. In addition, most Scripture scholars believe that 1 Maccabees, Judith, Baruch and parts of Wisdom were also originally written in Hebrew.) The early Church did not require all Scripture to be written in Hebrew, and the New Testament books were written in Greek.

In the 16th century, Martin Luther adopted the Jewish list, putting the Deuterocanonical books in an appendix. He also put the letter of James, the letter to the Hebrews, the letters of John, and the book of Revelation from the New Testament in an appendix. He did this for doctrinal reasons (for example: 2 Maccabees 12:43-46 supports the doctrine of purgatory, Hebrews supports the existence of the priesthood, and James 2:24 supports the Catholic doctrine on merit). Later Lutherans followed Luther’s Old Testament list and rejected the Deuterocanonical books, but they did not follow his rejection of the New Testament books.

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#116 Aug 4, 2013
Mike Peterson wrote:
<quoted text>
You know absolutely nothing about Christian history.
The version of the Bible in use at the time of Jesus was the Septuagint (abbreviated LXX, for the 70 men who translated it from Hebrew into Greek by the beginning of the first century B.C.). This version of the Bible included the seven Deuterocanonical books. This was the version of the Old Testament used by the New Testament authors and by Christians during the first century A.D.
With the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem by the Romans in the year 70 A.D. and because the Christians were seen as a threat, the Jewish leaders saw a need to get their house in order. One thing that they did was to decide officially the list of books that were to compose their Scriptures. They did this at the Council of Jamnia (about 100 A.D.), at which they rejected the seven Deuterocanonical books because they believed that they were not written in Hebrew.(In 1947, however, fragments in Hebrew of Tobit and Sirach were discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls. In addition, most Scripture scholars believe that 1 Maccabees, Judith, Baruch and parts of Wisdom were also originally written in Hebrew.) The early Church did not require all Scripture to be written in Hebrew, and the New Testament books were written in Greek.
In the 16th century, Martin Luther adopted the Jewish list, putting the Deuterocanonical books in an appendix. He also put the letter of James, the letter to the Hebrews, the letters of John, and the book of Revelation from the New Testament in an appendix. He did this for doctrinal reasons (for example: 2 Maccabees 12:43-46 supports the doctrine of purgatory, Hebrews supports the existence of the priesthood, and James 2:24 supports the Catholic doctrine on merit). Later Lutherans followed Luther’s Old Testament list and rejected the Deuterocanonical books, but they did not follow his rejection of the New Testament books.
Lutherans to this very day did not reject infant baptism, baptism by affusion and the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Lutherans did reject Welchs.
Anonymous Proxy

Manassas, VA

#117 Aug 4, 2013
Mike Peterson wrote:
<quoted text>
You know absolutely nothing about Christian history.
The version of the Bible in use at the time of Jesus was the Septuagint (abbreviated LXX, for the 70 men who translated it from Hebrew into Greek by the beginning of the first century B.C.). This version of the Bible included the seven Deuterocanonical books. This was the version of the Old Testament used by the New Testament authors and by Christians during the first century A.D.
With the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem by the Romans in the year 70 A.D. and because the Christians were seen as a threat, the Jewish leaders saw a need to get their house in order. One thing that they did was to decide officially the list of books that were to compose their Scriptures. They did this at the Council of Jamnia (about 100 A.D.), at which they rejected the seven Deuterocanonical books because they believed that they were not written in Hebrew.(In 1947, however, fragments in Hebrew of Tobit and Sirach were discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls. In addition, most Scripture scholars believe that 1 Maccabees, Judith, Baruch and parts of Wisdom were also originally written in Hebrew.) The early Church did not require all Scripture to be written in Hebrew, and the New Testament books were written in Greek.
In the 16th century, Martin Luther adopted the Jewish list, putting the Deuterocanonical books in an appendix. He also put the letter of James, the letter to the Hebrews, the letters of John, and the book of Revelation from the New Testament in an appendix. He did this for doctrinal reasons (for example: 2 Maccabees 12:43-46 supports the doctrine of purgatory, Hebrews supports the existence of the priesthood, and James 2:24 supports the Catholic doctrine on merit). Later Lutherans followed Luther’s Old Testament list and rejected the Deuterocanonical books, but they did not follow his rejection of the New Testament books.
Mike you are very biased in your opinion and as most Catholics, not objective at all when it comes to the truth. However these Christian apologists see it quite differently. They point out some major problems for your claim.

Church Fathers

Did the Church fathers recognized the Apocrypha as being Scripture? Roman Catholics strongly appeal to Church history but we don't find a unanimous consensus on the Apocrypha. Jerome (340-420) who translated the Latin Vulgate which is used by the RC church, rejected the Apocrypha since he believed that the Jews recognized and established the proper canon of the Old Testament. Remember, the Christian Church built upon that recognition. Also, Josephus the famous Jewish historian of the First Century never mentioned the Apocrypha as being part of the canon either. In addition, "Early church fathers like Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, and the great Roman Catholic translator Jerome spoke out against the Apocrypha."2 So, we should not conclude that the Church fathers unanimously affirmed the Apocrypha. They didn't.
Anonymous Proxy

Manassas, VA

#118 Aug 4, 2013
Mike Peterson wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you and killedjoe the same person?
Show me on one writing from a person from your early church starting @ ad 100
You are obviously confused, Mike. Try taking a deep breath and reciting "Mary had a little lamb".
Anonymous Proxy

Manassas, VA

#119 Aug 4, 2013
MarkEden wrote:
<quoted text>
You are effing CofC crazy. Mike has never posted a false statement and neither have I. You just happen to belong to a man made group created in the 19th century by a couple of men rather than the Church dating from the first century. And you don't appreciate when this fact is repeatedly pointed out.
I bet you keep Mike busy the majority of his day interceding on your behalf with all the dead saints. The saints are probably getting fed up with you also, not being able to get any sleep and all.
Anonymous Proxy

Manassas, VA

#120 Aug 4, 2013
MarkEden wrote:
<quoted text>
You are effing CofC crazy. Mike has never posted a false statement and neither have I. You just happen to belong to a man made group created in the 19th century by a couple of men rather than the Church dating from the first century. And you don't appreciate when this fact is repeatedly pointed out.
Strange you thinK I am CoC. Mike things I am Orthodox Catholic. Are all Catholics as confused as you and Mike? poor boys.

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#122 Aug 4, 2013
Anonymous Proxy wrote:
<quoted text>Strange you thinK I am CoC. Mike things I am Orthodox Catholic. Are all Catholics as confused as you and Mike? poor boys.
Then I guess you, like William, are ashamed to tell us what you are. You could certainly pass for CofC! And Mike does not "things" you are Orthodox anything but a Class A heretic.

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#123 Aug 4, 2013
Anonymous Proxy wrote:
<quoted text>Mike you are very biased in your opinion and as most Catholics, not objective at all when it comes to the truth. However these Christian apologists see it quite differently. They point out some major problems for your claim.
Church Fathers
Did the Church fathers recognized the Apocrypha as being Scripture? Roman Catholics strongly appeal to Church history but we don't find a unanimous consensus on the Apocrypha. Jerome (340-420) who translated the Latin Vulgate which is used by the RC church, rejected the Apocrypha since he believed that the Jews recognized and established the proper canon of the Old Testament. Remember, the Christian Church built upon that recognition. Also, Josephus the famous Jewish historian of the First Century never mentioned the Apocrypha as being part of the canon either. In addition, "Early church fathers like Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, and the great Roman Catholic translator Jerome spoke out against the Apocrypha."2 So, we should not conclude that the Church fathers unanimously affirmed the Apocrypha. They didn't.
Once an Ecumenical Council made the decision the matter was settled and it doesn't matter what you think or copy and paste. You crack me up citing Origen, Cyril, Athanasius and Jerome. So if these men were right about these books do you accept all their teachings as well or do you pick and choose like you do with Prot Commander in Chief Martin Luther?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Bassett Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
I like to get on some buttseckz.. I aint gay.. ... Thu Captain peckerlips 1
Who got da biggest pecker in all uh Furrum? Thu Captain peckerlips 1
Christians Murder American Indians (Jan '12) Jun 18 Kevo8263 32
Catholics (Feb '14) Jun 17 mpetershat 3,338
Sarah Smith nude ! (Jul '12) Jun 13 sarasmith 2
The Bible teaches that the Earth will never end (Apr '15) May '16 Anonymous 38
thomas jefferson edwards Apr '16 nuks67 2
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Bassett Mortgages