Bible Facts and Promises, Study!!

[Nettiebelle]

dollarsbill wrote:

<quoted text>
You're looking for excuses to not believe the Bible. Won't work. You have been warned. You are accountable.

When you posted that particular scripture from the book of Revelation, you indicated that scripture meant the book of the Bible.
I told you that scripture pertained to the book of Revelation only, since, at that time, there was no Bible.

You have goofed around for some time now avoiding the fact that you were wrong, and you refuse to address the FACT that you were wrong.

Sorry, Charlie.
Your avoidance is so obvious.
Get a new gig.

[cvor]

dollarsbill wrote:

<quoted text>
If you don't want replies then don't post. The fact is that Israel is back from the dead just as God foretold, and as a warning to you.

God did not foretell it. This is an assertion without evidence. Your god isn't proven to exist.

If you don't want to be exposed as an evader then don't post....evader

[cvor]

cvor wrote:

<quoted text>
ok - and you choose the 32nd dimensional fairy. What do you have to lose?

see above------- still no response relating to the point

[cvor]

that's what happens when you lean on known fallacies or fallacies in general.....they get exposed.....and you don't face up to it and you get angry because you your house of cards is collapsing before our eyes.

[dollarsbill]

Nettiebelle wrote:

<quoted text>When you posted that particular scripture from the book of Revelation, you indicated that scripture meant the book of the Bible.
I told you that scripture pertained to the book of Revelation only, since, at that time, there was no Bible.
You have goofed around for some time now avoiding the fact that you were wrong, and you refuse to address the FACT that you were wrong.
Sorry, Charlie.
Your avoidance is so obvious.
Get a new gig.

Your Satanic attack on God's Word noted.

[dollarsbill]

cvor wrote:

<quoted text>
God did not foretell it. This is an assertion without evidence. Your god isn't proven to exist.
If you don't want to be exposed as an evader then don't post....evader

They're back to stay.

"I will plant them in their land, And no longer shall they be pulled up From the land I have given them"

Amos 9:14-15 (NKJV)
14 I will bring back the captives of My people Israel; They shall build the waste cities and inhabit them; They shall plant vineyards and drink wine from them; They shall also make gardens and eat fruit from them. 15 I will plant them in their land, And no longer shall they be pulled up From the land I have given them," Says the LORD your God.

[Romans Road]

Nettiebelle wrote:

<quoted text>We know that there was no Bible at that time, and we know that the books chosen from hundreds in circulation and being used at that time had not been determined to be inspired and therefore to be included IN the Bible. You know, the Bible that came later. That Bible.
Go do a little research.
It's a blast.

Jesus already verified the Old Testament when He stated "the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias" in Luke 11:51 and Matthew 23:35.

The Jewish canonical order of the OT was from Genesis to 2 Chronicles. Hence "the blood of Abel" (Genesis 4:8) to "the blood of Zacharias" (2 Chronicles 24:21). The Jewish OT contained the same 39 books as our Christian bible, but they are arranged in a different order.

And of course the New Testament was written by actual eye-witnesses of the events of Jesus (John, Matthew, Peter, James, Jude, Paul) and those who were with the disciples and got to interview other eye-witnesses (Luke and Mark).

**Oh, but we are supposed to believe a fake Catholic Topix troll over the Word of God.

[cvor]

dollarsbill wrote:

<quoted text>
They're back to stay.
"I will plant them in their land, And no longer shall they be pulled up From the land I have given them"
Amos 9:14-15 (NKJV)
14 I will bring back the captives of My people Israel; They shall build the waste cities and inhabit them; They shall plant vineyards and drink wine from them; They shall also make gardens and eat fruit from them. 15 I will plant them in their land, And no longer shall they be pulled up From the land I have given them," Says the LORD your God.

no year given - little details - no proof a god ACTUALLY said it - and predicting something that is not unlikely to happen at some point in time.

are you a moron?

[dollarsbill]

cvor wrote:

<quoted text>
no year given - little details - no proof a god ACTUALLY said it - and predicting something that is not unlikely to happen at some point in time.
are you a moron?

The Nation of Israel was reborn in 1948. Now you know.

Luke 21:32 (NKJV)
32 Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all things take place.

[cvor]

dollarsbill wrote:

<quoted text>
The Nation of Israel was reborn in 1948. Now you know.
Luke 21:32 (NKJV)
32 Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all things take place.

yup...and this impacts my comment how?

must be hard for you

[Nettiebelle]

Romans Road:
After the death of Christ on the cross, and in the centuries before 419 A.D., there were many, perhaps hundreds of writings, and some forgeries that had to be sorted out and decided upon as to if they were canonical (canon = rule or official list) or not. The early Catholic Church was scattered out in communities over a wide geographic area. Many people in these communities liked the Shepherd of Hermas and it was very popular and read as if it were scripture. On The Shepherd of Hermas; in the document The Muratorian Fragment, approx. 170-180 A. D., it is written: "was written quite recently in our own time by Hermas, while his brother, Pius, was filling the chair of the Church of the city of Rome".( Pope Saint Pious I apparently occupied the chair of Peter approx. 140 - 155 A. D.). Origen ( 185-232 A.D.) believed the author of The Shepherd of Hermas to be the same Hermas referred to by Saint Paul in Romans 16:14. The Epistle of Barnabus was accepted as Scripture by Clement and Origen but not by Saint Jerome. While both of the books; the Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabus, were read and accepted by many Early Church communities they are not found in today's Bibles

The Gospel of Thomas was also in circulation and accepted by some followers of Mani ( Manicheans ). Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, in his Cathechesis V ( approx. 348 A.D.), states: "Let none read the gospel of Thomas, for it is the work, not of one of the twelve apostles, but one of Mani's three wicked disciples." Manichaeanism is a heretical idea that has echoed down the centuries and has persisted even unto today. Likewise, Gnosticism ( Gnostics were Docetists = Greek "to appear" ) teaches that salvation is liberation from the body because the material world is evil. These heretical teachings and writings were rejected as false by ecclestical authority. The important thing to remember about heretical ideas is that they will continue to re-emerge, in more virulent form ( variants ), and under different name, throughout the centuries.

Some communities did not accept the Book of Revelation (Apocalypse) as Scripture, so it was not so popularly read and it was a disputed book. The Council of Laodicea about 360 A.D. did not include Revelation in the Canon of Scripture. Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem, also rejected it and forbade it's reading in public or private as well. Athanasius, Bishop of Alexanderia, accepted it as Scripture as it is shown in his festal letter of 367 A.D.[1] Disputes over the canonicity of the Book of Revelation contributed to divisions in the Eastern Church communities, and some Greek Churches of today do not accept it as Sacred Scripture.[2][3]
The Bible did not come complete with an index, telling us which books, and how many, are inspired writings and canonical or not. It was the bishops of the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit that sorted out and decided the canon of Sacred Scripture. The bishops were preserved from falling into error, as our Lord promised, on this important matter concerning the Holy Catholic Church.(Matt. 16:18; 28:18-20)(John 14,15, and 16)(1 Tim. 3:14-15)(Acts 15:28) They included Tobit, Baruch, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), 1 Maccabees, and 2 Maccabees. Roman Catholics call these books deuterocanonical. Protestants call them Apocrypha. There are some additional passages in Daniel and Esther not found in Protestant Bibles.
http://www.catholicevangelism.org/h-canon1.sh...

[Nettiebelle]

Romans Road wrote:

<quoted text>
Jesus already verified the Old Testament when He stated "the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias" in Luke 11:51 and Matthew 23:35.
The Jewish canonical order of the OT was from Genesis to 2 Chronicles. Hence "the blood of Abel" (Genesis 4:8) to "the blood of Zacharias" (2 Chronicles 24:21). The Jewish OT contained the same 39 books as our Christian bible, but they are arranged in a different order.
And of course the New Testament was written by actual eye-witnesses of the events of Jesus (John, Matthew, Peter, James, Jude, Paul) and those who were with the disciples and got to interview other eye-witnesses (Luke and Mark).
**Oh, but we are supposed to believe a fake Catholic Topix troll over the Word of God.

Jesus never asked that a Bible be written.
He, instead, simply told His Disciples to go and spread the Gospel and baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

The Bible came out of the Catholic Church around the end of the 4th century.( No small feat!) The Synods of Hippo, 393 A.D., and Carthage, 397 A.D.,and later, Carthage 419 A.D.,( along with the Traditional Bible or Latin Vulgate ( LV ), 406 A.D., by Saint Jerome ),gave us the canon of Sacred Scripture as Catholics know it today. Relatively recent archeological findings and analysis of the Dead Sea scrolls (Qumran) of 1947 revealed that several deuterocanonical books were originally composed in Hebrew or Aramaic. This is very relevant and significant because earlier Protestant reformers of the 16th century, were very suspicious of, and rejected books, only available to them in the Greek Language. In part therefore, the Protestant canon of 66 books of Sacred Scripture is deficient - short seven (7) books.

The regional or local Catholic Church Councils of Hippo, 393 A.D., and Carthage, 397 A.D., and later, Carthage 419 A.D. gave us the canon of Sacred Scripture as we know it today. Although these were just local councils, Saint Augustine did insist that the list given by these councils be sent to Rome for approval. Pope Saint Siricius (384-399 A.D.) approved the canon just as his papal predecessor Pope Damasus I had done in a Synod in 382 A.D. with a formal writing "Decretal of Gelasius", de recipiendis et non recipiendis libris.(The archeological findings and analysis pertaining to the Council of Rome 382 A.D. and some of the Popes may not be a settled fact.)
http://www.catholicevangelism.org/h-canon1.sh...

[Nettiebelle]

A friend of Saint Jerome, Saint Exuperius of Toulouse, a Gallican bishop, wrote to Pope Innocent I in a formal letter requesting the list of canonical books. The Pope replied - honoring Saint Exuperius - with a letter listing the canonical books:

Consulenti Tibi Dated February 405 A.D.
. This list is the same as the canonical list that Catholics have today. This includes the Protestant apocrypha or Catholic deuterocanonical books of the Holy Bible.

Around the end of the fourth century more evidence on the canon is found from the Church in Spain, in the work of the heretic Priscillian, Bishop of Avila (died 385 A.D.). Priscillianism is a variant of Gnostic-Manichaean.. In his work "Liber de Fide et Apocryphis" Priscillian defends and includes the deuteros although he does not claim that all the deuteros are inspired only some. In the Early Church their was much debate on The Canon of The Old Testament.

The Ecumenical Council of Florence again affirmed the list of inspired books in 1442 A.D., about 100 years before the Council of Trent. The "Decretum pro Jacobitis" by Pope Eugenius IV lists the inspired books, and according to the common teaching of theologians, these documents are infallible True meaning of infallible states of doctrine. Since there was no urgent challenge or compelling reason why it should, the Ecumenical Council of Florence did not dogmatically pass on the canonicity of the inspired books. It did however teach that the books were inspired.

The decrees of the local or regional Church councils (Synods) of Hippo, 393 A.D., and Carthage, around 400 A.D., were submitted to the "transmarine Church" (Rome) and approved by the Popes and are considered official Church teachings by official Church councils. Although these councils were merely local, and they in themselves did not have universal binding authority, their decrees were submitted to various Popes and approved.[6] The Latin Vulgate (LV) version of the Bible by Saint Jerome was completed about 406 A.D. and included the deuterocanonical books. About 1000 years later, the Council of Trent, Session Four, would state: "If anyone does not accept as sacred and canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their parts, as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate Edition, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, let him be anathema.

[Nettiebelle]

The canon of the Bible was solemnly defined and made dogmatic Dogma and Classes of Revealed truth by the Fourth Session of the Ecumenical Council of Trent of the Catholic Church held in northern Italy 1545-1563 A.D. by the Decree "De Canonicis Scripturis" on April 8th, 1546. Pope Pius IV formally confirmed all of its decrees in 1564 A.D. This put the canonicity of the whole Traditional Bible (LV) beyond the permissibility of doubt on the part of Catholics. The books of the canon were listed individually and agreed with the earlier listing already taught (for about 1000 years prior to the Council of Trent) by the Ordinary Magisterium of the Catholic Church.[7][8][9]
http://www.catholicevangelism.org/h-canon1.sh...

[Nettiebelle]

Romans Road wrote:

<quoted text>
Jesus already verified the Old Testament when He stated "the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias" in Luke 11:51 and Matthew 23:35.
The Jewish canonical order of the OT was from Genesis to 2 Chronicles. Hence "the blood of Abel" (Genesis 4:8) to "the blood of Zacharias" (2 Chronicles 24:21). The Jewish OT contained the same 39 books as our Christian bible, but they are arranged in a different order.
And of course the New Testament was written by actual eye-witnesses of the events of Jesus (John, Matthew, Peter, James, Jude, Paul) and those who were with the disciples and got to interview other eye-witnesses (Luke and Mark).
**Oh, but we are supposed to believe a fake Catholic Topix troll over the Word of God.

The Protestant Bible, of which the NIV is one version, is seven books shorter than the Bible used by Roman Catholics. But Protestants didn't just take out books; they used a different standard of what should be in the Bible.

The Hebrew Bible has 24 books. This list, or "canon," was affirmed at the Councils of Jamnia in A.D. 90 and 118. The Protestant Old Testament includes exactly the same information, but organized into 39 books. For example, the Hebrew Bible has one book of Samuel, while the Protestant Bible has I and II Samuel—same book, but divided into two parts.

In addition to these 39 books, the Catholic Old Testament includes Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), Baruch (includes the Letters of Jeremiah), I and II Maccabees, and additions to Daniel and Esther. These books were included in the Septuagint, a Greek translation of a different Hebrew canon. Early church fathers, who relied on the Septuagint (they could read Greek, but not Hebrew), sometimes quoted these books as Scripture. The status of the books continued to be debated throughout the Middle Ages.

At the time of the Reformation, Protestants decided that, because the additional books weren't in the Hebrew Bible, they shouldn't be in the Christian Bible, either (though they were included in early editions of the King James Bible). Catholics, at the Council of Trent (1546), decided to keep the "deutero-canonical" books.

Incidentally, Protestants and Catholics use the same New Testament, the content of which was defined by Athanasius in 367.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/asktheexp...

[Romans Road]

Nettie,
I don't read your RCC propaganda copy/paste spam posts. God has preserved His Word just as promised.

Psalm 12:6-7
6 The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

[Nettiebelle]

Romans Road wrote:

<quoted text>
Jesus already verified the Old Testament when He stated "the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias" in Luke 11:51 and Matthew 23:35.
The Jewish canonical order of the OT was from Genesis to 2 Chronicles. Hence "the blood of Abel" (Genesis 4:8) to "the blood of Zacharias" (2 Chronicles 24:21). The Jewish OT contained the same 39 books as our Christian bible, but they are arranged in a different order.
And of course the New Testament was written by actual eye-witnesses of the events of Jesus (John, Matthew, Peter, James, Jude, Paul) and those who were with the disciples and got to interview other eye-witnesses (Luke and Mark).
**Oh, but we are supposed to believe a fake Catholic Topix troll over the Word of God.

The Church Calls A Council

In the early centuries there were festering controversies in the Church over what the New Testament canon should be. The Church finally settled the matter in 3 local (as opposed to an ecumenical) councils. They were the council of Rome (382 A.D.), the council of Hippo (393 A.D.), and the council of Carthage (397A.D.). In these councils the Catholic
Church authoritatively and infallibly declared what books are to be considered divinely inspired and authoritative. The 27 books that make
up our New Testament were declared canonical in these councils
14. And as such the matter was considered closed. But the
Church didn’t just list the New Testament books; she also listed the Old Testament books. And that list contained the Deutercanonical
books found in Catholic Bibles today. It is ironic that the same councils Protestants point to as authoritative in settling the
New Testament canon were also used by the Church to authoritatively settle the Old Testament canon.

The Reformation

For the following centuries Christendom made no distinction between the
Deutercanonical books 15 and the rest of the Bible as handed down in the Latin Vulgate.

But this changed at the Reformation when Luther rejected the canonicity of the Deutercanonical books. Luther used three arguments
for his decision. First of all the Deutercanonicals gave strong Biblical support for purgatory 16. This was proof to Luther that the books were in error, as Luther had no room for purgatory in his theology. As
God’s Word cannot contain error and these books obviously had such an error (according to Luther), the Deutercanonical books had to go 17. Luther also appealed to the fact that the Jews had rejected the Septuagint (with its Deutercanonical books) at the council of
Jamnia. Finally, Luther pointed out that some of the Church Fathers doubted the inspiration of the Deutercanonicals 18. In time the rest of the Protestant Reformers fell in line. The result is that today the Protestant Bible has 66 books while the Catholic Bible steadfastly maintains the 73 books she has had for 2,000 years.
http://www.holytrinityparish.net/Links/Our%20...
----------

RR, you are following the opinions of scripture based on the thoughts of who?
lol
Luther..........

[Nettiebelle]

Romans Road wrote:

Nettie,
I don't read your RCC propaganda copy/paste spam posts. God has preserved His Word just as promised.
Psalm 12:6-7
6 The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Luther changed some of it; you follow the opinions of scripture of a man........Luther.

[Rose_NoHo]

janeebee wrote:

<quoted text>
All he ever proves is there SHOULD be a Hell!

LOL. So true.

[Rose_NoHo]

dollarsbill wrote:

<quoted text>
Perhaps you didn't hear? "Belief in Hell is not required for residency therein".

Provide some evidence hell exists.