1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

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

Ask about Jehovah's Witnesses

Discussion in 'Religious Debates' started by WitnessofJah, Nov 11, 2004.

  1. Scott1

    Scott1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,303
    Ratings:
    +950
    Post #227.... among others, but this would be a good start.

    Thanks,
    Scott
     
  2. WitnessofJah

    WitnessofJah Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Messages:
    219
    Ratings:
    +7
    The Septuagint has 39 books....and your point is? The NWT OT section is based from the Septuagint (39 books), and the NT is based from Greek manuscripts (27 books). Simple math dictates 39 books + 27 books = 66 books. This is standard for any mainstream Bible, not just ours - check your own. Bibles that have 66 books: New World Translation of Holy scriptures, Good News Edition, King James Bible, The New Jerusalem Bible, American Standard version, New Living Translation...to name a only a few.

    And if you don't think that the Septaugint translation is reliable, then you have definitely missed something somewhere. Read these:

    http://www.watchtower.org/library/w/2002/9/15/article_01.htm

    Non-JW:

    http://www.septuagint.net/Septuagint.htm

    I've answered every question that has been directed to me in this thread - and nothing less. On the other hand, you have conveniently "forgotten" many of the counter-questions that I have put in your direction - and I have deliberately not chased up on them.

    Peace be with you. :)

     
  3. WitnessofJah

    WitnessofJah Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Messages:
    219
    Ratings:
    +7
    The "added" Apocrypha which are the books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom (of Solomon), Ecclesiasticus (not Ecclesiastes), Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees and some of the others are not part of the rest of the Bible and actually contradict it. They lack prophetic element whatsoever, contradict themselves, are rife with historical and geographic inaccuracies and anachronisms, and have a tint of Greek Pagan influence - you draw your own conclusion. Take the Apocrypha away, and you are left with 66 books.
     
  4. HelpMe

    HelpMe ·´sociopathic meanderer`·

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Messages:
    1,313
    Ratings:
    +61
    1-I should use Scripture to explain the Canon of Scripture?..... that's not ironic.... that's just you not paying attention again.

    that's how it was done, it was tested against itself.some books stood, many books fell.and as i've stated, i believe 'god' made sure it was done right.
    2-Again, you fail to answer the question: why?

    i've answered this before, the canonized books are recognized because of 'god'
    3-Prove it. Why those books and not 400 other writings of the period?

    same as #1 and #2
    4-Rrrrright... and again, they came to the knowledge that these books in particular were inspired how?

    same as #1 and #2
    5-So again, this begs the question: who decided which writingswere inspired?

    god
    6-The Muratorian Canon?.... what page of the Bible did you find this?It's not in the Bible? Hmmmm, I wonder who decided later to add Hebrews, James and one epistle of John...... maybe they were wrong...... or was the Muratorian Canon wrong for excluding them?

    i suppose that because of the wink you were being sarcastic.yes that canon was wrong for excluding them, perhaps this is why nobody practices with this canon today.

    points i agree with from another forum on the same topic:
    It is also true that the canon of Scripture (the list of books) which make up the Bible was determined over a matter of centuries by the early Church (not necessarily the Roman Catholic Church as it is understood today), but what Roman Catholics need to realize is that, once the canon was decided upon, the Bible became a witness which could be used over against the Church if and when the Church erred in faith or morals.

    There are Catholic traditions which cannot be squared with the Bible.The canon was not determined by the early church. It was determined by God. The canon was recognized by the early church. I think this distinction is important and connected with the idea of inspired revelation.

    In fact, the Church that declared (not created) the New Testament canon specifically said that it was God's Word, not theirs. They were clear that they were not creating the canon, but recognizing it as such. Many, both Catholics and non-Catholics, miss this point today.

    There is much evidence the books considered canonical today were recognized, read, collected, and copied by the Church beginning in the 1st century. You are right about there being a human element in the production of our Bible. Certainly, God did not run the first copy on heaven's printing press, and hand it down from the clouds! But, neither was the recognition of the canon a terribly difficult dilemma for the Church.

    It was existant in the New Testament church from the 1st century, even though an official "list" of books was not compiled (as far as we know now).I don't think it is accurate to say the canon came about by "someone" weighing and deciding. Many church groups were able to recognized the same common writings as Scripture without some "official headquarters" telling them what to accept. Enough scholarship existed within the churches to facilitate this.

    To them, the evidence for canonicity was so great as to have been almost natural. They didn't have to wrestle with it, because the apostle's doctrine was well known.The fact that Syrian and Latin translations existed in collections prior to Nicea is evidence that a recogized canon was extent in churches prior to Athanasius.I think one of the difficulties with understanding canonicity is the authoritarian model of church polity. We tend to assume the Church had a central government from the beginning.

    It is a false asssumption. Churches in the earliest years had great local autonomy. They had a common faith and practice, based on the apostolic teaching. The early churches derived their rules for practice from Christ, the cornerstone, and the writings of His apostles. Each church has it's own group of elders presiding over doctrine and practice. After the apostles, no individual or group of Bishops existed who had the central authority to make official pronouncements to be accepted by all.

    As time went on, certain large cities began to evolve local Bishops who were somewhat autocratic in their cities. Thus, the papacy cannot really be traced back to Peter along an unbroken succession of popes. That notion is a construct invented by the RC, but not a historically supported reality. It has been a effective construct (for the RC), though. Even non-Catholics tend to believe the Church had a central governace from the beginning. That's just propaganda as scripture proves.

    As churches evolved into being more centralized in polity (the biggest leap being with Constantine's incorporation of Christian doctrine into his polictical rule), it is expected that there would be councils and publications of authoritarian declarations such as the council of Nicea. But, the church thrived for centuries with great local autonomy and doctrinal orthodoxy based on their faithfulness to the collections of apostolic teaching.

    i really think i already answerd all the questions to that post previously.
     
  5. Scott1

    Scott1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,303
    Ratings:
    +950
    My point.... from that website you provided:
    [font=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica]Septuagint - What Does It Contain?
    The Septuagint contains the standard 39 books of the Old Testament canon, as well as certain apocryphal books. The term "Apocrypha" was coined by the fifth-century biblical scholar, Jerome, and generally refers to the set of ancient Jewish writings written during the period between the last book in the Jewish scriptures, Malachi, and the arrival of Jesus Christ. The apocryphal books include Judith, Tobit, Baruch, Sirach (or Ecclesiasticus), the Wisdom of Solomon, First and Second Maccabees, the two Books of Esdras, additions to the Book of Esther, additions to the Book of Daniel, and the Prayer of Manasseh.
    [/font]
    The Apocryphal books were included in the Septuagint for historical and religious purposes, but are not recognized by Protestant Christians or Orthodox Jews as canonical (inspired by God).
    But you don't think so:
    .... but, from that site again:
    The New Testament writers also relied heavily on the Septuagint, as a majority of Old Testament quotes cited in the New Testament are quoted directly from the Septuagint (others are quoted from the Hebrew texts). Greek church fathers are also known to have quoted from the Septuagint. Even today, the Eastern Orthodox Church relies on the Septuagint for its Old Testament teachings.
    Quite to the contrary... I do.... I am wondering why you don't.
     
  6. Scott1

    Scott1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,303
    Ratings:
    +950
    Ok HelpMe, on to your post:

    OK, so these translations were correct and used the correct books, but the Muratorian Canon was wrong..... what makes you sure these translations were not any more incorrect than the Muratiorian Canon? Let me guess.... God.

    Oh... so you recognize that the Church of the first century was guided by God... great!.... I am sure that you must then also believe in other first century teachings as well.... or was it just the Scripture and the Church got most everything else wrong?

    .... and they all decided upon the same group of books? Independently?
    Based on Apostolic teaching? How is this possible with only some of the writings complete? Or do you actually believe that all of these "Churches with great local autonomy" declared what writings were inspired, copied them, and passed them around to these other autonomous Churches..... or did God reveal a copy of each book of the NT as it was written simultaneously to each of these Churches?
    How did these elders teach before the entire NT was written and delivered to them for study? Could you be impling that Apostles may have taught the elders.... GASP.... orally? :eek: ..... or did these local autonomous Churchs with no central authority just sit around for 40-50 years until the Bible..... on it's own somehow as you put it "it was tested against itself.some books stood, many books fell."
    It's funny how you evangelical/fundamental/independant types choose to accept one historical teaching of the Bible= elders, but deny another= the laying of hands. :sarcastic
     
  7. Scott1

    Scott1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,303
    Ratings:
    +950
    Hey HelpMe,

    Since you believe the first century Christians were divinely inspired and led to form the Canon of Scripture, here's a few more things that those same people believed in that I'm SURE you agree with:

    Ignatius of Antioch, who had been a disciple of the apostle John and who wrote a letter to the Smyrnaeans about A.D. 110, said, referring to "those who hold heterodox opinions," that "they abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again" (6:2, 7:1).

    Forty years later, Justin Martyr, wrote, "Not as common bread or common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, . . . is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66:1–20).


    Ignatius of Antioch on Bishops, Priests and Deacons.... that you say did not exist.....keep in mind while reading this... Ignatius was a STUDENT OF THE APOSTLE JOHN.... studied right at his feet..... :D

    "Take care, therefore, to be confirmed in the decrees of the Lord and of the apostles, in order that in everything you do, you may prosper in body and in soul, in faith and in love, in Son and in Father and in Spirit, in beginning and in end, together with your most reverend bishop; and with that fittingly woven spiritual crown, the presbytery; and with the deacons, men of God. Be subject to the bishop and to one another as Jesus Christ was subject to the Father, and the apostles were subject to Christ and to the Father; so that there may be unity in both body and spirit" (ibid., 13:1–2). (Letter to the Magnesians 2 [A.D. 110]).

    Should I go on with other first century teachings?.... nah, didn't think you want me to.:jiggy:


    Peace,
    Scott
    www.catholic.com

     
  8. WitnessofJah

    WitnessofJah Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Messages:
    219
    Ratings:
    +7



    You very well know that I did'nt direct you onto that page - I directed you onto a page that was factual - and you know it. But you obviously decided to "hunt" because you could'nt find anything else. It's also very funny that you failed to quote from the other website I provided.




    With respect, where did your argument for the 66 books go? You have gone from argument to argument from post to post in this thread without providing anything solid.
     
  9. Pah

    Pah Uber all member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2004
    Messages:
    13,001
    Ratings:
    +1,059
    Christianity, it seems, can not agree on the basic authority but all claim "inspiration" from God. Is it any wonder that "inspiration" is doubted - being as it is not homogenous. Further, some can justifiably say that, whatever Christian canon is used, there is only claimed prophesy and inerrancy in both history and theology.

    There is also the matter of the Protestant Old Testamnet canon not agreeing with the original faith of Christianity'

    From the TaNaKh
    From the Protestant Old Testament
    http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/t-p.stm
    Bob
     
  10. Scott1

    Scott1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,303
    Ratings:
    +950
    Yes, I agree... factual. It clearly states what is in the Septuagint, that the writers of the NT used it.etc.......... and that your "church" does not. Like you said.... factual.... but you failed to disclose why your faith chooses not to use such a obviously factual text.
    Again, why?
    Hunting? You don't know me very well my friend.... I knew were this thead would lead and I know how it's going to end.... I've done this once or twice before..... why do you think I directed the thread away from your erroneous Bible interpretation and led it here.... because I guessed (correctly) that you could not defend even the most basic principles of Biblical formation... what you don't know now, (and probably never will I'm afraid) is how your Bible came to be and the implications of that information. This information (in my experience) leads most into atheism (you're welcome pah).... but others swallow their pride and submit...... submit to what?....... AUTHORITY.
    Respect right back at ya, Witness....... but, I am asking questions about why you claim the Septuagint as an origin for your Bible translation.... but discount a portion of the text..... and more importantly, what gives your faith the authority to do so?
    I don't have to argue the 66 books..... Catholics have used the ENTIRE LXX cannon for ..... well....... since the begining of our faith.

    Or would it be more credible to change something 1800+ years later?
     
  11. HelpMe

    HelpMe ·´sociopathic meanderer`·

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Messages:
    1,313
    Ratings:
    +61
    This "canon" was comprised of ten epistles of Paul and an edited Gospel of Luke. It was Marcion's intention to reject the Old Testament as Scripture for Christians. This is why he was considered a heretic, and his "canon" deficient. The orthodox canon which was contemporary with Marcion's is known as the Muratorian Canon, named for the 18th century scholar L.A. Muratori who discovered it in Milan, Italy.

    i was simply referring to the fact that the last and still held today canon, was not the first.
    are you trying to say that i should believe in 100% of what a person does/says if i believe 1% of what they've done is/was correct?could you be more absurd?
    actually, i never stated that the agreed upon each of the 27 books already, but you ran with it as you saw fittingly to belittle me didn't you?my statement was to clarify that there was little dispute when the official canon came down, for obvious reasons you are choosing to be oblivious to.
    how many copies do you think existed in the time?exactly how long do you really think it took them to spread abroad what was accepted and keep to themselves or destroy what they thought was wrong?
    are you implying that i have denied this?aren't we the little stick man lover.
    i deny the laying of hands?could you clarify.
    yes, everything they've ever done was completely right because they did one thing right.this is absurd, i never claimed them to be perfect for having performed a perfect act, but you've run with this idea too haven't you?
    perhaps we should instead consider 1tim3:1,2/tit1:7/1pe2:25 before we get out of hand.btw, where did i say these things didn't exist before stated time?do you also find it ironic that you referred not to scripture but to supposed quotes of early church fathers for your proof?
    is that supposed to mean you're dancing?

    given the fact that you referred me to a page with santa all over itself whilst also claiming to be christian is enough for me to believe you or what you follow is not true to scripture, we can stop the discussion now.it's been interesting, and you've fulfilled nearly all stereotype catholic argument tactics as woj pointed out.

    love
     
  12. Scott1

    Scott1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,303
    Ratings:
    +950
    OK..... until next time..... God bless.

    Witness..... your turn!
     
  13. WitnessofJah

    WitnessofJah Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Messages:
    219
    Ratings:
    +7



    My “church” and many other religions exclude the Apocrypha. On the flip side of the coin, what gives the few religions that follow it (like the R.C.) the authority to put it in despite overwhelming evidence? I’ll get to why we don’t include it later on.





    Since you are a moderator and are supposed to be neutral, and more importantly, this is a forum where people are supposed to express their different points of view, you have violated this thread for your own hidden agenda. I did’nt think you would go to these depths to argue your point.





    Coming from somebody who:



    ·Thinks that “oral stories” are more conclusive than the Bible.

    ·Thinks that “Tradition” is more powerful in the development of the Bible than God himself.

    ·Failed to provide a single Biblical scripture in favour of the Trinity.

    ·Fails to see the fantastic contradictions of the Bible with his comments.

    ·Argues that the Bible does not have 66 books, and then realizes that most of the Bibles on earth have 66 books, and reverts.

    ·Believes in a book (The Apocrypha) that contradicts his own faith.

    ·Failed to answer my question about why “Jehovah/Yaweh” is not in his Bible translation despite being in the original copies.

    ·Deliberately misquoted me by going onto a website page I had not specified.

    ·Hi-jacks this thread for his own hidden agenda.

    ·Creates an argument over elementary things that are so simple, they don’t need to be argued.



    And then after all that, complains about my “interpretation of the Bible”, in which he cited or quoted none of my comments and what was wrong with them.
     
  14. WitnessofJah

    WitnessofJah Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Messages:
    219
    Ratings:
    +7




    Jehovah’s Witnesses are not the only religion that excludes the Apocrypha from the Bible translation – most religions on the planet do. Why? Because of crystal clear fact, logic, and being able to overlook hypocrisy which is as clear as night and day. Let me give you the run down:



    As most commonly used today, “The Apocrypha” refers to the eleven additional writings declared canonical by the Roman Catholic Church in her Council of Trent (1546). The Roman Catholic description of “Canonical” of the Apocrypha according to them must be ‘Contradictions of the Bible itself, lack of any prophecy whatsoever, Greek Paganism, contradictory of itself, rife with historical and geographic inaccuracies and anachronisms. '



    Why is’nt it included in the Bible? The complete lack of canonicity (read above paragraph). Also, the original Greek Septuagint version did not contain the Apocrypha – but it was added later. Many, perhaps most, of the Apocryphal writings were admittedly written after the commencement of the translation work of the Septuagint and so were obviously not on the original list of books selected for translation by the translating body. At best, then, they could rate only as accretions to that work. Additionally, while the Greek-speaking Jews of Alexandria eventually inserted such Apocryphal writings into the Greek Septuagint and apparently viewed them as part of an enlarged canon of sacred writings, the statement by Josephus quoted earlier shows that they were never brought into the Jerusalem or Palestinian canon and were, at the most, viewed as only secondary writings and not of divine origin. Thus, the Jewish Council of Jamnia (about 90 C.E.) specifically excluded all such writings from the Hebrew canon.



    One of the chief external evidences against the canonicity of the Apocrypha is the fact that none of the Christian Bible writers quoted from these books. While this of itself is not conclusive, inasmuch as their writings are also lacking in quotations from a few books recognized as canonical, such as Esther, Ecclesiastes, and The Song of Solomon, yet the fact that not one of the writings of the Apocrypha is quoted even once is certainly significant.



    Differing Catholic views. The trend toward including these additional writings as canonical was primarily initiated by Augustine (354-430 C.E.), although even he in later works acknowledged that there was a definite distinction between the books of the Hebrew canon and such “outside books.” However, the Catholic Church, following Augustine’s lead, included such additional writings in the canon of sacred books determined by the Council of Carthage in 397 C.E. It was, however, not until as late as 1546 C.E., at the Council of Trent, that the Roman Catholic Church definitely confirmed its acceptance of these additions into its catalog of Bible books, and this action was deemed necessary because, even within the church, opinion was still divided over these writings. John Wycliffe, the Roman Catholic priest and scholar who, with the subsequent help of Nicholas of Hereford, in the 14th century made the first translation of the Bible into English, did not include the Apocrypha in his work, and the preface to this translation declared such writings to be “without authority of belief.” Dominican Cardinal Cajetan, foremost Catholic theologian of his time (1469-1534 C.E.) and called by Clement VII the “lamp of the Church,” also differentiated between the books of the true Hebrew canon and the Apocryphal works, appealing to the writings of Jerome as an authority.



    Not without weight also is the fact that leading Bible scholars and “church fathers” of the first centuries of our common era definitely gave the Apocrypha an inferior position. It also appears that the more learned Bible scholars these were, the more they opposed the Apocrypha. Thus Augustine, who leaned toward recognizing the Apocrypha, was not nearly the Bible scholar that Jerome, translator of the Vulgate, was, and who once wrote Laeta, a lady acquaintance, in regard to the education of her daughter: “All apocrypha books should be avoided; . . . they are not the works of authors by whose names they are distinguished, [for] they contain much that is faulty, and . . . it is a task requiring great prudence to find gold in the midst of clay.”—McClintock & Strong’s Cyclopædia, Vol. 1, p. 290.



    As one authority summed up the case against the Apocryphal writings: “They have not had the sanction of the Jewish and the early Christian Church; . . . are wholly wanting in the prophetic spirit. . . ; not only do not claim inspiration but bewail the want of it; are characterized in many passages by an air of romance and mythology alien to the simple grandeur of the Bible; contradict themselves and some well-known facts of secular history; teach doctrines not contained in the Bible. . . ; and appear never to have been quoted as an authority by the Lord or his apostles.”—Dictionary of Religious Knowledge, Abbott, pp. 50, 51.

    Truly the Apocrypha is not of God but of men. What a lack of understanding and appreciation to place its writings on the same plane as those of God’s Word, the Bible! Well can Paul’s warning against paying attention to Jewish fables be applied to the Apocrypha.—Titus 1:14

     
  15. WitnessofJah

    WitnessofJah Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Messages:
    219
    Ratings:
    +7
    A brief commentary on some of the books of the Apocrypha:



    1 and 2 Maccabees: Authorship unknown (unlike the rest of the Bible). Thus the Jewish Encyclopedia tells us that in it “history is written from the human standpoint.” Its author seems to have been a Sadducee, as he ignores the crimes the chief priests committed during that time, thus betraying his lack of objectivity. Another authority excuses the “few historical and geographical inaccuracies,” but divine history does not thus err.



    Baruch: The Book of Baruch likewise proves itself of human origin by its typically Apocryphal mistakes. It purports to tell of captive Jews in Babylon collecting money and sending it to the priests in Jerusalem in the fifth year of that city’s having been burned by Nebuchadnezzar, when, in fact, at that time there was neither man nor beast there. It shows Jeconiah with the other Jews in Babylon, when, in fact, he was in prison. It tells the Jews that they will be in Babylon for seven generations, whereas the facts are that they were there only seventy years. And it speaks of the Jews having “waxen old in a strange country,” although having been there only five years. No wonder Jerome did not think it worthy of translation!—Baruch 1:2-7; 3:11; 6:3.



    WISDOM (OF SOLOMON) AND ECCLESIASTICUS: Even as the Book of Baruch professes to be by Jeremiah’s servant Baruch but is not, so Wisdom professes to speak for Solomon but was written many centuries after Solomon’s time. Not only does it quote from Bible books written long after Solomon’s day but quotes them from the Septuagint Version. A typical example is Wisdom 15:10 taken from Isaiah 44:20. Its human origin is further betrayed by the fact that it contradicts God’s Word about man being created mortal and subject to death if disobedient. Wisdom says: “God created man to be immortal, and made him to be an image of his own eternity.” “In the sight of the unwise they seemed to die, . . . yet their hope is full of immortality.” And not only is immortality repeatedly attributed to man but man’s body is pictured as a mere hindrance to the soul, which at death is “received up.”—Wisdom 2:23; 3:2, 4; 16:14.



    Tobit: In Tobit we are asked to believe that a pious old Jew was blinded by bird’s dung falling in both of his eyes; that an angel impersonating a human became the traveling companion of his son, whom the old man sent to collect a debt; that on the way the son acquired the heart, liver and gall of a fish; that by burning the heart and liver he caused a stench that drove away a certain demon, who, in jealousy, had killed seven husbands of a certain woman; that this widow then married the son, who, after accomplishing his mission, returned home and restored the sight of his father by placing the gall of the fish on his eyes. Could anything be less creditable in the light of the Scriptures? Could this book be of God?



    Judith: Proving itself also of human origin but for different reasons is the Book of Judith. It tells of a beautiful woman decapitating the leading general of the enemies of the Jews, resulting in their deliverance. While the story itself is not implausible, the details are so unhistorical as to make its location on the stream of time impossible. On the one hand it purports to tell of conditions after the Jews returned from captivity, yet it mentions Nineveh, the Assyrian armies and King Nebuchadnezzar, all of whom perished long before the Jews returned to Palestine, and even makes Nebuchadnezzar the king of the Assyrians. Authorities state that “the geographical inaccuracies are equally embarrassing,” and their censure that the apocryphal books “demonstrate that all true historical consciousness was deserting the people” applies most of all to the Book of Judith. In view of all this, what doubt can there be as to what is its origin?



    Supplement to Esther: What about the supplement to Esther, 10:4 to 16:24, appearing in the Apocrypha? It fares no better in the light of objective criticism. It asks us to believe that Mordecai was “a great man, being a servitor in the king’s court” in the second year of Artaxerxes, 150 years after he was taken captive the first time Nebuchadnezzar came up against Jerusalem. And in claiming that Mordecai occupied this position so early in the king’s reign it not only contradicts the canonical part of Esther but also its own reference later on to his being advanced. Profuse with references to God and acts of piety, it obviously was added to give Esther a religious tone. But references to God in themselves do not prove divine origin any more than their lack proves human origin.

    The remaining Apocryphal writing to be considered is the Destruction of Bel and the Dragon. In the first half Daniel exposes a hoax practiced by the priests of Bel in eating food set out for Bel and supposedly consumed by the idol. Commanded to worship a live dragon, he causes it to explode by feeding it a concoction made of pitch, fat and hair. For this its devotees have Daniel thrown into the lions’ den. While there an angel takes the prophet Habakkuk, who happens to be far off, by the hair to the den to give Daniel a bowl of porridge. After seven days Daniel is delivered and his enemies are thrown to the lions. Does such a tale recommend itself to our judgment as the Word of God?



    So after reading this, it is clear to see that some of these verses are downright laughable, let alone to be taken seriously. It is beyond comprehension that some people actually believe this.



    SOGFPP, not let me see your counter-answer to this post with references, dates, facts, and quotes….like mine.





    The Apocrypha was not fully accepted into Catholicism until 1546. So it’s either you who is wrong or it is the Catholic history books that are wrong. Pick one.
     
  16. chuck010342

    chuck010342 Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2004
    Messages:
    942
    Ratings:
    +30

    Nope I don't think he did. Evil is a result of our sin
    Satan was created by God so he had a beggining
    I don't think Satan is the problem, the problem is our sin
     
  17. WitnessofJah

    WitnessofJah Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2004
    Messages:
    219
    Ratings:
    +7
    With respect, the questions I had in that post was against your argument, not for my case.

    I agree with you when you say that God did'nt create evil - I never doubted it. However, since when does our sin affect Satan? He is the one who instigated it to us. Satan was evil when the the first human was on the planet (Gen 3:1-7)- and even possibly before then.

    I 100% agree. To reflect, you have now said that God created Satan (I agree), and that God also did'nt create evil (I agree). After reading what you have just said, simple deduction dictates that God created Satan as a non-evil person - in which you have just agreed with me. However, you were not saying that earlier on in this thread. You said that Satan was always evil - even from creation. Explain this then:

     
  18. chuck010342

    chuck010342 Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2004
    Messages:
    942
    Ratings:
    +30
    Don't respect me. I'm not worthy of it

    Doesn't Satan Like it when we sin? That sounds like an affect to me

    I agree with you that Satan instigated but Satan is not the cause of sin. The cause of sin is mans Pride, Lust, Envy. And the rest.

    your right about that. I was wrong I shouldn't of said what I did earlier. It makes no sense with my own theology. I aplogise for making such a bad statement. I have been wrong thousands of times before and will be wrong thousands of times in the future.


    I responded to this in antoher segment of this post
     
  19. croak

    croak Trickster

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,804
    Ratings:
    +211
    Put it this way: evil is the name for the absence of good.
    Of course he did. Allah created him.
    No, he will die at the end of the world.

    No, actually when Allah told the Angels to prostrate to Adam, he was with them, and he refused, boasting that he was made from fire and Adam from clay. Then, he asked for Allah's permisson to decieve mankind.

    How do you inherit sin? Shaitan (Satan) didn't only decieve Adam. He has tried to decieve every person to set foot on this Earth. So, Original Sin does not exist; rather, every person in history (except for a few. e.g. Prophets, Messengers) has sinned because of Shaitan's desire to corrupt us all and prove to Allah that we are just arrogant and ungrateful. Well, some of us are. However, there are some who believe in Him and are not arrogant and are grateful.


    I know I'm not Christian, but I thought this was interesting and wanted to show my point.
     
  20. Scott1

    Scott1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,303
    Ratings:
    +950
    Well... it seems you are taking this a bit too personally.... so I'll bow out of this thread.

    I would like to make one point though:
    I am a member of this forum... no more or less important than you are. Rex is the only person with total authority.... the rest of us here are just members, some with "jobs".... my job as a moderator is to ensure that rules are being followed...... my job is to be neutral when it comes to enforcing the rules of the forum.... not neutral when it comes to stating my personal opinons.

    When you see *** MOD POST *** in my message, you will know that I am acting as a moderator and you should then, and only then, know I am then posting as a "employee" of ReligiousForums.com.

    Any other post.... I am just a goofy guy from Massachsetts who enjoys talking about faith and philosopy. Try not to take every differing view as a personal attack... the forum will be a lot more fun for you if you don't.

    Peace and God's blessings,
    Scott
     
Loading...