The Bible and Protestants.

It proves 2 facts.
1. Catholics exhibit their ignorance questioning my abbreviations.
2. Catholics cannot be reasoned or educated. They show no reactions when I prove that abbreviations, including abbreviations of the Holy name not only used to be a common practice, but are still in use.
http://www.yahshua.org/qna_nomina.htm


"In the Latin-speaking Christianity of medieval Western Europe (and so among Catholics and many Protestants today), the most common Christogram is "IHS" or "IHC", derived from the first three letters of the Greek name of Jesus, iota-eta-sigma or ΙΗΣ.

"IHS" is sometimes interpreted as meaning Iesus Hominum Salvator ("Jesus, Savior of men", in Latin),"

http://rlv.zcache.com/communion_wafer_mold_card-p137628104284898895q0yk_400.jpg


Instead, Catholics insist that one must keep on using it in vain like they do with their tongues sweeping like dirty brooms left and right.

No, the argument is the same. Let me repeat it:

Oops, Occam's rasor... what was there??? anything important which if not used makes one not a Xn or a less Xn?

I can recite it in other form,- how adding entities over necessities and claiming to be keepers of the spiritual gates does make Catholics less Pharisees?

Pharisees were all correct pointing that gentiles were not only poorly versed in the OT, but also were totally ignorant of the OT and did not belong to the original family, roots. And what did JC say? JC said, - Oh, ****.

You and Felicity came not to share joy, happiness and love of our faith. You came not to spread and follow the message and grace of JC. You, like atheists, came to impose your false superiority and pseudo intellectualism, which is nothing more than an empty place of washed out brains, you came to pick and dig into somebody else’s personal connections with our Lord. I admire history of the CC and even my screen name reflects my deepest respect to the Office of the Holy Inquisition and its tremendous input in the goodness of our Xn civilization. I can advice you that you are acting as a disgrace to our faith. I can advice U2 to step back and take care of your own souls. You of course will skip my advice. Good. Each atheist is a future believer. I think that I advertise my brand better, than you advertise yours.
But still, why don't you follow the word and ****?

 

You make no sense, and ramble like the village idiot.

lol You mean the word, we catholics put together?

Why don't you evengelicals go get an education, and then come back and try again.

 

Now you've given a reason to identify you as a mindless troll.
Please atheists, make a note, Catholics are not too much different from you. At least some fake Catholics, those homosexuals infiltrating the CC and causing all the buzz .

 

Again, it is the New Testament Apocrypha that is being addrerssed. It speaks of the New Testament canon being agreed on with the help of Athanasius, of Alexandria. It says he "...listed all the books of the present New Testament....but allowance is made for Hermas, the Didache, and the Wisdom of Solomon (as well as certain Old Testament apocrypha) to be read privately." p.103-104

In other words, the New Testament Aprocrypha were not considerd part of the canon. They could be read for ones private pupose, but not for the Church. They were not authoritative.

And, as a parenthetical, Metzger mentioned that Athanasius also allowed for some Old Testament apocrypha to be read privately. Meaning also that these were not canonical or authoritative.

So, what this means is that the Old Testament Apocrypha was not recieved as caononical. It was not considered Scripture until the council of Trent. And that was for the purpose of fighting Protestantism. In other words, the questions surrounding its 'inspiration' were not considered. What was considered by The Roman Church was that it is useful to us at this time.

Quantrill

 

No. It means that the canon of the OT was basically set INCLUDING the so-called "apocrypha" as they were debating the NT canon. Metzger is including a bias by calling them "apocrypha" also. Athenasius is a "Doctor of the Church" for heaven's sake! --the Catholic Church!

In his festal letter he is instructing against heretical "apocrypha"--and then lists some of what Protestants call "apocrypha." If Athenasius is authoritative on the NT, as Protestants claim, why do they argue the same source on OT canon? I can tell you....mostly it's out of ignorance and it being different from what they are taught in their good and godly church community. Secondarily, however, it is absolute bigotry.

 

At any rate Quantril--

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synod_of_Hippo

Read it and weep.

AD393....Waaaaaaaaay before Trent.

 

If Mary was not under the law and Jesus did not have the sin nature then the sacrifice does not hold up because He is no longer just like us.

 

Yes he is--he is just like Adam BEFORE the fall, and Mary is like Eve--BEFORE sin entered the world. Both maintained perfect obedience, while Original Adam & Eve disobeyed. It is the whole reason WHY Jesus came into the world--to redeem the nature of mankind!

 

I agree--your brand is very very clear.

 

Again, it is the New Testament canon that is the subject in 103-105. And concerning that New Testament canon, no apocryphal books are considered authoritative and Scripture. They are allowed 'to be read' privately. But 'to be read' doesn't mean they are authoritative Scripture. And Metzger then mentions that the same was true with Athnasius view of Old Testament apocrypha. Again, "to be read" privately doesn't make it Scripture.

Your still arguing for the New Testament. We are discussing Old Testament Apocrypha. Because it is Old Testament Apocrypha that the Catholic Church has included as Scripture. Concerning the New Testament, we are in agreement with the Books that are there.

So, your problem here came about when you tried to say something was being said about Old Testament apocrypha when it was actually New Testament apocrypha.

Quantrilll

 

Okay. Ignore facts. That's your choice.

Yes--as noted the section is about the NT canon, but it REFERENCES the OT canon. THAT'S THE HYPOCRISY. You accept the NT canon, but not the OT canon.

 

No, He would have had to have been just like me and you, not adam and eve. He had to have had a fallen nature, or His sacrifice doesn't stand.

 

How? How can Jesus be sinless and yet have sin? Jesus did NOT have a fallen nature.

Hebrews 4
[14]
Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession.
[15] For we have not a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.

2 Cor. 5
[21] For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

He is "[not] unable to sympathize with our weaknesses" because he is without the stain of Original Sin, but he did have the temptation--just as Adam was before he sinned through disobedience.

I don't understand your logic here. His nature is the same as mankind was originally created--how we were supposed to be and remain. Adam did not remain sinless, but Jesus did. That's why Paul links the two in his writings.

 

Well, that is the whole point. Many local churches at that time had lists of a 'canon'. There were certainly different views. But, these councils are local and not official for the Church.

And when did it become official for the Church? At the Council of Trent in 1546 in response to the Reformation movement.

Quantrill

 

I already mentioned this point as a central one among others. http://www.politicalforum.com/religion/203499-bible-protestants-23.html#post4381248

It caused no reaction among the bigited ones, but just more bigotry. I don't know... may be we should just leave them to their own devices...

 

Both atheists and Catholics use the same methodology. They worship atheistic wikipedia as the source of their knowledge and religion, and they abuse the Bible when they prove that G-d is evil, sexist, corrupt dictator and a Catholic.

Hey, Felicity, I am just curious, was Avicenna a Muslim in your system of beliefs? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avicenna

 

And evengelicals worship the devil

 

Perhaps you ought to look at the title, The Bible and Protestants. You come at us from an outsiders perspective throwing popcorn in a theatre you don't belong to. This is an inhouse discussion between Christians of Catholic and Protestant traditions. This is why this forum should get rid of the atheists and the God haters altogether so we can have our discussions in peace.

You don't belong in this discussion. Butt out.

 

I know its easy to feel that way. But, Im of the opinion that its important to continue to do your all in proving to another Christian what you believe is true about God and His Word. You may not make any difference with the one who you are debating with. But there may be many who read it that it will make a difference to.

So, I view it just as I do when I witness to someone about Jesus Christ. I may never see that one come to Christ. But that doesn't mean they won't somewhere down the line. I do what I can and leave the results to the Holy Spirit.

So, I would encourage you to carry on as you have.

Quantrill

 

I accept the Old Testament canon. Just not the one you and Roman Catholicism has accepted. I accept the same Old Testament, though I know the Jews don't call it that, as the Jews of Israel.

You accept the same books I do, only you include the Apocrypha of the Old Testament.

Quantrill

 

Atheists and Catholics always win. When they are at the wall they use the same winning argument, - they pull their pants down, turn around, bend and produce a fart and a giggle.

 

I express the same in the Scholium of the same post
http://www.politicalforum.com/religion/203499-bible-protestants-23.html#post4381190

When a Xn falls into such lows as coming to you to prove that you are not a Xn we still extend and share the perfect love we experience and may want to help. We ourselves may fall and be in need of help of our brothers and sisters.

Thanks for encouragement. If G-d is willing I may continue to try to help our fallen and confused brothers and sisters, even if in the appeal to their souls I have to cut their flesh to the bone using my methodology.

G-d bless.

 

Let me Chime you in Incorporeal.

It's pretty simple.. Catholics took one verse in the Bible and declared Peter the first pope.

Protestants don't agree with their claim. It's called "apostolic succession,"making their little claim a business and political one. Perhaps an honest mistake.

The "Rock" was the revelation from the Father to Peter, not the freaking Catholic Church, not Peter himself. I don't like to down a Church because the Catholic Church is important History to our faith as I'm sure you know.

Proof of "authority" or apostolic succession remains to be seen. Jesus gives the disciples the ability to do magnificent works, heal, cast out demons, raise the dead,etc.... and yet where did it go ? Yes, that is proof positive that the Pope didn't "inherit" this Spirit, or ability any more than protestants.

 

I do not believe that Inquisitor is a real Evangelical. Evangelicals tend to be a little more sane.

 

I agree. I should know. My whole family is evangelical.