Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
If the rapture really happens tomorrow . . .; AKA . . . the Good Bye Thread
Topic Started: May 20 2011, 01:21 PM (12,119 Views)
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
Larry
May 23 2011, 08:57 PM
There will be no Catholics in heaven, IT. There won't be any Protestants there either. There will only be those who have accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, and their religion won't have anything to do with it.
I was with you for the first two sentences, then you seemed to change tack altogether.
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
ivorythumper
May 23 2011, 09:52 PM
Larry
May 23 2011, 09:07 PM
Quote:
 
I will certainly use the full OT testament, whether you accept those books or not, the Church has for 2000 years.


In other words, you plan to resort to using the apocryphal books. Those books are not accepted as divinely inspired writings, and it doesn't matter to me if the Catholic Church has accepted them for 2,000 years or not, you will not use them in a theological discussion with me, because I will not accept it any more than the original church accepted it.

No Larry, they are not apocryphal. they are really the Bible. The early Church widely, if not universally accepted them. They were only fully rejected by Protestants in the 16th and 17th century (of course, Luther wanted to reject the Epistle of James, just to show you how everything that opposed the protestant preconceptions was suspect).

But just for the sake of giving you an advantage which you will undoubtedly need, I will refrain from appealing to any of the seven books Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, or the two Books of Maccabees. You really should read these sometimes, Larry -- they are wonderful and I promise you won't grow cloven hooves. ;)

First, dispense with the chest thumping "you're gonna need it" bully tactics. I have made it clear that this will be a theological discussion, not a personal attack. I intend to keep it that way because it is not my intention to insult you or anyone else - but you should know by now that if you start pulling that sh!t with me, I'll slap you silly. The next step in that little game of "i'm losing the debate so I'll sling dirt" is to dismiss me because I'm Southern. So stick that little game in your pocket and pull it out on someone else who might be impressed with it. I'm not impressed with it, and I'm not the slightest bit concerned about my ability to hold my own in a debate with you.

Second, let's clear up this issue about the apocryphal books. You are in fact, incorrect. You claim they are part of the Bible. That's an odd claim, since they never appeared in any bible, nor were Catholics required to accept them as scripture until the Council of Trent in the 1600s. You claim the early church widely "if not universally" accepted them. Again, you are incorrect. Polycarp, Ignatius , Clement mention the New Testament only as inspired. Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius as well as Origin and Jerome later rejected this. Athanasius is clear on what was accepted as scripture, and it was not the apocryphal writings. Philo a Jewish philosopher in A.D. 40 quotes from the Old Testament and recognizes the standard threefold division of scripture, but never quotes the Apocrypha as inspired. The Jewish historian Josephus deliberately excludes it. He wrote: “The Jews had only twenty-two books that deserved belief, but those which were written after the time of Artaxerxes (the Apocrypha) were not of equal credit with the rest, in which period they had no prophets at all”.

Neither Jesus nor any of the Apostles ever quote the Apocrypha as divine authority. What was considered "scripture" clearly excluded the Apocrypha from both the Jewish community and the Hebrew Christians of the New Testament. The Jewish scribes denied canonical status to these books, so they were never officially included in the Hebrew Bible. The early Jewish believers saw the writings of the Apostles as "Scripture," and the Old Testament as "Scripture," the Apocrypha was never accepted as such. The books of the Apocrypha were already in existence at the time of Jesus. Yet they were not quoted as Scripture by Him or the apostles, nor included in the New Testament. With over 250 quotations from passages in the Old Testament in the New Testament; there is not one quotation from the Apocryphal writings. The Dead Sea Scrolls also prove that the books of the apocrypha were not considered scripture.

So no sir, do not try to make the claim that those books are "really the Bible", or that the early church accepted them as such. That is simply not the case.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Klaus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Does somebody else remind this discussion of the People's front of Judea vs the Judean People's Front?
Posted Image
Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Gosh Larry you really have me trembling. :lol2: It was just a little joke -- I am sorry if you took it so dismissively. If I didn't take you seriously I wouldn't be wasting my time discussing this with you.

Quote:
 
"That's an odd claim, since they never appeared in any bible, nor were Catholics required to accept them as scripture until the Council of Trent in the 1600s. "


You are certainly wrong about your claims of the scriptures. The full text including the seven other books was found in the first printed bible -- the famous Gutenburg Bible. This follows the Latin Vulgate from the late 4th century which was based on the Septuagint, which also included these books. So you are demonstrably wrong about claiming they never appeared in any bible before Trent.

And these books were affirmed as scripture at both the synod of Hippo and at Carthage in the 4th century, as well as the Council of Florence in the 13th century. Trent only stated as a definitive matter what the Church had long held due to the fact that the protestants challenged these books, as well as others that they later accepted, such as the books of Hebrews, James, and the Book of Revelation. So you are also wrong about them only being held as authentically scripture from the time of the Council of Trent.

Sorry Larry, history is not on your side about this. And if I wanted to spend my time refuting some anti Catholic website, I would do that rather than discussing this with you.

But I've already told you I won't use them, so let's go ahead with the statements that you intend to demonstrate from scripture:

1) Infant baptism is wrong and anti-scriptural, and the Catholic Church is wrong to teach it.

2) The bread and wine used in the Christian liturgy are not really the Body and Blood of Jesus, but only a metaphor (/hypothetical, I am still not sure what you mean by that), and this teaching is anti-scriptural and the Catholic Church is wrong to teach it.

You can edit these now if you wish so that we have a clear structure to our discussion.
Edited by ivorythumper, May 24 2011, 01:26 AM.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
Luke's Dad
May 23 2011, 01:04 PM
Will this thread be the first 20 pager we've had in a while?
6 pages to go, but the gladiators might be getting tired.



My over/under is 17.
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Klaus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
ivorythumper
May 24 2011, 01:21 AM
2) The bread and wine used in the Christian liturgy are not really the Body and Blood of Jesus, but only a metaphor (/hypothetical, I am still not sure what you mean by that), and this teaching is anti-scriptural and the Catholic Church is wrong to teach it.
Well, that one seems to be obvious. Unless Jesus had wine in his veins and his body consisted of bread, then, according to any reasonable definition of equality, the statement that they are the same is wrong.
Trifonov Fleisher Klaus Sokolov Zimmerman
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
taiwan_girl
May 23 2011, 10:49 PM
Larry
May 23 2011, 08:57 PM
There will be no Catholics in heaven, IT. There won't be any Protestants there either. There will only be those who have accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, and their religion won't have anything to do with it.




This is one statement that I have trouble agreement with. I do agree that there will not be any Catholics or Protestants in heaven.

However, I would extend that to say that there will not be any Christians, or Muslims, or Buddhists, or Jewish, or whatever religion. There will just be good people.

Assume that there is a person living in the mountains of Papau New Gineau. They have never seen a Christian nor heard of Christian religion. So, they will not go to heaven? Why should they be excluded? If Adolf Hitler said that he accepts Jesus Christ as his savior, he would go to heaven and I wouldn't? Doesnt seem to make sense to me.

Not trying to be confrontational, but I do believe that god up above is better than that.
There is eternal supply of good beer and great sex in the afterlife.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Klaus
May 24 2011, 12:46 AM
Does somebody else remind this discussion of the People's front of Judea vs the Judean People's Front?
Posted Image
There is an unwritten rule at TNCR, a converse to the well known Godwin's Law:

Anybody who can make a valid comparison between his opponent's argument and a Monty Python sketch immediately and irrevocably wins the argument. His opponent will, of course, attempt to challenge this, using phrases such as 'stupid', 'childish' and 'fvcking Brits', however his words are inconsequential - his argument has passed on, it is no more, it has ceased to be, it's expired and gone to meet it's maker, it's a stiff, bereft of life, it rests in peace, pushing up the daisies, it's metabolic processes are now history, it's off the twig, it's kicked the bucket, it's shuffled off it's mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS A LOST ARGUMENT!!
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
I fart in your general direction is what I am hearing from you.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Chris Aher
Member Avatar
Middle Aged Carp
John D'Oh
May 24 2011, 04:23 AM
Klaus
May 24 2011, 12:46 AM
Does somebody else remind this discussion of the People's front of Judea vs the Judean People's Front?
Posted Image
There is an unwritten rule at TNCR, a converse to the well known Godwin's Law:

Anybody who can make a valid comparison between his opponent's argument and a Monty Python sketch immediately and irrevocably wins the argument. His opponent will, of course, attempt to challenge this, using phrases such as 'stupid', 'childish' and 'fvcking Brits', however his words are inconsequential - his argument has passed on, it is no more, it has ceased to be, it's expired and gone to meet it's maker, it's a stiff, bereft of life, it rests in peace, pushing up the daisies, it's metabolic processes are now history, it's off the twig, it's kicked the bucket, it's shuffled off it's mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS A LOST ARGUMENT!!
Henceforth to be known as the D'oh Exclusion Principle.
Regards,
Chris
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Frank_W
Member Avatar
Resident Misanthrope
:clap:
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin."
Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renauda
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
John D'Oh
May 24 2011, 04:23 AM
Anybody who can make a valid comparison between his opponent's argument and a Monty Python sketch immediately and irrevocably wins the argument. His opponent will, of course, attempt to challenge this, using phrases such as 'stupid', 'childish' and 'fvcking Brits', however his words are inconsequential - his argument has passed on, it is no more, it has ceased to be, it's expired and gone to meet it's maker, it's a stiff, bereft of life, it rests in peace, pushing up the daisies, it's metabolic processes are now history, it's off the twig, it's kicked the bucket, it's shuffled off it's mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS A LOST ARGUMENT!!
Now that is truly inspired apocrypha. :lol2:



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sue
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Chris Aher
May 24 2011, 04:33 AM
Henceforth to be known as the D'oh Exclusion Principle.
Gets my vote. :thumb:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Quote:
 
Sorry Larry, history is not on your side about this. And if I wanted to spend my time refuting some anti Catholic website, I would do that rather than discussing this with you.


IT, anything that disagrees with you will be considered "anti-Catholic" by you.


Quote:
 
The full text including the seven other books was found in the first printed bible -- the famous Gutenburg Bible. his follows the Latin Vulgate from the late 4th century which was based on the Septuagint, which also included these books. So you are demonstrably wrong about claiming they never appeared in any bible before Trent.


Let's see... let's first say thank you to Gutenberg for putting what had previously been only written on scrolls into a bound book form. The books of the Bible were originally written in Hebrew. The Tanakh, the "Jewish Bible", or what we call the Masoretic Text, did not include the apocrpyhal books. As I'm sure you are aware, the Masoretic Texts are much older than the Septuagint, a translation of the Masoretic Texts into Greek because the Jews had spread out over a larger area of the Roman Empire, and were beginning to lose their Hebrew language.

And of course, because of this need for helping that and future generations of Jews retain their Hebrew roots, the books of the apocrypha were translated as well, and included in the Septuagint for historical purposes, which I have already acknowledged these books' historical value.

But they were NOT considered scripture. If these books had been considered scripture, the writers of the New Testament would have quoted from them - yet to a man they did not. They quoted from nearly all the books found in the Masoretic Texts, but they did not once quote from the apocryphal books. Why? Because they did not consider them to be divinely inspired scripture. Jesus quoted from the Masoretic text - yet he never once quoted from the apocryphal books. Why? Because HE didn't consider them divinely inspired.

Thus: Jews did not consider the apocryphal books inspired scripture. They considered them to be of historical value, and nothing more.

From there you resort to the Latin Vulgate, a product of the Roman Catholic Church, and tell me the apocryphal books were affirmed as scripture by..... Roman Catholics in the 4th century. By the 4th century, people had about as much of a connection to this issue as US citizens today have to George Washington, since we're talking about a period of time roughly equal to the existence of the United States. Then the Roman Catholic Church once again confirmed them as scripture in the 13th century, roughly another 3 times longer than the total time frame of the US.

But the fact remains, the Masoretic Text does not include these books, The Targum, which is the Masoretic Text translated into Aramaic, did not include these books, they were included in the Septuagint for their historical value only, and were not considered to be scripture, Jesus nor his apostles considered them scripture, the proof being the fact that none of them quoted from them, none of the writers of the New Testament considered them scripture, the proof being that none of them quoted from them, and we're left with only the Roman Catholic Church deciding to declare them to be scripture.

Since the 16th century there have been several editions of the Bible that have included the apocryphal books in them, but always separated from true scripture, to acknowledge the fact that they are not part of scripture. As you know, if these books *were* scripture, it would have been the Jews who made that decision, since they would be part of the Old Testament. As I'm sure you can see, Christians coming along and declaring Jewish books to be divinely inspired scripture when the Jews did not consider them to be such is a little bit presumptuous, don't you think?

Sorry, history is not on YOUR side.


Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Larry - you really don't know what you're talking about here.
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Luke's Dad
Member Avatar
Emperor Pengin
ivorythumper
May 23 2011, 08:57 PM
bach -- doesn't the notion that the temple would no longer be the locus of the jewish faith but rather be now identified with the person and the body of Jesus make for such a radical redefinition of the covenant that it really is tantamount to a new religion?
Would that be represented by the tearing of the curtain in the temple upon the death of Jesus as related in Mathew?
The problem with having an open mind is that people keep trying to put things in it.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renauda
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Quote:
 
By the 4th century, people had about as much of a connection to this issue as US citizens today have to George Washington, since we're talking about a period of time roughly equal to the existence of the United States.


Speaking of George Washington, how about that Jefferson bible? Inspried rationality without a hint of hocus pocus and superstition.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
Thats a myth, Renauda. Our founding fathers were good Christians who founded a Christian country.
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renauda
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Thomas Paine in particular.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
By the way - if you've not read Hitchen's short bio of Thomas Paine you may want to pick it up. I found it interesting and well written.
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renauda
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
So long as Hitchens can't be construed as apocryphal I'll read it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
blondie
Bull-Carp
Only 14 pages so far?
And cut & paste?
I'm disappointed.
Whatz up guys?
Y'all can't keep it up like before?
Getting old?
Anyhoo, take a pill & chill.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kenny
HOLY CARP!!!
blondie
May 24 2011, 07:24 AM
Only 14 pages so far?
And cut & paste?
I'm disappointed.
Whatz up guys?
Y'all can't keep it up like before?
Getting old?
Anyhoo, take a pill & chill.
They're all very smart men.
How could they not know they're just going round and round in circles again?

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Frank_W
Member Avatar
Resident Misanthrope
Ah... I see... Kenny starts a thread that he know (or at least hopes) will turn into an epic thread. It's just an child's entertaining ride for him.

It all makes perfect sense, now.
Anatomy Prof: "The human body has about 20 sq. meters of skin."
Me: "Man, that's a lot of lampshades!"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
blondie
Bull-Carp
Yes,
Kenny started this sh*t.
Like again.
It's like scab picking, digging at old wounds, or chronic masturbation without relief.
All the same thing.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community.
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply