Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Cure of Ars

The Longest Prophesy About Jesus

Recommended Posts

Cure of Ars

Here is the longest prophesy about Jesus in the Bible. It is an amesome passage writen 100 years before Christ. Protestants do not have this as part of their scripture because they reject the deuterocanonicals books of the Bible.

Let us beset the just one, because he is obnoxious to us; he sets himself against our doings, Reproaches us for transgressions of the law and charges us with violations of our training. He professes to have knowledge of God and styles himself a child of the Lord. To us he is the censure of our thoughts; merely to see him is a hardship for us, Because his life is not like other men's, and different are his ways. He judges us debased; he holds aloof from our paths as from things impure. He calls blest the destiny of the just and boasts that God is his Father. Let us see whether his words be true; let us find out what will happen to him. For if the just one be the son of God, he will defend him and deliver him from the hand of his foes. With revilement and torture let us put him to the test that we may have proof of his gentleness and try his patience. Let us condemn him to a shameful death; for according to his own words, God will take care of him." These were their thoughts, but they erred; for their wickedness blinded them, And they knew not the hidden counsels of God; neither did they count on a recompense of holiness nor discern the innocent souls' reward. (Wisdom 2:12-22)

What rational and consistent reason do you Protestants have to reject and take out the deuterocanonicals books from the Bible's canon?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dUSt

Usually, the arguments are:

1. It wasn't written in the same language as the rest of the OT.

2. The Jews rejected them.

3. They don't hold up when comparing them with other scripture.

I've examined all three points and still remain Catholic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cure of Ars

Usually, the arguments are:

1. It wasn't written in the same language as the rest of the OT.

2. The Jews rejected them.

3. They don't hold up when comparing them with other scripture.

I've examined all three points and still remain Catholic.

This is going to be a boring debate Dust because your going to agree with me. I was hoping to talk with people that were not set on the same foundation. But anyway the reasons that you give are not reasonable and constant.

1. It wasn't written in the same language as the rest of the OT.

The Dead Sea Scrolls have shown that some of the deuterocanonicals where originally written in Hebrew. Another proble is that the Bible never says that only things written in Hebrew can be scripture. And if this was the case we should reject the New Testament that was also written in Greek. Another problem with this is that the Apostles and early Church used and quoted from the Septuagint. In fact a lot of the proofs that the early Church used for Jesus comes only from the Septuagint and this is why the Jews rejected them, so that Christianity would have less of a foothold.

2. The Jews rejected them.

The Jews did not set their canon until 100 A.D. Technically Jesus and other Jews of his time did not reject them. Why listen to the Jews at this late of a date when the Holy Spirit was already given to the Church? If they were right about the Old Testament Canon why are they not right about rejecting the New Testament writings?

3. They don't hold up when comparing them with other scripture.

Jesus taught the following;

But to you who hear I say, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. (Luke 6:27-28)

Compare that statement with this:

Fair Babylon, you destroyer, happy those who pay you back the evil you have done us! Happy those who seize your children and smash them against a rock. (Ps 137:8-9)

Should we then throw out Psalm 137?

Look at Ecclesiastes, it would not hold up to the congruent test when compared it to other scripture? Where in the Bible does it say to do this? What is stopping us from adding books to the canon if they are congruent with known scripture? Who gets to decide what is congruent and what is not? Is it the job of each indivudual Christian?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skuba steve

does it really matter????

there are people in asia who see themselves lucky to own just one page torn from a bible... they base their lives on being able to have just a glimpse of God's word.... kind of like a woman in the bible that wanted just one touch of Jesus' robe...

She didn't need to know the whole history of the world, she had a heart full of faith in Jesus and he did the rest...

and whatever you wanna argue, make sure you don't dent the power of God and his Spirit to work through God's word, no matter how little or how much you have of it... coz that would be close to unpardonable.... seriously

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dave

does it really matter????

there are people in asia who see themselves lucky to own just one page torn from a bible... they base their lives on being able to have just a glimpse of God's word.... kind of like a woman in the bible that wanted just one touch of Jesus' robe...

She didn't need to know the whole history of the world, she had a heart full of faith in Jesus and he did the rest...

and whatever you wanna argue, make sure you don't dent the power of God and his Spirit to work through God's word, no matter how little or how much you have of it... coz that would be close to unpardonable.... seriously

That's irrelevant and a non-answer, Steve. Which type of Bible would you prefer, an incomplete one or a complete one? And don't say yours is complete; Martin Luther took the liberty of removing books from it -- not just the deuterocanonicals but even books like James (the latter was later reinstated, though). Please read the previous posts in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Norseman82

does it really matter????

there are people in asia who see themselves lucky to own just one page torn from a bible... they base their lives on being able to have just a glimpse of God's word.... kind of like a woman in the bible that wanted just one touch of Jesus' robe...

She didn't need to know the whole history of the world, she had a heart full of faith in Jesus and he did the rest...

and whatever you wanna argue, make sure you don't dent the power of God and his Spirit to work through God's word, no matter how little or how much you have of it... coz that would be close to unpardonable.... seriously

Well, it's one thing if for reasons beyond your control you only have access to part of it.

But if you have access to the whole, why not take advantage of it???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cure of Ars

does it really matter????

there are people in asia who see themselves lucky to own just one page torn from a bible... they base their lives on being able to have just a glimpse of God's word.... kind of like a woman in the bible that wanted just one touch of Jesus' robe...

She didn't need to know the whole history of the world, she had a heart full of faith in Jesus and he did the rest...

and whatever you wanna argue, make sure you don't dent the power of God and his Spirit to work through God's word, no matter how little or how much you have of it... coz that would be close to unpardonable.... seriously

If it is God's Word how can you say that it does not matter? I want all of God's truth that he as revealed not just a part. A half truth is a lie in most instances. I want the fullness of God's truth. So my post was not just to argue but it is very serious because it is a matter of God's Word. And it shows that the Bible is not the only rule of faith because the table of contents is not inspired. We need tradition to know what books belong in the Bible. Your rely on tradition like it or not, but in your case it is man made tradition. I have the highst respect of the power of the Word of God and because of this I would not be satisfied even if I was only lacking a line of it. God bless

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skuba steve

i would rather have bits of it missing...than bits that shouldn't be there at all....

im not saying someones right and someone's wrong, but im in the safer position...

also...i would not like to have a bible that justifies suicide

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
VanHooty

We have a Bible that justifies suicide?

Secondly, uh... to be blunt, bugger to what you personally care about you rather having bits missing to the Bible then bits that shouldn't be there. The Bible itself says both are equally bad somewhere in the book of Revelation (where's a Church Militant or Church Faithful when you need one...?). And if we all hold the Bible in such high esteem that it is the inspired word of God, either we Catholics have extra books or you Protestants don't have all the books. Which means one of group is right and the other wrong.

Anyhow, back to my first statement. I'd really like to know where the Bible justifies suicide. I "recall" (meaning: I was told about) us Catholic refusing to give funerals for people who commited suicide at one time or another.

And, as for you being in the safer position, not necessarily. Cure of Ars and Dave have done a pretty good job in pointing that out. I'd say that the burden of proof lies with yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cure of Ars

i would rather have bits of it missing...than bits that shouldn't be there at all....

im not saying someones right and someone's wrong, but im in the safer position...

also...i would not like to have a bible that justifies suicide

How can yours be the safer position when you do not have a logical and consistent reason for the books that are in your Bible? (Please give them if you do.) Jesus did not hand the Church the Bible. In fact, there was a lot of confusion in the early Church about which books were inspired. (I am going to make a new post with this evidence.) It wasn’t until the Church defined what books were inspired in the council of Hippo did the controversy end. Your New Testament canon is based on the decision of this council. Now if you call into question and do not believe the books that the Church defined in the council of Hippo for the Old Testament why trust that the Church got them right for the New Testament? Your Bible’s Canon is based on the Catholic Church like it or not. So yours is the riskier position. To take the canon from a Church that you believe is wrong is not safe because if they are wrong in doctrine why trust that they got it right when it defined the canon.

To sum up the only connection the New Testament has to Jesus is the testimony, witness, and authority of the Catholic Church. Like St. Augustine said, “For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.” St. Augustine (354-430 A.D.) [Against the Epistle of Manichaeus A.D. 397] Just like the Bible says, the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15). God bless

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cmotherofpirl

does it really matter????

there are people in asia who see themselves lucky to own just one page torn from a bible... they base their lives on being able to have just a glimpse of God's word.... kind of like a woman in the bible that wanted just one touch of Jesus' robe...

She didn't need to know the whole history of the world, she had a heart full of faith in Jesus and he did the rest...

and whatever you wanna argue, make sure you don't dent the power of God and his Spirit to work through God's word, no matter how little or how much you have of it... coz that would be close to unpardonable.... seriously

Your comments make quite clear what is wrong with sola scriptura.

THe bible is not necessary, but the Church is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cmotherofpirl

i would rather have bits of it missing...than bits that shouldn't be there at all....

im not saying someones right and someone's wrong, but im in the safer position...

also...i would not like to have a bible that justifies suicide

So a man (luther) had the right to decide what was in the bible instead of God's Church?

Think about what you are saying.

If you admit one man has the right to change the word or God, you are saying all men have the right to change the word of God.

God is NOT a God of such confusoin as this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dave

am i hallucinating?

Not at all. Remember, for the first few centuries of Christendom, there was no Bible. And then when the Bible was compiled, few people knew how to read, and it was years before it was even feasible for people to have individual copies, what with the lack of the printing press.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cure of Ars

am i hallucinating?

The Word of God is essential and it is very profitable that it is written so that people can have easier access to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...