Every Catholic sing the same old song: WE DO NOT WORK IDOLS. The shameful truth is they do. Loads of Catholics books say, we don't but we are not blind? We see it everyday. For someone like me to be in Catholic high school, I can tell the world boldly that CATHOLICS WORSHIP IDOLS. If even 1 of the 39 pictures show Catholics boeing down to IMAGES, it's enough proof! Serve Jesus n Leave MARY ALONE. CATHOLICISM= PAGANISM but even an 8 year baby can tell when ppl BOW TO IMAGE!
@MrSpiritualguru Clearly you did not watch this two-part video series, because I took a great amount of effort to show that Catholics do NOT worship idols. Watch the videos or don't comment. You can't knock my argument if you haven't head it.
REALLY?CATHOLICS DO NOT WORSHIP IDOLS? i SUGGEST YOU TRY TO SEARCH FOR VIDEOS .. .....FEASTT OF THE BLACK NAZARENE . . . .AND THEN TELL ME CATHOLICS DO NOT WORSHIP IDOLS. im from the country where majority of its people are catholics.roman catholics.
@Julst2021 No, Catholics don't worship idols. The Feast of the Black Nazarene is not idolatry. The people who participate in the celebration do not worship the statue, nor do they think the statue is God. They use the statue to represent Jesus and what he went through.
@SeptemberCatholic18 really?try to watch a video of thousands of catholics wanting to touch the graven images for blessings.lmao.why cnt they just pray to God in the comforts of their own house?
@Julst2021 They most likely do pray in their own homes. The statue doesn't give a blessing, so you are mistaken. However, it does represent Jesus, so they just want to show honor to Jesus.
@SeptemberCatholic18 why need images to remind you of holy things what happend to revelation, cause when your praying and looking to the saints your putting them on a level where only Jesus can be, Jesus is our mediator between us and God, men are men.
@platnium1811 Why do you need photos to remind you of your family members? Obviously having a visual image helps you remember them. And no, we are not putting them on the level of Jesus. You can't say that without putting words in our mouths.
@platnium1811 It depends on what you mean by "looking to". After all, Paul explicitly urges us to pray for one another, which is all we're doing with the saints.
@platnium1811 paul wasnt talking about saints when he said to pray for one another even in his ministry, himself or the people he was with didnt even call each other saints the content in paul was talking about wasnt the saints but to everyday people like you and me
@platnium1811 "Saint" comes from the Latin word "Sancti", or "holy ones". The saints ARE you and me; they are those in heaven and on earth. That's why in Revelation 5:8, it shows those in heaven receiving the prayers of the saints (on earth). That's intercession for you.
@platnium1811 Of course he is; he intercedes for us to the Father for our salvation. But that doesn't mean the saints can't be intercessors of prayer. Of course we pray to Jesus directly, but the saints also pray for us.
Exodus 20:5, "Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;"
@FitnessMinded Well, no one should accept veneration when still alive. Only those who have lived their holy lives out and died holy can be venerated, because we have confidence they are in heaven. A living person can always fall and become sinful. Also, veneration can make someone proud if they are still alive.
Frankly graven images in my opinion refer to any attempt to contain the glory of god and anything stemming from it into something small stripping it of its complexity I:E reducing the gospel to 5 points stripping it all of its complexity(ala calvinism). Or lots of psychological labels which reduce gods children. etc...
And then bowing before said reduction and behaving like it's sufficient(worshiping it).
@SeptemberCatholic18 No but pretending its your actual family and contains your familiy's essence and makes a decent substitute for your family is certainly idolatry.
I doubt anyone does this overtly. If they did it would probably stem from a much more subtle reduction taken very very very far.
@TheCarydal Well there's your problem. No Catholic pretends a statue is what it represents. No Catholic believes that a statue contains the essence of who it represents. No Catholic believes that a statue makes a decent substitute for the reality.
The ONLY purpose of a statue is the same as a family photo: to remind us of the ones we love using imagery.
: "And you shall make two cherubim of gold [i.e., two gold statues of angels]; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat. Make one cherub on the one end, and one cherub on the other end; of one piece of the mercy seat shall you make the cherubim on its two ends. The cherubim shall spread out their wings above, overshadowing the mercy seat with their wings, their faces one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim be" (Ex. 25:18–20
What I'd really like is for you to go on carm dot org so I can talk with you. Will you do that for me? carm dot org forum>trinity>errors on trinitarianism.
@FalseTrinityTeaching CARM? I am very familiar with their material. I first heard of it way back when I discovered that was Zkueker88's main source. Since then I have read many of their articles, not just on Catholicism but also on Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, and other groups.
Why exactly do you want me to go there to talk? We can always PM here on Youtube. I just want to know your reason.
I'm well aware of what I'm called, but your wrong the trinity doctrine was created in the 3-4th century cousils of nicaea then dogmatically enforced by persercution, torture, murder. Research for yourself, I'm sure you know this already.
@FalseTrinityTeaching Very false. I can quote early Christian after early Christian who believed in the Trinity. Your belief was popularized by a man named Sabellius in the third century. The Council of Nicaea DEFINED, not invented the doctrine of the Trinity. That is a big difference. The same council also defined other things like Jesus' resurrection and ascension into heaven. Are you going to say those were made up too?
Say the word and I'll feed you those quotes. I assure you, you're wrong.
@FalseTrinityTeaching The Trinity is not three separate minds, so you are wrong there. I am willing to bet you don't understand the Trinity very well, nor the philosophy used to understand it. Suffice it to say that the Bible depicts three distinct Persons who are God. To reject this is to reject Christianity since that is a major tenet which the majority of self-identifying Christians believe.
@FalseTrinityTeaching What you believe in is an old heresy called Sabellianism, or modalism. The entire church agreed that this was a false doctrine in the first few centuries when it first appeared. Now here it is again in the modern century, and it is just as wrong now as it was then.
A statue is not an idol unless it is worshiped. A car house or any object worshiped would be an idol as well... It is the intentions and motives of the heart..
@baptist1611 Jesus said, "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you" (Jn 6:53). Also, as the video outlines, we do not worship idols.
I don't believe in catechism, but what true God are you talking about? To me, every so called image of a "saint" that is venerated is the same as an idol. For example, La Virgen de Guadalupe is regarded as a God or any other virgins. Why are there so many virgin holy mothers in the Catholic church?This video doesn't really defend the subject.
@crrostro The true God is the God who created everything; the same God spoken of by the prophets Abraham, Moses, Isaiah, and our Lord Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son.
You clearly did not watch part 2, because in the second part I explain that images are not venerated. We venerate what the image represents. For instance, we do not honor a statue of Mary, we honor Mary! The statue helps us keep her in mind. There is only one virgin Mary who comes to us at various times.
@SeptemberCatholic18 No, I believe it is more than veneration it is almost like worshiping. I've seen it in many occasions. For example, in my home country, Mexico, I've seen people kissing Mary's feet and many of the other saints. They do bow to Mary and many even walk on their knees for miles in order to appease La Virgen de Guadalupe AKA the Virgin Mary (many get gangrene in the process). When did Mary had the same status as Jesus? Why is she honored? What as she done to get respect?
@crrostro I am also Mexican and I understand what happens. Scripture says clearly in Romans 13:7 that we must honor those who deserve honor. The saints have been justified and sanctified; they deserve honor.
Catholics do not honor saints more than Jesus. Tell me, when was the last time you saw a Catholic eat the body of Mary and drink her blood? When did they ask for her forgiveness? When did they beg her for salvation?
Mary gave birth to Christ. That deserves GREAT honor, but NOT worship.
@SeptemberCatholic18 I believe that Mary was used by God so that she can give birth to Jesus, but nothing more than that. To me she is a humble believer and was also a sinner. Yet, just because she gave birth to Jesus it doesn't mean she has to be honored in making a figure out of her. To me, Jesus should always be important figure here and no other saints. About your other questions I can answer them but you might get insulted since I believe that only through Jesus sacrifice alone is enough.
Have you not read (O how I love using that line on a Protestant) the Infancy Narratives? Tell me, do you run done the Prophets and Prophetesses of the Old Testament? Yet the Bible tells us that the womb of Mary was blessed as it contained the Lord and that all generations would call her blessed for it--another Christian practice bit the dust courtesy of the Reformation.
@SeptemberCatholic18 continued.... that only through Jesus sacrifice was more than enough to forgive our sins. Therefore, all that tradition of eating the body of Christ and his blood is like saying that Jesus can be summoned to come to Earth and be sacrificed again and again and again.
@crrostro Christ made it very clear that we are to eat his blood (Jn 6:53-55) and Paul said that when we do so, we are truly participating in the flesh and blood of Christ (1 Cor 10:16). Paul even said that to eat the Eucharist unworthily is to be guilty of the body and blood of Christ (1 Cor 11:27), which is a Jewish saying that means guilty of his death.
Mary also raised Christ and had to watch him be tortured and killed. We must give her, and all saints, their due honor (Rom 13:7).
Protestants are funny. They accuse Catholics of paganism because Protestants don't have statues or rosaries or pictures. But Protestants still believe in the most pagan of all Christian beliefs: that Jesus was God's son and that Mary had him in a virgin birth and that he rose from the dead. I'm a humanist now but I was raised Catholic and we never worshiped statues or pictures...they were meant to inspire us as we prayed to God.
u a catholic bra.... wow can i ask u a question please answer this by sending me a message u worship jesus??? the jesus in the picture??? i herd u say u worship a trinity???? lets do sum scriptures bra if u got skype hit me
We did not change the commandments. "Do not worship idols" is our first commandment. Actually, the Bible does not number the commandments, so we are in our right to number them as we like.
Besides, the Catholic numbering was first. Protestants split the first commandment into two and merged the ninth and tenth into one.
hmm.. curious, I thought you just said you worshiped "no other gods" In exodus, Jesus (whoever that is) had not yet made his big entrance... So I assume you believe that Yahweh dictated that prohibition. Wouldn't worshiping Jesus be a de facto acknowledgment of worship of another god?
Yahweh is the Godhead. In him are the three Persons of the Trinity. Jesus was not a separate entity (or god for that matter), but the same God.
The Persons of the Trinity share the exact same divine essence, which makes them one being or one entity. St. Thomas Aquinas rigorously speaks on this issue in the first part of his Summa Theologica, Question 39. I suggest you look that up on the internet and read it to properly understand this issue.
The trinity is just a conception made by man so we can understand GOD. For GOD is the the full Godhead that consists of the Father(Whom we pray to), Jesus Christ(The Oblation) and The Holy Spirit(GOD's Spirit). Honestly, the truth is we don't know what exactly the true essence of the Godhead but we know what it consist of. They only time we will find out is at the time of Christs return, on that Glorious day all revealed but beware it will come like a thief in the night
@n30h4x Not exactly. The Trinity is a compilation of facts which we find in Scripture. We see three divine Persons in Scripture, each of whom is addressed as "He." We also see that there is only one God. Therefore, it must be true that these three Persons, which share the exact same substance, exist in this one God.
If you deny anything I said above, you deny some part of Scripture. This is biblical, not man-made.
Where is it written?? If you can't back up your arguments with scripture then they are null and void. My statements clearly states, if you go back read it, then you will know I stated that all 3 are present. No where does the word "Trinity" come up in the bible, if you want to be my guess and look for it go right ahead but your endeavor will be futile. I never denyed the existance of The Father, The Son and the Holy Spirit but I dont consider them 3 persons, if anything
2 persons are there, The Father and The Son but the Holy Spirit is not a person but GOD's Spirit, the Spirit of the full Godhead. Matthew 10:20 explicitly says "For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you." I don't take Catholic Doctrine and shift everything around, the Doctrine I read is from Our Heavenly God. The Bible holds the truth to every answer and is being hidden by many. I grow tired of casting my pearls before swine. Allow the Holy Spirit show you.
@n30h4x You are terribly mistaken. Scripture presents the Spirit as a He several times. He even has a name: the Councilor. Jesus says He will speak to us, teach us, remind us, etc. He is a Person.
Read these verses: Luke 12:12; John 14:17,26; 15:26; 16:7-8, 13-14
sorry but you are terribly mistaken, The word he from those passages have been misinterpreted, he comes from Greek word, ek-i'-nos which means that one or (neuter thing) this comes from root word ek-i which means of uncertain affinity. No where does it clearly state a gender, it is really a misinterpretation. You should think getting a KJV bible, the original not the new and a Strong's Exhaustive Concordance. It will help you understand the true meaning behind the words.
@n30h4x Guess what? I did use a KJV to look these verses up! I don't think you're doing your research. The KJV clearly calls the Spirit a "He."
The Holy Spirit is referred to in the masculine throughout the New Testament although the word for "spirit" by itself (pneuma) is actually gender neutral. The Hebrew word for "spirit" (ruach) is feminine in Genesis 1:2. But the gender of a word in Greek or Hebrew has nothing to do with gender identity.
It has everything do with it, because if it is a nutuer, then it can be anything. Take latin and maybe you will understand how declensions and genders work. Again, Matthew 10:20, states "For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you." Holy Ghost is the Spirit of God, even if you use the word he, in the english you can only use he, she or it....but in other languages, like Hebrew and Greek, Declensions and Genders work differently.
@n30h4x I have a very good grasp of how genders work, since I know Spanish and am taking Latin and Greek studies. My point is that the word "spirit" in Greek is neuter, and so that accounts for the use of the neuter you are pointing to. That essentially takes the wind out of your argument, since whether the Spirit is a Person or not, the neuter would have to be used regardless.
However, we see clearly that this Spirit can speak, teach, and remind, as well as other actions. This is a Person.
How do you know??? You are using man made logic. God is Supernatural, honestly the only people who know how the full Godhead works are the ones who have already died. Not even when Christs returns, will the full Godhead be present on earth, not until the Great White Judgment will we fully perceive the full Godhead. I would suggest you look at theseason, a really good bible study. Verse by Verse, chapter by chapter. And the shepherds chapel.
@n30h4x I am by no means claiming to understand the Trinity in its totality. We call it a mystery of the faith for a reason. However, certain facts in Scripture cannot be ignored, and when these facts are compiled we get the Trinity.
By denying this orthodox doctrine, you blatantly ignore the fact that the early church believed in the Trinity and you essentially alienate yourself from the majority of Christian circles.
You sir are the only one alienating. I believe in GOD which consists of The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Sorry, but I believe The Bible is the true Word of God, and no orthodox religion can change that, no mater how much they persecute others. The catholic church is the worst, as the murdered many Christians during the dark ages. I am Christian, I believe through Christ is our salvation. The old testament holds keys of understanding the events of today.
@n30h4x Almost no other Christian agrees with your denial of the Trinity. That is seen as one of the core beliefs by some. You might actually be considered non-Christian because of something like that. I personally have always said that a Christian must at least accept the twelve points of the Apostle's Creed.
The Catholic Church actually brought us out of the dark ages. We did not kill Christians; that is a myth. We WERE basically the only Christians until the Reformation.
No where have I denied the Trinity, that sir you are putting words in my mouth, for I believe in GOD: The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. In a sense it is a trinity but I dont believe in the Catholic Trinity. So you are saying that the Catholics had nothing to do with the Crusades and the inquisition?? The inquisition was created by Pope Lucius III. If you deny this, then you surly a lost sheep, and I hope you find the right Shepard.
@n30h4x Part of the Trinity is believing that there are three Persons in one God. If you say that the Holy Spirit is merely a "force" of God per se, and not an actual Person, then you deny the doctrine mostly all Christians accept. In fact, you seem to be flirting with a heresy called Sabellianism.
You have a HUGE misconception about the Inquisition. Only self-proclaiming Catholics were brought in. The Inquisition did NOT target Protestants. That is the biggest lie ever told. Go read Wikipedia.
Where is it written?? No where does it state that God are 3 persons. I never said it was a force, geeze you really like putting words in peoples mouth. The Holy Ghost is God's spirit. The Fathers Spirit and Christs Spirit. Honestly, i am tired of arguing. And its not a lie that the catholic church was apart of the inquisition. Do you honestly believe everything you read on Wikipedia?? I am tired of casting pearls before swine, I pray that God help you understand this.
@n30h4x I never denied that the Church established the Inquisition. You didn't read what I said. I said that the Church never targeted Protestants for questioning. The focus was on self-proclaiming Catholics who were in fact heretics. I don't think Wikipedia would have an error so blatant.
When you take the personhood away from the Holy Spirit, you essentially reduce Him to a mere force (per se). Once again, the Spirit does things only a Person can do, like talk. You have never addressed this.
Again, I am tired of casting pearls before swine. I have already stated that Matthew 10:20 explicitly says "For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you." It is a way for God to talk to us, are Human Minds can not comprehend what encompasses the full Godhead(Trinity). Go to the theseasondotorg and shepherdschapeldotcom. You ask God to fill you with His Spirit, "The Holy Spirit". We have our spirits, well Gods spirit is the Holy Spirit
@n30h4x In Luke 12:10 Jesus says that speaking blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is a serious offense, more so than blaspheming Jesus! You cannot blasphemy a thing; persons are blasphemed.
Jesus says in Matthew 28:19 that we must baptize in the name of the Holy Ghost too. Why would we baptize in His name unless He was a Person?
1 Corinthians 2:13 says that the Holy Spirit teaches. Only a person can teach.
In Acts 5:3 Paul condemns a man for lying to the Spirit. You can't lie to a thing.
The Holy Spirit is the intellect of God and His wisdom, in which we ask The Father to give us in Christs name. 1 Cor 2: 12-13. 12Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. How do you think God teaches us His wisdom?
@n30h4x God the Father teaches us directly (Exodus 15:26), through the Son (John 3:2), and through the Holy Spirit (John 14:26). Just as Jesus teaches us as a Person, so does the Holy Spirit.
You conveniently ignored the fact that the Holy Spirit can be blasphemed and lied to, and that a person ought to be baptized in His name. These facts only make sense if the Spirit is a Person.
Man dude, you really like twisting and putting words in peoples mouths. Maybe you should be a politician?? I have given you websites to go look at and I am done here. I have given pearls which you cast out away. Im getting back on the original topic. the-ten-commandmentsdotorg/romancatholic-tencommandments.html. check it out, I pray God fills you with the Holy Spirit so you can understand this.
@n30h4x@n30h4x I didn't put any words in your mouth. In fact, all I did was point out the lack of words. You ignored several of my key points.
By the way, I went to your 10 Commandment website and just as I expected, a HUGE misconception. I made a whole video on the "Catholic" ten commandments on my ArmoredCatholic channel. We didn't delete anything. Your second commandment is part of our first commandment.
Go to my website. Type "ArmoredCatholic" into Google, and I'm the first result.
Psalms 115:1-8 "Their idols are silver and gold, the work of mens hands. They have mouths, but they speak not: eyes have they, but they see not: They have ears, but they hear not: noses have they, but they smell not: They have hands, but they handle not: feet have they, but they walk not: neither speak they through their throat. They that make them are like unto them; so is every one that trusteth in them."
"Ave Maria" is a Latin rendition of the angel's greeting from Luke 1:28.
Transubstantiation is found in Matthew 16:16 and John 6:53.
The Vatican is not fantastically wealthy. In fact, currently it is in a financial deficit, with a budget as large the archdiocese of Chicago. The Church has donated many of its art to raise money for charity. Much of the art was donated to the Vatican in the past as gifts.
You killed thousands of people for reading the bible.
I wish one day when you were praying to marry that the statue would come alive and grab you by your ugly head and pray your through to the holy ghost BECUSE SHE HAD IT-Lee stoneking
No, we do not repent to men. We repent to God, and certain men have the authority given by Christ to forgive sins (John 20:23) in the person of Christ (2 Cor 2:10).
We pray to the saints in heaven just as Revelation 5:8 shows people doing. But we certainly pray to God above all else!
We did not kill anyone for simply reading the Bible. In fact, we compiled the Bible in A.D. 393 and translated the entire Bible for the first time in A.D. 405! Read history.
@SeptemberCatholic18 Jesus was telling the disciples that they could tell people that their sins were forgiven if they had repented and been bapized.
Just as I can't judge people, but I can tell you that you will not go to heaven if you have not been baptized or filled with the Holy Ghost. Jesus was just allowing the disciples to affirm that when person repented that Jesus heard thier cry and he would infact forgive them
@SeptemberCatholic18 Revelation 5:8 does not show people praying to the saints It says that they had viles that had the prayers OF THE SAINTS It does not say that we should pray to them. We should pray to god and god alone they had all the prayers of the saints not becuse the saints prayed to them,
WOW! That is the biggest stretch of John 20:23 I have ever heard. Jesus did not say "You can tell people they are forgiven." It is clear. He said they could forgive and retain sins "as the Father has sent me."
Rev 5:8 shows the elders in heaven with the prayers of the saints (holy people from earth) in vials, which they gave to God. That is exactly what Catholics believe. We give our prayers to those in heaven so they can give them to God. We certainly do pray to God directly as well.
@SeptemberCatholic18 John 20:23 must not be interpreted to mean that Jesus gave to a select body of people the right to forgive sins and let people into heaven. Jesus had spoken similar words before (Matt 16:19), but He was not setting aside the disciples (and their successors) as a "spiritual elite" to deal with the sins of the world. Remember, there were others in the room besides the disciples, and Thomas was missing!
the correct translation both here and in Matt 16:19 should be: "Whosoever sins you remit [forgive) shall have already been forgiven them, and whosoever sins you retain [do not forgive) shall have already not been forgiven them" In other words, the disciples did not provide forgiveness; they proclaimed forgiveness on the basis of the message of the Gospe
Luckily for me, I am a Greek scholar and have several Greek linguistic keys and lexicons in my room. You are wrong about the word "apheontai" which best translates to "have been forgiven."
Correct: "Whose sins you forgive, those sins have been forgiven."
Clearly, they have authority to forgive. He says, whose sins YOU FORGIVE. Plus, read 2 Cor 2:10. Paul says that this authority is not really his own. It comes to him from Christ. So it is really Christ forgiving through a priest.
@SeptemberCatholic18 I like You! You seam very cool. Ok well them translations come from a Hebrew and Greek scholar, and a couple Commentarys. I would like you to show me were you get your translation plz. And im very interested in speaking with you so plz give me a way were we can talk much faster this is so slow
I used Fritz Rienecker and Cleon Roogers "Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament." I also used Strong's Lexical Concordance.
The root word here is aphieemi, which is found in v.23 in the past perfect tense. It therefore becomes "have been [completely] forgiven."
There is nothing in the grammar to suggest the word "already" as you used it. Plus, this objection does not explain why Christ says "teenon aphite" or "you forgive."
I'm not aware of a good alternative way we can speak.
I do have a facebook, but for privacy reasons, I don't want people on Youtube to know my full identity. I have heard of people who make death threats on here and look up where you live.
@SeptemberCatholic18 Well ya download yahoo chat, If you just dont want to say your facebook stuff in the open you could send it to me in a private message lol im not going to find you and kill you im 16
I just downloaded Y!messenger. Go ahead and send me your username in a PM so I can contact you. The facebook thing is a matter of privacy. Call me paranoid and crazy, but my parents raised me to be very cautious on the internet.
@ChrisDaron Sorry, I don't have a Myspace. However, if you go to my website (on my profile) and click "Contact Us" you will find all my contact information there.
@SeptemberCatholic18 Will definitely do that, man. It's great to have friends like you. I congratulate you and pray for you and every other man or woman like you who defend our faith "a capa y espada".
That's not true. It is clear that he was quoting from the Septuagint, since over 300 of NT references to the OT are in the Septuagint form.
Remember, the Septuagint is a Greek translation of the Hebrew texts, and the NT was written primarily in Greek. It is easy to compare the NT Greek with the Septuagint Greek, and from simple examination one can find that Jesus was quoting WORD FOR WORD from the Septuagint version.
Matt. 1:23 / Isaiah 7:14; John 1:23 / Isaiah 40:3; Matt. 9:13 / Hosea 6:6; Matt. 12:21 / Isaiah 42:4; Matt. 13:15 / Isaiah 6:10; Mark 7:7 / Isaiah 29:13; Matt. 21:16 / Psalm 8:2; Luke 3:5-6 / Isaiah 40:4-5; Luke 4:18 / Isaiah 61:1; Luke 4:18 / Isaiah 58:6.
Here are some examples of the Greek being directly taken from the Septuagint version. You will notice that the words Jesus speaks in the NT do not exactly match the verses in the OT. This is because he is quoting the Septuagint version.
Jesus said MT 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
This poses a insurmountable problem for those that would claim Christ spoke in GREEK to the Jews in PALESTINE!
You see herein Christ refers to the smallest HEBREW CHARACTERS which would make little sense to his hearers if they were GREEK speakers!
He OBVIOUSLY used HEBREW SCRIPTURES else Jesus would have just proven Himself false with this statement since GREEK scriptures NEVER contained any such thing as a JOT & TITTLE!
FACTS are stubborn things RomanISM is more PLIABLE!
No, authors ARE NOT allowed to quote any way they like. That's nonsense! A quote has to be EXACT. You can compare the NT quotes with the OT Septuagint verses online. Septuagint versions are available online for free. Just compare the verses I gave you. Even if you don't know Greek you should see it.
Jesus' words were TRANSLATED into Greek by the Gospel writers.
Lastly, Septuagint fragments are kept in safe and secure environments. I can actually tell you exactly which fragments we have today.
ALL scholars agree that the NT documents were originally written in Greek (except for Matthew, which is speculated to have been in Aramaic). Why do you think seminarians study Greek?? Remember when Jesus said that he is the "alpha and the omega"? Greek letters. Jesus knew Greek and so did the apostles.
The Hebrew equivalent of the Septuagint canon was found at Qumran!
"epacunqh gar h kardia tou laou toutou kai tois wsin autwn barews hkousan kai tous ofqalmous autwn ekammusan mhpote idwsin tois ofqalmois kai tois wsin akouswsin kai th kardia sunwsin kai epistreywsin kai iasomai autous."
"About 35% of the DSS biblical manuscripts belong to the Masoretic tradition, 5% to the Septuagint family, and 5% to the Samaritan, with the remainder unaligned."
-Emanuel Tov, "Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible" (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001 2nd revised edition) ISBN 0800634292
I answered all your questions. I have never purposely avoided anything. But I noticed that you avoided my comparison of the Greek passages from the NT and the Septuagint.
Did you notice something? THEY ARE EXACTLY THE SAME. If you check the Hebrew, it does not exactly match.
Dr. John H.P. Reumann The Romance of Bible Scripts & Scholars p16
"Professor Paul Kahle ... (1875-1964), ... argued that there never was any LXX, at least until Christian times, and that our Letter of Aristeas is propaganda for a revision of the Greek Bible which was made in Alexandria."
"The Septuagint "quotes" from the New Testament and not vice versa, i.e. in the matter of N.T. - O.T. quotation, the later formulators of the Greek O.T. made it conform with the New Testament Text which they had before them as they forged their product."
"But the earliest extant manuscript of this version (the Septuagint) is dated around 350 A.D..." (H. S. Miller, General Biblical Introduction, p. 120)
That is all propaganda. We actually have 2nd century B.C. (Before Christ) fragments of the Septuagint.
"The oldest manuscripts of the LXX include 2nd century BCE fragments of Leviticus and Deuteronomy (Rahlfs nos. 801, 819, and 957), and 1st century BCE fragments of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and the Minor Prophets (Rahlfs nos. 802, 803, 805, 848, 942, and 943)."
-Ernst Würthwein, The Text of the Old Testament, trans. Errol F. Rhodes, Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1995
"Scholars lie. In the case of the Septuagint, the lie is not as overt as usualThe Septuagint, as it is published today, is basically the text of the Old Testament as it appears in Codex B."
No Hebrew Bible ever contained the books of the Apocrypha. NoJewish council ever endorsed thesebooks and at least one Jewish council specifically rejected them (Council ofJamnia A.D. 90).
True, there is a legend surrounding the Septuagint, but not all of it is legendary. The seventy Jews, the library, and Alexander the Great are all details which were added later.
However, with carbon-14 dating, we have established that these fragments I mentioned came from the 2nd century.
Haha! Jamnia! That was an anti-Christian council that actually rejected the NT books as well. You cannot possibly trust Jamnia. One of the reasons they rejected it is because it was linked to the NT!
Regardless of what is legend, we were able to date the Septuagint fragments to the 2nd century B.C. Therefore they could not have been modeled after Christ's words as you previously claimed.
Yes, the Hebrews did contain the Deuterocanonicals. That is why we found the Hebrew versions of some of the Deuterocanonical books at Qumran!
Are you purposely ignoring these details? Look at a list of the scrolls found at Qumran and you will see the Deuterocanon among them. They were in Hebrew.
You know. The books that Martin Luther rejected in the 15th century? Remember those books? Those seven books that Protestants simply threw out?
They were found at Qumran in Hebrew and they were in the Septuagint canon in Greek. The Septuagint fragments have been dated to a time before Christ (2nd century B.C.) so you cannot escape the fact that Jesus quoted it.
"Learned men question, whether the Greek version of the scriptures now extant be or be not the version of the seventy elders. The sounder opinion seems to be that of those who determine that Ihe true Septuagint is wholly lost5, and that the Greek text, as we have it, is a mixed and miserably corrupted document...the faults of the Greek translation are so manifest, that it is impossible to find any way of excusing them"
For instance Jerome rejected, all the jewish councils, the church, Jesus & His apostles, jewish historians such as Philo and Josephus, most church fathers
1) there were LOST tribes, so no 12 from which to select scribes for the 70 or 72
2) ONLY Male LEVITES are allowed by God to be Scribes DU 31:24-25 Ex 32:25-29, Num 3 &8:5-22
3) There is NO RECORD that Jews ever translated ANY scripture into ANY language other than HEBREW even when they resided for long periods in other cultures
ALL the scribes in the Bible are Levites like Ezra 7:6,10-11
SO God would NEVER Inspire a work that was CONTRARY to His word
Once again, you CANNOT say that the Septuagint is a fairy tale because WE ARE FRAGMENTS DATING TO THE 2ND CENTURY B.C.
So once again, when Jesus quotes the OT, they match the 2nd century B.C. fragments that we have today. This is science and history. You are the one talking about fairy tales.
Go to Wikipedia and type "Dead Sea Scrolls." Go to the section titled "Survey of the Scrolls." There will be a list of all the works found. Among them are Deuterocanonicals and Septuagint portions.
Yes, we do have fragments of the Greek Septuagint from the 2nd century B.C.
"The oldest manuscripts of the LXX include 2nd century BCE fragments of Leviticus and Deuteronomy (Rahlfs nos. 801, 819, and 957)." -Ernst Würthwein, The Text of the Old Testament
The Hebrew versions of these Septuagint fragments prove that they were well in use by the first century in Palestine. You cannot deny the evidence.
I didn't say anything about that letter. I said we currently possess 2nd century B.C. fragments of the Septuagint and I told you which ones we have.
Look, it's obvious you are by NO means interested in the truth. You are fighting tooth and nail to avoid the clear conclusion while I have been comfortably resting on the evidence this whole time. Are you being an honest and genuine person? I don't think so.
H.S. Miller, (General Biblical Introduction: From God to Us, p. 222)
"The Letter to Aristeas" has been doubted, then denied and that "now it has few, if any, defenders."
The Introduction to the Septuagint (p-ii)(a modern printing of
Origen's Septuagint)
"Letter of Aristeas" is "...not worthy of notice except for the myth being connected with the authority which this version (LXX) was once supposed to have possessed."
"Of the pre-Christian period of its history (referring to the Septuagint) next to nothing is known." (Vol 2 p117)
Since there was NO Septuagint in existence, just as expected there are NO historical references to the Septuagint before the time of Christ except for the LEGENDARY "Letter of Aristeas"
The canon of the Bible was solemnly defined and made dogmatic Dogma & Classes of Revealed Truth by the 4th 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.
Every Catholic sing the same old song: WE DO NOT WORK IDOLS. The shameful truth is they do. Loads of Catholics books say, we don't but we are not blind? We see it everyday. For someone like me to be in Catholic high school, I can tell the world boldly that CATHOLICS WORSHIP IDOLS. If even 1 of the 39 pictures show Catholics boeing down to IMAGES, it's enough proof! Serve Jesus n Leave MARY ALONE. CATHOLICISM= PAGANISM but even an 8 year baby can tell when ppl BOW TO IMAGE!
MrSpiritualguru 2 months ago
@MrSpiritualguru Clearly you did not watch this two-part video series, because I took a great amount of effort to show that Catholics do NOT worship idols. Watch the videos or don't comment. You can't knock my argument if you haven't head it.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 months ago
REALLY?CATHOLICS DO NOT WORSHIP IDOLS? i SUGGEST YOU TRY TO SEARCH FOR VIDEOS .. .....FEASTT OF THE BLACK NAZARENE . . . .AND THEN TELL ME CATHOLICS DO NOT WORSHIP IDOLS. im from the country where majority of its people are catholics.roman catholics.
Julst2021 2 months ago
@Julst2021 No, Catholics don't worship idols. The Feast of the Black Nazarene is not idolatry. The people who participate in the celebration do not worship the statue, nor do they think the statue is God. They use the statue to represent Jesus and what he went through.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 months ago
@SeptemberCatholic18 really?try to watch a video of thousands of catholics wanting to touch the graven images for blessings.lmao.why cnt they just pray to God in the comforts of their own house?
Julst2021 2 months ago
@Julst2021 They most likely do pray in their own homes. The statue doesn't give a blessing, so you are mistaken. However, it does represent Jesus, so they just want to show honor to Jesus.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 months ago
@SeptemberCatholic18 repersent jesus? just pray to Jesus in the first place anyway. saints were just men but Jesus is God
platnium1811 2 months ago
@platnium1811 We do pray to Jesus in the first place! But we also have the saints to pray with us and images to remind us of holy things.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 months ago
@SeptemberCatholic18 why need images to remind you of holy things what happend to revelation, cause when your praying and looking to the saints your putting them on a level where only Jesus can be, Jesus is our mediator between us and God, men are men.
platnium1811 2 months ago
@platnium1811 Why do you need photos to remind you of your family members? Obviously having a visual image helps you remember them. And no, we are not putting them on the level of Jesus. You can't say that without putting words in our mouths.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 months ago
@SeptemberCatholic18 one God, the Trinity, nothing else man should be looking to God not the image of a man other then Jesus
platnium1811 2 months ago
@platnium1811 It depends on what you mean by "looking to". After all, Paul explicitly urges us to pray for one another, which is all we're doing with the saints.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 months ago
@platnium1811 paul wasnt talking about saints when he said to pray for one another even in his ministry, himself or the people he was with didnt even call each other saints the content in paul was talking about wasnt the saints but to everyday people like you and me
platnium1811 2 months ago
@platnium1811 "Saint" comes from the Latin word "Sancti", or "holy ones". The saints ARE you and me; they are those in heaven and on earth. That's why in Revelation 5:8, it shows those in heaven receiving the prayers of the saints (on earth). That's intercession for you.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 months ago
@SeptemberCatholic18 Jesus is our intercessor
platnium1811 2 months ago
@platnium1811 Of course he is; he intercedes for us to the Father for our salvation. But that doesn't mean the saints can't be intercessors of prayer. Of course we pray to Jesus directly, but the saints also pray for us.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Isaiah 42:8 I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.
Julst2021 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Exodus 20:5, "Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;"
Julst2021 2 months ago
Ok...I will.
jopa1026 3 months ago
What are the statues for, then? Why do you kneel before them?
jopa1026 3 months ago
@jopa1026 Watch part 2.
SeptemberCatholic18 3 months ago
@SeptemberCatholic18
If not worship, can you explain veneration in context of this scriptures?
Luke 11:27-28
Acts 10:25-26
Acts 14:11-15
Romans 1:23
The apostles did not accept veneration when alive according to scripture, correct?
FitnessMinded 3 months ago
@FitnessMinded Well, no one should accept veneration when still alive. Only those who have lived their holy lives out and died holy can be venerated, because we have confidence they are in heaven. A living person can always fall and become sinful. Also, veneration can make someone proud if they are still alive.
SeptemberCatholic18 3 months ago
@SeptemberCatholic18 I understand what you are saying
But do you understand how protestants cannot accept this explanation because it is nowhere in scripture?
The very opposite is presented there
FitnessMinded 3 months ago
Frankly graven images in my opinion refer to any attempt to contain the glory of god and anything stemming from it into something small stripping it of its complexity I:E reducing the gospel to 5 points stripping it all of its complexity(ala calvinism). Or lots of psychological labels which reduce gods children. etc...
And then bowing before said reduction and behaving like it's sufficient(worshiping it).
TheCarydal 1 year ago
@TheCarydal So does taking a photo of your family and placing it on your mantle count as reducing your family to a piece of paper and ink?
SeptemberCatholic18 1 year ago
@SeptemberCatholic18 No but pretending its your actual family and contains your familiy's essence and makes a decent substitute for your family is certainly idolatry.
I doubt anyone does this overtly. If they did it would probably stem from a much more subtle reduction taken very very very far.
TheCarydal 1 year ago
@TheCarydal Well there's your problem. No Catholic pretends a statue is what it represents. No Catholic believes that a statue contains the essence of who it represents. No Catholic believes that a statue makes a decent substitute for the reality.
The ONLY purpose of a statue is the same as a family photo: to remind us of the ones we love using imagery.
SeptemberCatholic18 1 year ago
@SeptemberCatholic18 I couldn't agree more.
My point was that the problem of idolatry is alot more subtle than alot of protestants make it out to be.
TheCarydal 1 year ago
@TheCarydal I can't speak on behalf of anyone; I just wanted to articulate the teaching on this particular matter.
SeptemberCatholic18 1 year ago
@SeptemberCatholic18 Thanks alot :).
TheCarydal 1 year ago
: "And you shall make two cherubim of gold [i.e., two gold statues of angels]; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat. Make one cherub on the one end, and one cherub on the other end; of one piece of the mercy seat shall you make the cherubim on its two ends. The cherubim shall spread out their wings above, overshadowing the mercy seat with their wings, their faces one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim be" (Ex. 25:18–20
dadadude1 1 year ago
Exodus: God Doesn' forbid us from building Images or idols as long as we do not worship them
dadadude1 1 year ago
but I'd rather you post on "no eternal son" my name is Bob from accounting
FalseTrinityTeaching 1 year ago
@FalseTrinityTeaching I was just on the chat room and saw you. You don't want to discuss there?
SeptemberCatholic18 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
reply to the thread by proving me wrong. or you can post on my profile
FalseTrinityTeaching 1 year ago
Easier on carm, and I can show you how trinitarianism is false ;)
FalseTrinityTeaching 1 year ago
@FalseTrinityTeaching Sure, what do you want me to do there. I am registered and looking at the thread.
SeptemberCatholic18 1 year ago
Btw I like your voice ;)
FalseTrinityTeaching 1 year ago
What I'd really like is for you to go on carm dot org so I can talk with you. Will you do that for me? carm dot org forum>trinity>errors on trinitarianism.
FalseTrinityTeaching 1 year ago
@FalseTrinityTeaching CARM? I am very familiar with their material. I first heard of it way back when I discovered that was Zkueker88's main source. Since then I have read many of their articles, not just on Catholicism but also on Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, and other groups.
Why exactly do you want me to go there to talk? We can always PM here on Youtube. I just want to know your reason.
SeptemberCatholic18 1 year ago
I'm well aware of what I'm called, but your wrong the trinity doctrine was created in the 3-4th century cousils of nicaea then dogmatically enforced by persercution, torture, murder. Research for yourself, I'm sure you know this already.
FalseTrinityTeaching 1 year ago
@FalseTrinityTeaching Very false. I can quote early Christian after early Christian who believed in the Trinity. Your belief was popularized by a man named Sabellius in the third century. The Council of Nicaea DEFINED, not invented the doctrine of the Trinity. That is a big difference. The same council also defined other things like Jesus' resurrection and ascension into heaven. Are you going to say those were made up too?
Say the word and I'll feed you those quotes. I assure you, you're wrong.
SeptemberCatholic18 1 year ago
Three persons with separate minds and who share the "office" of "god" does not mean you worship One God. The trinity is three gods not One.
(Deu 6:4) Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:
Catholics worship a triune god that is not in the bible.
FalseTrinityTeaching 1 year ago
@FalseTrinityTeaching The Trinity is not three separate minds, so you are wrong there. I am willing to bet you don't understand the Trinity very well, nor the philosophy used to understand it. Suffice it to say that the Bible depicts three distinct Persons who are God. To reject this is to reject Christianity since that is a major tenet which the majority of self-identifying Christians believe.
SeptemberCatholic18 1 year ago
@SeptemberCatholic18 Carm dot org, go to forum>trinity. I've debunked the trinity already.
FalseTrinityTeaching 1 year ago
@FalseTrinityTeaching What you believe in is an old heresy called Sabellianism, or modalism. The entire church agreed that this was a false doctrine in the first few centuries when it first appeared. Now here it is again in the modern century, and it is just as wrong now as it was then.
SeptemberCatholic18 1 year ago
nice to be catholic
SAMTOMAS 1 year ago
I like catholics.. i just dont understand all the stuff and rituals and a pope.. communion and all is good and there churches are beautiful...
rustydusty40 1 year ago
A statue is not an idol unless it is worshiped. A car house or any object worshiped would be an idol as well... It is the intentions and motives of the heart..
rustydusty40 1 year ago
Romanists worship false gods, including wafer gods. They also believe that god has a mother...
Watch my video to see how to deal with these idolators.
baptist1611 1 year ago
@baptist1611 Jesus said, "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you" (Jn 6:53). Also, as the video outlines, we do not worship idols.
SeptemberCatholic18 1 year ago
I don't believe in catechism, but what true God are you talking about? To me, every so called image of a "saint" that is venerated is the same as an idol. For example, La Virgen de Guadalupe is regarded as a God or any other virgins. Why are there so many virgin holy mothers in the Catholic church?This video doesn't really defend the subject.
crrostro 1 year ago
@crrostro The true God is the God who created everything; the same God spoken of by the prophets Abraham, Moses, Isaiah, and our Lord Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son.
You clearly did not watch part 2, because in the second part I explain that images are not venerated. We venerate what the image represents. For instance, we do not honor a statue of Mary, we honor Mary! The statue helps us keep her in mind. There is only one virgin Mary who comes to us at various times.
SeptemberCatholic18 1 year ago
@SeptemberCatholic18 No, I believe it is more than veneration it is almost like worshiping. I've seen it in many occasions. For example, in my home country, Mexico, I've seen people kissing Mary's feet and many of the other saints. They do bow to Mary and many even walk on their knees for miles in order to appease La Virgen de Guadalupe AKA the Virgin Mary (many get gangrene in the process). When did Mary had the same status as Jesus? Why is she honored? What as she done to get respect?
crrostro 1 year ago
@crrostro I am also Mexican and I understand what happens. Scripture says clearly in Romans 13:7 that we must honor those who deserve honor. The saints have been justified and sanctified; they deserve honor.
Catholics do not honor saints more than Jesus. Tell me, when was the last time you saw a Catholic eat the body of Mary and drink her blood? When did they ask for her forgiveness? When did they beg her for salvation?
Mary gave birth to Christ. That deserves GREAT honor, but NOT worship.
SeptemberCatholic18 1 year ago
@SeptemberCatholic18 I believe that Mary was used by God so that she can give birth to Jesus, but nothing more than that. To me she is a humble believer and was also a sinner. Yet, just because she gave birth to Jesus it doesn't mean she has to be honored in making a figure out of her. To me, Jesus should always be important figure here and no other saints. About your other questions I can answer them but you might get insulted since I believe that only through Jesus sacrifice alone is enough.
crrostro 1 year ago
@crrostro
Have you not read (O how I love using that line on a Protestant) the Infancy Narratives? Tell me, do you run done the Prophets and Prophetesses of the Old Testament? Yet the Bible tells us that the womb of Mary was blessed as it contained the Lord and that all generations would call her blessed for it--another Christian practice bit the dust courtesy of the Reformation.
RPenta 1 year ago
@SeptemberCatholic18 continued.... that only through Jesus sacrifice was more than enough to forgive our sins. Therefore, all that tradition of eating the body of Christ and his blood is like saying that Jesus can be summoned to come to Earth and be sacrificed again and again and again.
crrostro 1 year ago
@crrostro Christ made it very clear that we are to eat his blood (Jn 6:53-55) and Paul said that when we do so, we are truly participating in the flesh and blood of Christ (1 Cor 10:16). Paul even said that to eat the Eucharist unworthily is to be guilty of the body and blood of Christ (1 Cor 11:27), which is a Jewish saying that means guilty of his death.
Mary also raised Christ and had to watch him be tortured and killed. We must give her, and all saints, their due honor (Rom 13:7).
SeptemberCatholic18 1 year ago
Protestants are funny. They accuse Catholics of paganism because Protestants don't have statues or rosaries or pictures. But Protestants still believe in the most pagan of all Christian beliefs: that Jesus was God's son and that Mary had him in a virgin birth and that he rose from the dead. I'm a humanist now but I was raised Catholic and we never worshiped statues or pictures...they were meant to inspire us as we prayed to God.
Asskicker32294 1 year ago
SeptemberCatholic18 you are so true love of the holy Ghost is in you God bless you
GodTowardSociety 1 year ago
u a catholic bra.... wow can i ask u a question please answer this by sending me a message u worship jesus??? the jesus in the picture??? i herd u say u worship a trinity???? lets do sum scriptures bra if u got skype hit me
xtheman75 1 year ago
You worship the SUN GOD... that's all i can say.. you changed the ten commandments, you removed the "do not worship idols" .. i Pray for you.
ctl7794 1 year ago
That is a joke. I worship Jesus Christ.
We did not change the commandments. "Do not worship idols" is our first commandment. Actually, the Bible does not number the commandments, so we are in our right to number them as we like.
Besides, the Catholic numbering was first. Protestants split the first commandment into two and merged the ninth and tenth into one.
SeptemberCatholic18 1 year ago
hmm.. curious, I thought you just said you worshiped "no other gods" In exodus, Jesus (whoever that is) had not yet made his big entrance... So I assume you believe that Yahweh dictated that prohibition. Wouldn't worshiping Jesus be a de facto acknowledgment of worship of another god?
Garabaldi323 1 year ago
Yahweh is the Godhead. In him are the three Persons of the Trinity. Jesus was not a separate entity (or god for that matter), but the same God.
The Persons of the Trinity share the exact same divine essence, which makes them one being or one entity. St. Thomas Aquinas rigorously speaks on this issue in the first part of his Summa Theologica, Question 39. I suggest you look that up on the internet and read it to properly understand this issue.
SeptemberCatholic18 1 year ago
@SeptemberCatholic18
The trinity is just a conception made by man so we can understand GOD. For GOD is the the full Godhead that consists of the Father(Whom we pray to), Jesus Christ(The Oblation) and The Holy Spirit(GOD's Spirit). Honestly, the truth is we don't know what exactly the true essence of the Godhead but we know what it consist of. They only time we will find out is at the time of Christs return, on that Glorious day all revealed but beware it will come like a thief in the night
n30h4x 1 year ago
@n30h4x Not exactly. The Trinity is a compilation of facts which we find in Scripture. We see three divine Persons in Scripture, each of whom is addressed as "He." We also see that there is only one God. Therefore, it must be true that these three Persons, which share the exact same substance, exist in this one God.
If you deny anything I said above, you deny some part of Scripture. This is biblical, not man-made.
SeptemberCatholic18 1 year ago
@SeptemberCatholic18
Where is it written?? If you can't back up your arguments with scripture then they are null and void. My statements clearly states, if you go back read it, then you will know I stated that all 3 are present. No where does the word "Trinity" come up in the bible, if you want to be my guess and look for it go right ahead but your endeavor will be futile. I never denyed the existance of The Father, The Son and the Holy Spirit but I dont consider them 3 persons, if anything
n30h4x 1 year ago
2 persons are there, The Father and The Son but the Holy Spirit is not a person but GOD's Spirit, the Spirit of the full Godhead. Matthew 10:20 explicitly says "For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you." I don't take Catholic Doctrine and shift everything around, the Doctrine I read is from Our Heavenly God. The Bible holds the truth to every answer and is being hidden by many. I grow tired of casting my pearls before swine. Allow the Holy Spirit show you.
n30h4x 1 year ago
@n30h4x You are terribly mistaken. Scripture presents the Spirit as a He several times. He even has a name: the Councilor. Jesus says He will speak to us, teach us, remind us, etc. He is a Person.
Read these verses: Luke 12:12; John 14:17,26; 15:26; 16:7-8, 13-14
SeptemberCatholic18 1 year ago
@SeptemberCatholic18
sorry but you are terribly mistaken, The word he from those passages have been misinterpreted, he comes from Greek word, ek-i'-nos which means that one or (neuter thing) this comes from root word ek-i which means of uncertain affinity. No where does it clearly state a gender, it is really a misinterpretation. You should think getting a KJV bible, the original not the new and a Strong's Exhaustive Concordance. It will help you understand the true meaning behind the words.
n30h4x 1 year ago
@n30h4x Guess what? I did use a KJV to look these verses up! I don't think you're doing your research. The KJV clearly calls the Spirit a "He."
The Holy Spirit is referred to in the masculine throughout the New Testament although the word for "spirit" by itself (pneuma) is actually gender neutral. The Hebrew word for "spirit" (ruach) is feminine in Genesis 1:2. But the gender of a word in Greek or Hebrew has nothing to do with gender identity.
SeptemberCatholic18 1 year ago
@SeptemberCatholic18
It has everything do with it, because if it is a nutuer, then it can be anything. Take latin and maybe you will understand how declensions and genders work. Again, Matthew 10:20, states "For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you." Holy Ghost is the Spirit of God, even if you use the word he, in the english you can only use he, she or it....but in other languages, like Hebrew and Greek, Declensions and Genders work differently.
n30h4x 1 year ago
@n30h4x I have a very good grasp of how genders work, since I know Spanish and am taking Latin and Greek studies. My point is that the word "spirit" in Greek is neuter, and so that accounts for the use of the neuter you are pointing to. That essentially takes the wind out of your argument, since whether the Spirit is a Person or not, the neuter would have to be used regardless.
However, we see clearly that this Spirit can speak, teach, and remind, as well as other actions. This is a Person.
SeptemberCatholic18 1 year ago
@SeptemberCatholic18
How do you know??? You are using man made logic. God is Supernatural, honestly the only people who know how the full Godhead works are the ones who have already died. Not even when Christs returns, will the full Godhead be present on earth, not until the Great White Judgment will we fully perceive the full Godhead. I would suggest you look at theseason, a really good bible study. Verse by Verse, chapter by chapter. And the shepherds chapel.
n30h4x 1 year ago
@n30h4x I am by no means claiming to understand the Trinity in its totality. We call it a mystery of the faith for a reason. However, certain facts in Scripture cannot be ignored, and when these facts are compiled we get the Trinity.
By denying this orthodox doctrine, you blatantly ignore the fact that the early church believed in the Trinity and you essentially alienate yourself from the majority of Christian circles.
SeptemberCatholic18 1 year ago
@SeptemberCatholic18
You sir are the only one alienating. I believe in GOD which consists of The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Sorry, but I believe The Bible is the true Word of God, and no orthodox religion can change that, no mater how much they persecute others. The catholic church is the worst, as the murdered many Christians during the dark ages. I am Christian, I believe through Christ is our salvation. The old testament holds keys of understanding the events of today.
n30h4x 1 year ago
@n30h4x Almost no other Christian agrees with your denial of the Trinity. That is seen as one of the core beliefs by some. You might actually be considered non-Christian because of something like that. I personally have always said that a Christian must at least accept the twelve points of the Apostle's Creed.
The Catholic Church actually brought us out of the dark ages. We did not kill Christians; that is a myth. We WERE basically the only Christians until the Reformation.
SeptemberCatholic18 1 year ago
@SeptemberCatholic18
No where have I denied the Trinity, that sir you are putting words in my mouth, for I believe in GOD: The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. In a sense it is a trinity but I dont believe in the Catholic Trinity. So you are saying that the Catholics had nothing to do with the Crusades and the inquisition?? The inquisition was created by Pope Lucius III. If you deny this, then you surly a lost sheep, and I hope you find the right Shepard.
n30h4x 1 year ago
@n30h4x Part of the Trinity is believing that there are three Persons in one God. If you say that the Holy Spirit is merely a "force" of God per se, and not an actual Person, then you deny the doctrine mostly all Christians accept. In fact, you seem to be flirting with a heresy called Sabellianism.
You have a HUGE misconception about the Inquisition. Only self-proclaiming Catholics were brought in. The Inquisition did NOT target Protestants. That is the biggest lie ever told. Go read Wikipedia.
SeptemberCatholic18 1 year ago
@SeptemberCatholic18
Where is it written?? No where does it state that God are 3 persons. I never said it was a force, geeze you really like putting words in peoples mouth. The Holy Ghost is God's spirit. The Fathers Spirit and Christs Spirit. Honestly, i am tired of arguing. And its not a lie that the catholic church was apart of the inquisition. Do you honestly believe everything you read on Wikipedia?? I am tired of casting pearls before swine, I pray that God help you understand this.
n30h4x 1 year ago
@n30h4x I never denied that the Church established the Inquisition. You didn't read what I said. I said that the Church never targeted Protestants for questioning. The focus was on self-proclaiming Catholics who were in fact heretics. I don't think Wikipedia would have an error so blatant.
When you take the personhood away from the Holy Spirit, you essentially reduce Him to a mere force (per se). Once again, the Spirit does things only a Person can do, like talk. You have never addressed this.
SeptemberCatholic18 1 year ago
@SeptemberCatholic18
Again, I am tired of casting pearls before swine. I have already stated that Matthew 10:20 explicitly says "For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you." It is a way for God to talk to us, are Human Minds can not comprehend what encompasses the full Godhead(Trinity). Go to the theseasondotorg and shepherdschapeldotcom. You ask God to fill you with His Spirit, "The Holy Spirit". We have our spirits, well Gods spirit is the Holy Spirit
n30h4x 1 year ago
@n30h4x In Luke 12:10 Jesus says that speaking blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is a serious offense, more so than blaspheming Jesus! You cannot blasphemy a thing; persons are blasphemed.
Jesus says in Matthew 28:19 that we must baptize in the name of the Holy Ghost too. Why would we baptize in His name unless He was a Person?
1 Corinthians 2:13 says that the Holy Spirit teaches. Only a person can teach.
In Acts 5:3 Paul condemns a man for lying to the Spirit. You can't lie to a thing.
SeptemberCatholic18 1 year ago
@SeptemberCatholic18
The Holy Spirit is the intellect of God and His wisdom, in which we ask The Father to give us in Christs name. 1 Cor 2: 12-13. 12Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. How do you think God teaches us His wisdom?
n30h4x 1 year ago
@n30h4x God the Father teaches us directly (Exodus 15:26), through the Son (John 3:2), and through the Holy Spirit (John 14:26). Just as Jesus teaches us as a Person, so does the Holy Spirit.
You conveniently ignored the fact that the Holy Spirit can be blasphemed and lied to, and that a person ought to be baptized in His name. These facts only make sense if the Spirit is a Person.
SeptemberCatholic18 1 year ago
@SeptemberCatholic18
Man dude, you really like twisting and putting words in peoples mouths. Maybe you should be a politician?? I have given you websites to go look at and I am done here. I have given pearls which you cast out away. Im getting back on the original topic. the-ten-commandmentsdotorg/romancatholic-tencommandments.html. check it out, I pray God fills you with the Holy Spirit so you can understand this.
n30h4x 1 year ago
@n30h4x @n30h4x I didn't put any words in your mouth. In fact, all I did was point out the lack of words. You ignored several of my key points.
By the way, I went to your 10 Commandment website and just as I expected, a HUGE misconception. I made a whole video on the "Catholic" ten commandments on my ArmoredCatholic channel. We didn't delete anything. Your second commandment is part of our first commandment.
Go to my website. Type "ArmoredCatholic" into Google, and I'm the first result.
SeptemberCatholic18 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Psalms 115:1-8 "Their idols are silver and gold, the work of mens hands. They have mouths, but they speak not: eyes have they, but they see not: They have ears, but they hear not: noses have they, but they smell not: They have hands, but they handle not: feet have they, but they walk not: neither speak they through their throat. They that make them are like unto them; so is every one that trusteth in them."
johnthreesixteen316 1 year ago
Yeh ... sure ;-)
2thetruthback 2 years ago
By the way, I made a mistake. I meant to say Matthew 26:26. God bless you.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
And lots of Gold.
2thetruthback 2 years ago
"Ave Maria" is a Latin rendition of the angel's greeting from Luke 1:28.
Transubstantiation is found in Matthew 16:16 and John 6:53.
The Vatican is not fantastically wealthy. In fact, currently it is in a financial deficit, with a budget as large the archdiocese of Chicago. The Church has donated many of its art to raise money for charity. Much of the art was donated to the Vatican in the past as gifts.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
And transubstantiation.
2thetruthback 2 years ago
What about "Ave Maria"?
2thetruthback 2 years ago
You guys repent to a man.
You pray to people and not god.
You killed thousands of people for reading the bible.
I wish one day when you were praying to marry that the statue would come alive and grab you by your ugly head and pray your through to the holy ghost BECUSE SHE HAD IT-Lee stoneking
cmckey7127 2 years ago
No, we do not repent to men. We repent to God, and certain men have the authority given by Christ to forgive sins (John 20:23) in the person of Christ (2 Cor 2:10).
We pray to the saints in heaven just as Revelation 5:8 shows people doing. But we certainly pray to God above all else!
We did not kill anyone for simply reading the Bible. In fact, we compiled the Bible in A.D. 393 and translated the entire Bible for the first time in A.D. 405! Read history.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
@SeptemberCatholic18 Jesus was telling the disciples that they could tell people that their sins were forgiven if they had repented and been bapized.
Just as I can't judge people, but I can tell you that you will not go to heaven if you have not been baptized or filled with the Holy Ghost. Jesus was just allowing the disciples to affirm that when person repented that Jesus heard thier cry and he would infact forgive them
cmckey7127 2 years ago
@SeptemberCatholic18 Revelation 5:8 does not show people praying to the saints It says that they had viles that had the prayers OF THE SAINTS It does not say that we should pray to them. We should pray to god and god alone they had all the prayers of the saints not becuse the saints prayed to them,
cmckey7127 2 years ago
WOW! That is the biggest stretch of John 20:23 I have ever heard. Jesus did not say "You can tell people they are forgiven." It is clear. He said they could forgive and retain sins "as the Father has sent me."
Rev 5:8 shows the elders in heaven with the prayers of the saints (holy people from earth) in vials, which they gave to God. That is exactly what Catholics believe. We give our prayers to those in heaven so they can give them to God. We certainly do pray to God directly as well.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
@SeptemberCatholic18 John 20:23 must not be interpreted to mean that Jesus gave to a select body of people the right to forgive sins and let people into heaven. Jesus had spoken similar words before (Matt 16:19), but He was not setting aside the disciples (and their successors) as a "spiritual elite" to deal with the sins of the world. Remember, there were others in the room besides the disciples, and Thomas was missing!
cmckey7127 2 years ago
the correct translation both here and in Matt 16:19 should be: "Whosoever sins you remit [forgive) shall have already been forgiven them, and whosoever sins you retain [do not forgive) shall have already not been forgiven them" In other words, the disciples did not provide forgiveness; they proclaimed forgiveness on the basis of the message of the Gospe
cmckey7127 2 years ago
Luckily for me, I am a Greek scholar and have several Greek linguistic keys and lexicons in my room. You are wrong about the word "apheontai" which best translates to "have been forgiven."
Correct: "Whose sins you forgive, those sins have been forgiven."
Clearly, they have authority to forgive. He says, whose sins YOU FORGIVE. Plus, read 2 Cor 2:10. Paul says that this authority is not really his own. It comes to him from Christ. So it is really Christ forgiving through a priest.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
@SeptemberCatholic18 I like You! You seam very cool. Ok well them translations come from a Hebrew and Greek scholar, and a couple Commentarys. I would like you to show me were you get your translation plz. And im very interested in speaking with you so plz give me a way were we can talk much faster this is so slow
cmckey7127 2 years ago
I used Fritz Rienecker and Cleon Roogers "Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament." I also used Strong's Lexical Concordance.
The root word here is aphieemi, which is found in v.23 in the past perfect tense. It therefore becomes "have been [completely] forgiven."
There is nothing in the grammar to suggest the word "already" as you used it. Plus, this objection does not explain why Christ says "teenon aphite" or "you forgive."
I'm not aware of a good alternative way we can speak.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
@SeptemberCatholic18 Do you have a facebook? or a myspace? or yahoo messenger?
cmckey7127 2 years ago
I do have a facebook, but for privacy reasons, I don't want people on Youtube to know my full identity. I have heard of people who make death threats on here and look up where you live.
If you really want, I could download Y!chat.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
@SeptemberCatholic18 Well ya download yahoo chat, If you just dont want to say your facebook stuff in the open you could send it to me in a private message lol im not going to find you and kill you im 16
cmckey7127 2 years ago
I just downloaded Y!messenger. Go ahead and send me your username in a PM so I can contact you. The facebook thing is a matter of privacy. Call me paranoid and crazy, but my parents raised me to be very cautious on the internet.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
@SeptemberCatholic18 Do you have a Myspace as well?
I'd like to keep in touch with you, Sergio. You know our faith quite well.
ChrisDaron 1 year ago
@ChrisDaron Sorry, I don't have a Myspace. However, if you go to my website (on my profile) and click "Contact Us" you will find all my contact information there.
SeptemberCatholic18 1 year ago
@SeptemberCatholic18 Will definitely do that, man. It's great to have friends like you. I congratulate you and pray for you and every other man or woman like you who defend our faith "a capa y espada".
Bendiciones, hermanito!
ChrisDaron 1 year ago
@cmckey7127 Marry? tssss.. hehehehehe
ChrisDaron 1 year ago
Jesus always used the Hebrew form of the scriptures, ie Law & Prophets & Psalms
bdplist 2 years ago
That's not true. It is clear that he was quoting from the Septuagint, since over 300 of NT references to the OT are in the Septuagint form.
Remember, the Septuagint is a Greek translation of the Hebrew texts, and the NT was written primarily in Greek. It is easy to compare the NT Greek with the Septuagint Greek, and from simple examination one can find that Jesus was quoting WORD FOR WORD from the Septuagint version.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
Explain how it is "clear" he was quoting from the septuagint
What are you comparing the quotes to?
Which "septuagint" version
Why are details always missing in your claims?
Is it because you have no details?
If it is so EASY to compare the NT Greek with some unknown "septuagint" variant PLEASE DO!
COMPARE HERE:____________________
bdplist 2 years ago
Matt. 1:23 / Isaiah 7:14; John 1:23 / Isaiah 40:3; Matt. 9:13 / Hosea 6:6; Matt. 12:21 / Isaiah 42:4; Matt. 13:15 / Isaiah 6:10; Mark 7:7 / Isaiah 29:13; Matt. 21:16 / Psalm 8:2; Luke 3:5-6 / Isaiah 40:4-5; Luke 4:18 / Isaiah 61:1; Luke 4:18 / Isaiah 58:6.
Here are some examples of the Greek being directly taken from the Septuagint version. You will notice that the words Jesus speaks in the NT do not exactly match the verses in the OT. This is because he is quoting the Septuagint version.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
Where is the PROOF that what he is quoting is the Septuagint?
All authors have license to quote their works in any manner they like.
So you have a SEPTUAGINT version that has this exact word usage in it?
Cant answer because your cut n paste source has no info on which Septuagint variant you can actually find these exact words in?
bdplist 2 years ago
THAT is SILLY!!!!!!
Jesus said MT 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
This poses a insurmountable problem for those that would claim Christ spoke in GREEK to the Jews in PALESTINE!
You see herein Christ refers to the smallest HEBREW CHARACTERS which would make little sense to his hearers if they were GREEK speakers!
bdplist 2 years ago
Major Problem #2
MT 5:18 JOT & TITTLE would not pass from the law
He OBVIOUSLY used HEBREW SCRIPTURES else Jesus would have just proven Himself false with this statement since GREEK scriptures NEVER contained any such thing as a JOT & TITTLE!
FACTS are stubborn things RomanISM is more PLIABLE!
bdplist 2 years ago
Still wondering why there was not one shred or fragment of a portion of the OT in GREEK in the caves at Qumran Wadi?
ANS______
bdplist 2 years ago
No, authors ARE NOT allowed to quote any way they like. That's nonsense! A quote has to be EXACT. You can compare the NT quotes with the OT Septuagint verses online. Septuagint versions are available online for free. Just compare the verses I gave you. Even if you don't know Greek you should see it.
Jesus' words were TRANSLATED into Greek by the Gospel writers.
Lastly, Septuagint fragments are kept in safe and secure environments. I can actually tell you exactly which fragments we have today.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
@SeptemberCatholic18
Thanks I have been asking for what a week now
Please give Jesus quoting the Septuagint and provide the septuagint example word for word that he quotes
HERE_______________
Please address this question & stop ignoring inconvienient facts that contradict your fairy tales
If the Palestinian jews used GREEK
THEN
Why was there not 1 doc in greek found at Qumran?
ANS______
bdplist 2 years ago
ALL scholars agree that the NT documents were originally written in Greek (except for Matthew, which is speculated to have been in Aramaic). Why do you think seminarians study Greek?? Remember when Jesus said that he is the "alpha and the omega"? Greek letters. Jesus knew Greek and so did the apostles.
The Hebrew equivalent of the Septuagint canon was found at Qumran!
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
Septuagint Isaiah 6:10
"epacunqh gar h kardia tou laou toutou kai tois wsin autwn barews hkousan kai tous ofqalmous autwn ekammusan mhpote idwsin tois ofqalmois kai tois wsin akouswsin kai th kardia sunwsin kai epistreywsin kai iasomai autous."
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
Matthew 13:15
ἐπαχύνθη γὰρ ἡ καρδία τοῦ λαοῦ τούτου, καὶ τοῖς ὠσὶν βαρέως ἤκουσαν, καὶ τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς αὐτῶν ἐκάμμυσαν: μήποτε ἴδωσιν τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς καὶ τοῖς ὠσὶν ἀκούσωσιν καὶ τῇ καρδίᾳ συνῶσιν καὶ ἐπιστρέψωσιν, καὶ ἰάσομαι αὐτούς
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
@SeptemberCatholic18
Is that so? provide details
Why dont you ever have details?
bdplist 2 years ago
"About 35% of the DSS biblical manuscripts belong to the Masoretic tradition, 5% to the Septuagint family, and 5% to the Samaritan, with the remainder unaligned."
-Emanuel Tov, "Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible" (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001 2nd revised edition) ISBN 0800634292
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
@SeptemberCatholic18
You avoid answering Inconvienient facts
Answer the questions
bdplist 2 years ago
I answered all your questions. I have never purposely avoided anything. But I noticed that you avoided my comparison of the Greek passages from the NT and the Septuagint.
Did you notice something? THEY ARE EXACTLY THE SAME. If you check the Hebrew, it does not exactly match.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
The english does not match either, SO?
bdplist 2 years ago
Let me connect the dots for you:
If Jesus' words did not match the Hebrew version, yet instead matched the Septuagint Greek translation, THAT MEANS HE WAS USING THE THE SEPTUAGINT!
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
@SeptemberCatholic18
That is simple to do 200 to 300 years after Christ uttered those words.
Origen & his pals tried to help God out.
Which Septugint variant do you use?
128 AD Aquila
161AD Theodotion
180AD Symmachus
185AD Origen
311AD Hesychius of Alexandria
bdplist 2 years ago
@SeptemberCatholic18
Fire engines are RED
I suppose every childs wagon you see is RED & thus "matches" so it is OBVIOUS to you it is a Fire Engine lol
bdplist 2 years ago
Dr. John H.P. Reumann The Romance of Bible Scripts & Scholars p16
"Professor Paul Kahle ... (1875-1964), ... argued that there never was any LXX, at least until Christian times, and that our Letter of Aristeas is propaganda for a revision of the Greek Bible which was made in Alexandria."
bdplist 2 years ago
@SeptemberCatholic18
"The Septuagint "quotes" from the New Testament and not vice versa, i.e. in the matter of N.T. - O.T. quotation, the later formulators of the Greek O.T. made it conform with the New Testament Text which they had before them as they forged their product."
FLOYD NOLEN JONES, Th.D., Ph.D.
bdplist 2 years ago
"But the earliest extant manuscript of this version (the Septuagint) is dated around 350 A.D..." (H. S. Miller, General Biblical Introduction, p. 120)
bdplist 2 years ago
That is all propaganda. We actually have 2nd century B.C. (Before Christ) fragments of the Septuagint.
"The oldest manuscripts of the LXX include 2nd century BCE fragments of Leviticus and Deuteronomy (Rahlfs nos. 801, 819, and 957), and 1st century BCE fragments of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and the Minor Prophets (Rahlfs nos. 802, 803, 805, 848, 942, and 943)."
-Ernst Würthwein, The Text of the Old Testament, trans. Errol F. Rhodes, Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1995
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
Dr. DiVietro says:
"Scholars lie. In the case of the Septuagint, the lie is not as overt as usualThe Septuagint, as it is published today, is basically the text of the Old Testament as it appears in Codex B."
ie 350AD
bdplist 2 years ago
According to LEGEND the translation was done ~285-246 BCE at the request of Ptolemy II for the library of Alexandria.
And, according to Jewish history, ten of the tribes of israel had been lost during the Babylonina captivity which lasted from ~ 930-537 BCE.
Which means that ten of the tribes of Israel no longer existed to send translators for Ptolemy. So there were no 70 or 72.
The whole basis for the oldest version of the OT is a MYTH, i.e: a lie.
bdplist 2 years ago
No Hebrew Bible ever contained the books of the Apocrypha. NoJewish council ever endorsed thesebooks and at least one Jewish council specifically rejected them (Council ofJamnia A.D. 90).
bdplist 2 years ago
True, there is a legend surrounding the Septuagint, but not all of it is legendary. The seventy Jews, the library, and Alexander the Great are all details which were added later.
However, with carbon-14 dating, we have established that these fragments I mentioned came from the 2nd century.
Haha! Jamnia! That was an anti-Christian council that actually rejected the NT books as well. You cannot possibly trust Jamnia. One of the reasons they rejected it is because it was linked to the NT!
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
What LEGENDARY "DETAILS" are actually FACTS?
bdplist 2 years ago
NO Hebrew Bible ever had the Apoch books
NO council ever authorized any of these books
NO GREEK was found in the caves of the Jewish community at Qumran
bdplist 2 years ago
Regardless of what is legend, we were able to date the Septuagint fragments to the 2nd century B.C. Therefore they could not have been modeled after Christ's words as you previously claimed.
Yes, the Hebrews did contain the Deuterocanonicals. That is why we found the Hebrew versions of some of the Deuterocanonical books at Qumran!
Are you purposely ignoring these details? Look at a list of the scrolls found at Qumran and you will see the Deuterocanon among them. They were in Hebrew.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
LOL HEBREW is NOT GREEK
Hebrew doc's are not evidence of Greek
DUH!
bdplist 2 years ago
They were Hebrew Deuterocanonicals!
You know. The books that Martin Luther rejected in the 15th century? Remember those books? Those seven books that Protestants simply threw out?
They were found at Qumran in Hebrew and they were in the Septuagint canon in Greek. The Septuagint fragments have been dated to a time before Christ (2nd century B.C.) so you cannot escape the fact that Jesus quoted it.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
is that so?
Which books & in what caves were they discovered?
bdplist 2 years ago
William Whitaker, A disputation on Holy Scripture
"Learned men question, whether the Greek version of the scriptures now extant be or be not the version of the seventy elders. The sounder opinion seems to be that of those who determine that Ihe true Septuagint is wholly lost5, and that the Greek text, as we have it, is a mixed and miserably corrupted document...the faults of the Greek translation are so manifest, that it is impossible to find any way of excusing them"
bdplist 2 years ago
In addition God commanded the Jews to STAY OUT of Egypt
Jer 42:13-22 & 44:25-26
The Septuagint is a FAIRY TALE
bdplist 2 years ago
Those books were REJECTED long before Luther.
For instance Jerome rejected, all the jewish councils, the church, Jesus & His apostles, jewish historians such as Philo and Josephus, most church fathers
bdplist 2 years ago
1) there were LOST tribes, so no 12 from which to select scribes for the 70 or 72
2) ONLY Male LEVITES are allowed by God to be Scribes DU 31:24-25 Ex 32:25-29, Num 3 &8:5-22
3) There is NO RECORD that Jews ever translated ANY scripture into ANY language other than HEBREW even when they resided for long periods in other cultures
ALL the scribes in the Bible are Levites like Ezra 7:6,10-11
SO God would NEVER Inspire a work that was CONTRARY to His word
Nor would any Jew authorize such Blasphemy!
bdplist 2 years ago
Once again, you CANNOT say that the Septuagint is a fairy tale because WE ARE FRAGMENTS DATING TO THE 2ND CENTURY B.C.
So once again, when Jesus quotes the OT, they match the 2nd century B.C. fragments that we have today. This is science and history. You are the one talking about fairy tales.
Go to Wikipedia and type "Dead Sea Scrolls." Go to the section titled "Survey of the Scrolls." There will be a list of all the works found. Among them are Deuterocanonicals and Septuagint portions.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
Fragments of WHAT?
GREEK OT?
NO!
Please explain how a Hebrew document proves there was a GREEK OT!!!!!
bdplist 2 years ago
Yes, we do have fragments of the Greek Septuagint from the 2nd century B.C.
"The oldest manuscripts of the LXX include 2nd century BCE fragments of Leviticus and Deuteronomy (Rahlfs nos. 801, 819, and 957)." -Ernst Würthwein, The Text of the Old Testament
The Hebrew versions of these Septuagint fragments prove that they were well in use by the first century in Palestine. You cannot deny the evidence.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
The Letter from aristeas was as fraudulent as its claims
There is not one comment from anyone about a septuagint till long after Christ
bdplist 2 years ago
I didn't say anything about that letter. I said we currently possess 2nd century B.C. fragments of the Septuagint and I told you which ones we have.
Look, it's obvious you are by NO means interested in the truth. You are fighting tooth and nail to avoid the clear conclusion while I have been comfortably resting on the evidence this whole time. Are you being an honest and genuine person? I don't think so.
SeptemberCatholic18 2 years ago
H.S. Miller, (General Biblical Introduction: From God to Us, p. 222)
"The Letter to Aristeas" has been doubted, then denied and that "now it has few, if any, defenders."
The Introduction to the Septuagint (p-ii)(a modern printing of
Origen's Septuagint)
"Letter of Aristeas" is "...not worthy of notice except for the myth being connected with the authority which this version (LXX) was once supposed to have possessed."
bdplist 2 years ago
The New Schaff - Herzog Religious Encyclopedia
"Of the pre-Christian period of its history (referring to the Septuagint) next to nothing is known." (Vol 2 p117)
Since there was NO Septuagint in existence, just as expected there are NO historical references to the Septuagint before the time of Christ except for the LEGENDARY "Letter of Aristeas"
bdplist 2 years ago
@SeptemberCatholic18
Please explain WHY Jesus would quote GREEK & use as an example HEBREW CHARACTERS JOT & TITTLE
MT 5:18
ANS_________
This is total foolishness you engage in like using oranges (Jot & tittle) to describe a bushell of apples (Greek)
DUH!
bdplist 2 years ago
16th CENTURY DISCOVERY!
The Canon of Scripture and Salvation
By Frederick P. Pogorzelski
The canon of the Bible was solemnly defined and made dogmatic Dogma & Classes of Revealed Truth by the 4th 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.
CONT>
bdplist 2 years ago
>CONT
This put the canonicity of the whole Traditional Bible beyond the permissibility of doubt on the part of Catholics.
bdplist 2 years ago
The ONLY "Reason" the RC have for including the Apochrypha was due to the "INADEQUACY of the New Testament data"
(Or should we therefore say Inadequacy of God)
So they like the Pharisees that they are FIXED God's Revelations
Based on nothing but what they thought right
They thus placed themselves at emnity with God & cursed of Him
Proverbs 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
bdplist 2 years ago
"Canon of the Old Testament" Catholic encyc
The canon of the Old Testament in the Catholic Church
The most explicit definition of the Catholic Canon is that given by the Council of Trent, Session IV, 1546.
Thus the Canon was a SIXTEENTH CENTURY DISCOVERY for the ROMAN's
bdplist 2 years ago
The Tridentine list or decree was the FIRST infallible and effectually promulgated declaration on the Canon of the Holy Scriptures
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA
"Council of Trent"
bdplist 2 years ago
The canon's of the councils differed in the actual content of the books yet not in the names of the books in the lists.
Therefore the canon "LISTS" contain ERROR since they do not and CAN NOT identify what are the contents of those books.
Anyone can change the content but use the right name and in actuality this is exactly what we see when we inspect the ancient catholic "bibles"
bdplist 2 years ago