hahaha. Do you see the irony here?

Fallible man.

Gotta love it.    

Exactly.

Lula, you stake the entire praying to the dead thing on this one little verse?

Come on.  Why is it when it comes to everything else God hates, we are given multiple verses?

The church is not infallible because it is made up of fallible men.

Ask the children who were molested and raped by priests and then the infallible church covered it up.

KFC has totally kicked your butt in this argument.  A wise woman would see it, acknowledge it.  I believe you are smarter than you portray yourself here.

 

Yes Lula..it's like this. I spent yesterday very carefully expositing that section in scripture very carefully bit by bit, precept upon precept and what do you return with? Your response #222 which has nothing to do with the subject matter. Instead you chose to answer AD's very well researched answer as well with a long diatribe of CC dogma.

AD brought up a good point. When you try to build a point against us you go to the extremes like Jewish mysticism believers or Protestant wackos and compare them to the CC. You know quite well you have your own wackos in your own denomination.

And I have yet to get you to acknowledge anywhere in the OT where we see it's ok to pray to the dead. We see lots of burying and they went to be with the fathers talk....but that was the end of it for them. Even David when his infant son died. He knew then.....that was it. His son went to the other side of eternity and he would later go to him.



I agree with Tova here. I believe you to be MUCH smarter than you're choosing at this moment to be. I know how much you do your own research and how much pride you take in this....but the problem here Lula and I know this with absoulute assurity that we have tread upon major CC doctrine and you CANNOT go against it without seriously having to question the CC's teaching. This is where the rubber meets the road....where the truth meets tradition. Which way are you going to turn?

So when it comes to the scriptures you have to say it takes second seat to the teachings of the CC. Like I said yesterday it was the nuts and bolts of this whole discussion.

I am 'trying' to find a Book of Machabees where I can also look at the Hebrew. I would really like to see what this verse says in the Hebrew (not Latin or any other). I have different idea of what this verse is talking about but rather than spouting off my opinion I will continue to see if I can find what I'm looking for. Something tells me that this verse is slightly mistranslated or the expression of words present a different perspective. Who knows, I could be wrong?

If someone can help me with the above that would be greatly appreciated.





KFC, I think that we ALL are guilty of this one not just Lula.

The CC tradition is very steep. It's unlike most religions...in that once a traditon is formalized it can NEVER be rescinded and has always to be obeyed or believed.

I have spent most of my adult life making sure my traditions are in line with scripture. If they are not out they go. Many don't know the diff between the two.

I'm sure you're familar with the Bareans. I would consider myself in line with their way of thinking. I question why we do what we do all the time. If it doesn't contradict scripture than I'm ok with it. But there are times when a choice has to be made.

I'm not sure that Maccabees was written in Hebrew AD. Was it? Could it have been written in Greek? If so, you'd have to go there.

My guess is to go back to Jerome who translated the whole bible into Latin including the Apocrytha. He also did not like these extra books saying they read differently and didn't belong with the others. But he did translate them originally.

Well, according to Wikipedia and NewAdvent.org (Catholic Encyclopedia) they suggest that these books were originally written in Hebrew. I would look to the Greek but from my research it seems that even in the Greek texts, there are conflicting translations from text to text(not so reassuring).

hmmmmmm I'll see what I can find out here. I may have something since I've got tons of religious reference history books and such that may give me some direction. I'll get back.

Lula may need a few days to come down from the rapture of the Pope's visit.  

ummmmm T.......?

they don't believe in the Rapture!   

Let me ask you a simple question. At a meal, when do you pray?

honestly? Usually before but not always. Sometimes I find myself chowing down and thanking God as I'm doing so....why?

Do you understand why there is conflicting scriptures in the Bible about when?

Deut 8:10 and John 6:23

Next question: To you when does the day start?

there's no confliction of scripture at all.

Are you trying to say that God command us to pray before we eat in the OT and then he commands us to pray before we eat in the NT? That's not at all what's happening here. These are not commands.

Go over and read Deut 6:11-12.

We are to have thankful hearts no matter what. The NT says to pray consistently without ceasing with hearts of thanksgiving always.....whether we eat, drink, sleep we should do all for the glory of God. Always remember God....whether we do so before we eat or after we eat.

The day starts at diff times for diff people. For me the day starts at 7 am. Legally I guess we could say the day starts at midnight. For some the day starts at 6 am. For the Orthodox Jews the day starts at sunset.

Why? What is this 21 questions?   

Hey....I thought you were going to exposit that scripture in Matthew for me? What's up with that?

kfc posts:


ad posts:

As to conflicting translations...

The Septuagint means 70 becasue it was translated into Greek by 70 Jerusalem Jews. The work of translating the Hebrew into Greek began about 250BC and was completed about 100BC. This translation was made for the Jews of Egypt so that they could read the Sacred Books in Greek the only language that most of them knew at the time. The 70 translators worked independently of each other. Their work was so identical that Rabbi Abraham Meyer Heller said, although the work was done by the 70 without consulting the other,they were all found to be exactly alike."

As I've already said, the Greek translation was made during the era when Judaism was the authoritative religion of Almighty God. Its integrity was not ever questioned by the Jews during those days, in fact, according to the Jewish Ency. it was greeted "with enthusiam everywhere".

The 70 translaters were selected by High Priest Eleasar, who was, as were all High PRiests, "The supreme ecclesiastical authority and chief representative of the people before God" as Vallentine's Jewish Encyclopedia says on pg. 284. On the other hand, the Rabbi's of our day accept the canon which was "definitively fixed" by Rabbi Akiba who, like the Rabbi's of our day, had "no sacred power" whatsoever. Rabbi Akiba, who refused to accept Christ as the predicted Messias, born of a Virgin as Isias said He would be born, rallied to the banner of a fake Messias, Simeon, whom he crowned Bar Cochba, "Son of the Star" predicted in Numbers 24:17 to come out of Jacob. Akiba took part in the 3 year battle of Bar Cochba to establish a Messianic Kingdom in Palestine, that cost the lives of 580,000 Jews.

Converts from the Synagogue to the Church line up scripturally with High Priest Elezar instead of Akiba. The misconceptions of the Rabbis cause converts from Judaism to cry out with their Messianic Lord, "Forgive them for they know not what they do."

From the earliest times, the Church used the 46 OLd Testament books of the Septuagint as the true Bible. Those 7 books accepted by the Greek or Septuagint version of the Hebrew Bible but which the Jews rejected after Christ in 90AD, are called "Duetero-Canonical" books. They together with parts of Esther and Daniel are not accepted as part of the Bible by Jews or Protestants.

Not until the Protestant Reformation when Luther rejected 7 of these books. At one time he also rejected Hebrews, James, Jude, and the Apocalypse from the New Testament, but later Protestants re-inserted them. Today, the Catholic and Protestant New Testament have the same 27 Books.

From what I know, 2 Machabees was written in Greek.

In your research AD, it might be helpful to know that the 2 books of Machabees while they deal substantially with the same theme, 2 Machabees is not a sequel to 1 Machabees although it covers partially the same history 176-160 BC. The author of 2Machabees is Jason a Jew from Cyrene in North Africa. He supposedly used documents from the chronicles of the Seleucid Kings. These would be the letters 9:18-20; 11:15-17; 11:27-29 and 11:34-36.

The religious value of 2Machabees is that he frequently uses the name of GOd and visualizes God always to be close at hand, anxious to answer prayers of His chosen ones. Throughout the book the activity and intervention of God in the affiars of His people are constantly highlighted. He stresses the doctrines of the resurrection of the dead, 7:9-11; 14:46; the intercession of saints, 15:11-16, and the ability of the living to assist the departed souls by their prayers and sacrifices 12:39-46. Faith, hope and sincere love of God prevade the whole book.

St.Paul strenghens and develops this in his writings in the New Testament of which I have described at length.

Beyond Scripture, these practices are found in the accounts of North African martyrs Perpetua and Felicity in 203 AD and Tertuillan advises in 211 Christians to for their beloved dead on the anniversaies of their passing from this world. I can provide quotes from writings of St.Augustine, Cyril of Jerusalem, Abercius in 190AD, Paul and Thecla 160AD.