Ron Cusano

You may be suprised to hear this, but I agree with you. There are many from all denominations that do and say things that are not consistant with what Jesus taught. We need to remember something though. When you come to believe, you and you life changes, and it is a process. We are still ALL sinners, just forgiven. We are not perfect and we can still do and say wrong things. Prayfully, the more we grow in grace and knowledge, the less of thses things we say and do. Out goal is to become more like Juses, but we are not Jesus.

I won't keep beating a dead horse, just let me add a few quick things. First, Matthew, Mark and John were first hand witnesses of everyhting Jesus said and did, so I have no problem believing their accounts, which compliment and agree. The opther point I want to make is this, if the Bible is devinely inspired by God, that it is to be believed in it's entirety. If the Bible is not inspired by God, then I might as well throw it in the garbage and forget about faith, because if my Christian faith is not based upon the Bible, then what is it based upon? What is it's foundation? For me to believe in Christianity with nothing to base it on that I can accept as pure truth, is believing in fairy tales. I can't base my faith of something that may or may not be true, that some parts may be literal, and others you can make be whatever you want. Either it is all true or it is worthless. That is my opinion and I am not making accusuations against you.

Green, I certainly can understand you feelings and can sense you fustration. Believe it or not, I am even more fustrated. The message of the Old Testament and the New Testament are both the same. That Man is sinful and God is holy and sinless. Because of the sin problem, man is not fit to fellowship with God or enter Heaven. In God's plan, the penelty for sin was physical and spiritual death - "the wages of sin is death"! God, because of His love for His creation, provided a way to deal with the sin problem. He sent His Son, Jesus, who was also God, and therefore sinless, to die in our place. This is a free gift from God available to everyone who will only accept it, by believing that Jesus was who He claimed to be, and did what He claimed to do. Every other point of doctrine and all the differences take second place to this basic truth. That so many do not accept this precious free gift of salvation is what really grieves God.

OK! I understand where you are coming from, and faith is a good thing. As a Christian, even if you don't accept the literal understanding of scripture, let me quote you a few words that Jesus spoke, and let's use YOUR understanding of what they mean . . . John 3: 17-18 "For God sent not his Son into the world to condem the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned; but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God"! Do you not understand that to mean that only those who believe in Jesus are saved (going to Heaven) and those who do not are condemned? Do you think I am reading something into them that is not there? You also said that none of us can really know what God has in store for us, and yet Jesus said "these thinks I say unto you that you may KNOW you have eternal life"! Jesus said we can KNOW we have eternal life. Don't you find that encouraging?

I am sorry if that offended you. It was not intended to.

It is not a matter of "Good" or "Bad", I believe them to be in error. They are sincere, but I believe they are sincerely wrong. Do I believe that all religion is right and all paths lead to God, absolutely not! That is not putting anyone down. It is disagreeing with their beliefs.

Tommy, can't we discuss without the sarcasm?

Do you remember something called "The Crusades" or the "Inquision"? In case you have not noticed, I have not put down any specific religion. I have discussed and disagreed with doctronal issues, and Biblical understandings, but have never put down any religion. There is a BIG DIFFERENCE!

Tom, The following is what I just posted back to Charlene about this. Please read it . . . You are putting words in my mouth! I never said the Catholic church found the books to be uninspired. The Catholic church does consider them to be inspired. Jewish theologians and theoligians from all other Christian denominations I am aware of consider these books not to be inspired.

Tom, I too feel terrible for you with the problems your family is experiencing. My pray is that you will experience peace and get through these times. Ron

With the excepting of dividing into chapter and verse, and splitting into different volumns, the content is exact in todays Old Testament. I suspect the reference given about additional material is a reference to the Catholic Bible. My misistry involves preaching the Gospel to the Jews and a big part of that is sitting down with some ( including Rabbi's), Bibles in hand (the Tenach and the Christian Old testament), and never have I seen a difference in text or content. I have studied under several Jewish scholars, most of which were fluent in Hebrew, and were experts in the Tenach, and they also never saw any difference in text. Therefore, I think you are reading the intent of this reference incorrectly.

You are putting words in my mouth! I never said the Catholic church found the books to be uninspired. The Catholic church does consider them to be inspired. Jewish theologians and theoligians from all other Christian denominations I am aware of consider these books not to be inspired.

If it had not been for Constantine, the church might still be a mostly Jewish church!!

PS - Your own reference beloe say's this . . . "These books and chapters were found in Bible manuscripts in Greek only, and were not part of the Hebrew Canon of the Old Testament, as determined by the Jews". That seems to make it plain that the Catholic version of the Tenach, the Old Testament, is very different than that which is recognized by the Jews and the rest of the Christian community. "

First, I never claimed to be an expert on Catholic dogma, but I was a Roman Catholic for the first 35 years of my life, receiver all the usual religious instruction, and I know what I was taught by the Catholic church. Plus, the majority of my family and a lot of friends are Roman Catholic and I have had countless discussions with them about their faith over many years, so I am no stranger to the dogma. In addition, I have had occasion to discuss and debate the faith with several Catholic priests over the years. I would not classify myself as an expert or Catholic theologian, but I am well versed in it. Does that answer your question?

Here is the reference site. Last sentence of the first paragraph - http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ110.HTM

The information about the Catholic Church admitting that the additional books are not part of the Jewish Tenach came directly from a Catholic website that Wavaby sent to me for a reference, so I am wondering what you think I am misinformed about??

I didn't take is as sarcastic, I took it as a serious question. First, let me say that Sunday is the tradational day Christians set aside to worship. This was established by the earlly church because 1: they wanted to set it apart from the Jewish Sabbeth Saturday, 2: the resurection took place on Sunday. The Bible tells us that creation took place over 6-days and God rested on the 7th. God, being God doesn't need "rest" like we need rest, so I think the message here is that He rested from doing work (of creation). That being said, I think it is a good thing to dedicate the day to worship, fellowship and a time set apart with family to meditate on the things of God, etc. Is it a cut-in-stone rule - absolutely not, espesially for non-Christians and those who must work on Sunday to support their famlies. I think everyday should be "the Lord's day" so for those who choose or must work on Sunday, I think it is good to set aside some tome for those things. But, I do nnot think it ought to be law or mandatory. It is a matter of conviction. I hope this answers your question. Have a nice weekend. I too have a busy weekend. My step-son is getting married on Sunday.

I'm sorry! What I was trying to say was we are talking about single words, NOT phrases or sentences.

You are 100% Correct! And we also have to remember that what meant something in the King's English back when the King James version was translated, could be very hard to comprehend using todays English. And that is where the Strongs Concordance is so valuable. Remember, not we are speaking about single words, not phrases or sentences. Therefore, in a literal translation, we have the added insurance to be able and research individual words, as in a dictionary. You can't do this with a paraphrased Bible because it is not a word-by-word translation, and you have to take the writers word for what he thinks the meaning is. They may be good as a "starter" Bible for someone who has comprehension problems, but they can be riddled with inconsistancies and problems.

As I mentioned before, Martin Luther, whom I am not a big fan of, my have wanted these things, although I have never heard that claim before. I do know that he had absolutly no say in which books were considered canon.

I don't know how much weight Martin Luther had with that regard back them. He may have wanted this but nothing was decided bedcasue of him. Theologians today make a good case for exclusion for a number of reasons . .. 1: The do not meet the criteria for inclusion in canon that was used to include the other books of the Bible. 2: They were never included by the Jewish council, and the Jews were gived the obligation by God of preserving the Old Testament (unto them the Jews, were committed the oracles of God) 3: Much of what is contained in there other books is inconsistant with the whole of scripture. 4: The Catholic church is the only one to include these books into their canon. 5: If I remember correctly, there were many historical inaccuracies contained in these books.

There is a lot that you have written here that I want to respond to but I just got home (almost 11:00 pm). Let me say this quickly! I am not a Martin Luther fan because he was a tremendous anti-semite. More tomorrow!

If I remember my history correctly, Martin Luther wanted the Apocrypha removed from Canon. I have never seen a New Testament make reference to any books of the Apocrypha. If you can give me references for that, I would be interested in seeing them. If you write and I don't answer back tonight, it is because I will be leaving in a bit for an ocasion.

Actually the Old Testament, called the "Tenach" in Hebrew was not in book form, but was on scrolls. The Catholic church freely admits that the apocrypha was not part of the Tenach, the Old Testament, but they added them anyway, what no other Christian denomination recognizes that as being spiritually inspired.