Anti-Semitism In France!

[Wheetsin 714]

No! But you had just gotten done raking me over the coals claiming that I don't admit when I am wrong, even thought I have done so several times. I wanted to see if you hold yourself to the same standards.

I certainly hold myself to the same standards. I'm fairly certain I've either stated I was wrong in this thread before, or at the very least made references to other threads where I had.

You vare persuiing different threads, and I an discussing/debating usually several people at once and doing other things, so my time and attention is stretched at least as much as yours is.

I'm sorry, I don't understand the first part of what you said, so if it has impact on my reply, don't hold it against me. But yes - I'm sure your time is stretched. I've never questioned that. But if you question whether or not something happens, and you're told it has in other threads, then sometimes the onus is on you to check it out of you doubt the message.

[wavydaby 1]

I am going to admit, I have been remiss. I thought the big huge bible on my bookcase was NIV, it is in fact a huge New American Standard Bible, which on the inside cover is the "authorized stamp" of the Congress of Cardinals. (Big wigs in Rome for the Non-Catholics)

I appreciate the answer, but I still have a problem with the KJV, which was, according to several sites, a revision of a revision from the Greek text. That, and its missing books.

What is your take of the books of the Nag-Hadami (spelling here may be off)

They are old texts, as old as any, many of the books of the bible were found there. Many other writtings of the word of God were there too. Why is it wrong to study those and gleen information about God from them?

[Ron Cusano 0]

I am basiclly aware of the different means by which we absorb information. I feel that I have repeatedly said the same thing to you several different ways any you don't seem to understand it. Then I might be asking you the same thing, but if I did it you would tell me I am being evasive or arrogant, would you not?

[/color]No, not at all. You obviously are not acquainted with any of the "what do you do for a living" threads, or any of the countless other threads where I have shared (including one BJean had up not that long ago).

A large part of what I do professionaly is to understand the different ways that people assimilate and process knowledge and information. Part of this is understanding that not everyone communicates or learns in the same way. For example, some people learn visually and cannot process information without some visual stimulation, whereas others might process kinestheticaly, and could find visuals distracting. Of course it goes much deeper than that, but that's another thread.

I had said the same thing something like 4 or 5 times, if not more, and you were not understanding it. Hence, the possibility that you do not assimilate well through the written word, and that something graphic, associative, contratative, etc. might better get the message across.

[Wheetsin 714]

Because you said and I think I am quoting you, "I am an atgiest and am not a Bible scholar." or something to that effect.

Hmm, already replied to this, though I can't find it now. So if this does end up being a duplicate, my apologies.

I don't remember saying that in the last month and a half, but that certainly doesn't mean it couldn't happen. And since no one wants to go and look, let's just call it even and say yeah, sure, that's exactly what I said.

In which case, it still shows nothing. I am an atheist, and not teething. That doesn't mean I have never teethed.

[Ron Cusano 0]

When you talk about the "Nag-Hadami", are you refering to the Apohrepher (forgive the spelling) that is contained in the Catholic Bible? I am not familiar with the terminology "Nag-Hadami"!

The King James all the books that are recognized as Cannon. The Catholic Bible has the Apohrepher (again forgive the spelling) which is not recognized as Cannon by any other Christian denomination, and in a lot of places is contridictory of the other books of Cannon.

The New American Standard Bible, which you said is apporved by the Catholic Church and the King James both do not contain there other books.

FYI - There are hundreds of other works and so-called Gospels that were never considered to be accurate or part of Cannon by the early church fathers. The books contained in the current Bibles, excluding the additional books added by the Catholic church, are those that were considered to be Cannon.

I am going to admit, I have been remiss. I thought the big huge bible on my bookcase was NIV, it is in fact a huge New American Standard Bible, which on the inside cover is the "authorized stamp" of the Congress of Cardinals. (Big wigs in Rome for the Non-Catholics)

I appreciate the answer, but I still have a problem with the KJV, which was, according to several sites, a revision of a revision from the Greek text. That, and its missing books.

What is your take of the books of the Nag-Hadami (spelling here may be off)

They are old texts, as old as any, many of the books of the bible were found there. Many other writtings of the word of God were there too. Why is it wrong to study those and gleen information about God from them?

[Wheetsin 714]

I am basiclly aware of the different means by which we absorb information. I feel that I have repeatedly said the same thing to you several different ways any you don't seem to understand it. Then I might be asking you the same thing, but if I did it you would tell me I am being evasive or arrogant, would you not?

No, I would not. I would tell you that I am a highly visual learner, and perceive information through the written word quite well pending no distractions and a logical order. If there is something in writing that is not clicking with me, it's most frequently due to the logic behind its structure. While random, I do not process randomness effectively. And I would also tell you that I read things fairly literally, so when someone types something that doesn't make sense to me, or when someone is not a strong writer in general, I often struggle to "find the meaning", because I am not good at filling in the blanks -- though it can, on occasion, happen. (Which is part of why, with situations like "eD", I'm absolutely in the dark about its meaning). I'm not nearly interpersonally intuitive enough to be good at it, though.

And had you offered to draw a diagram, I would have thought, "Cool! Maybe someone else knows this stuff too!" and started a dialogue.

[Ron Cusano 0]

PS - The Books of the Old Testament were decided upon by a council of Jewish Rabbi's and theologians, long before the writing of the New Testament, and no by the early Church Fathers. And yet, the other books introduced by the Catholic church have all been added to the Old Testament, even though that had been decided upon long before there even was a church. That in inself is a great reason to disregard them.

[Ron Cusano 0]

Fair enough!

[/color]No, I would not. I would tell you that I am a highly visual learner, and perceive information through the written word quite well pending no distractions and a logical order. If there is something in writing that is not clicking with me, it's most frequently due to the logic behind its structure. While random, I do not process randomness effectively. And I would also tell you that I read things fairly literally, so when someone types something that doesn't make sense to me, or when someone is not a strong writer in general, I often struggle to "find the meaning", because I am not good at filling in the blanks -- though it can, on occasion, happen. I'm not nearly interpersonally intuitive enough to be good at it, though.

And had you offered to draw a diagram, I would have thought, "Cool! Maybe someone else knows this stuff too!" and started a dialogue.

[wavydaby 1]

My NAB has the apocrypha in it. Why would any other NAB not have it in there? (These seven books are: Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus (or, Sirach), and Baruch)

[wavydaby 1]

For other information:

) They were included in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament from the third century B.C.), which was the "Bible" of the Apostles. They usually quoted the Old Testament scriptures (in the text of the New Testament) from the Septuagint.

Forgot to add website:

http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ110.HTM

[Ron Cusano 0]

The NAB is the "New American Bible", not the "New American Standard Bible". The NAB is the new name for the "Catholic Bible", that is why is contains the apocrypha. They are two completely different Bibles.

My NAB has the apocrypha in it. Why would any other NAB not have it in there? (These seven books are: Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus (or, Sirach), and Baruch)

[wavydaby 1]

Reading more on that site (http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ110.HTM)

It seems that Martin Luther wanted a bunch of books out of the bible.

And Other New testaments make reference to those books

[Ron Cusano 0]

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.

For other information:

) They were included in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament from the third century B.C.), which was the "Bible" of the Apostles. They usually quoted the Old Testament scriptures (in the text of the New Testament) from the Septuagint.

Forgot to add website:

http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ110.HTM

[Ron Cusano 0]

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.

Reading more on that site (http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ110.HTM)

It seems that Martin Luther wanted a bunch of books out of the bible.

And Other New testaments make reference to those books

[wavydaby 1]

More from that site Luther was not content even to let the matter rest there, and proceeded to cast doubt on many other books of the Bible which are accepted as canonical by all Protestants. He considered Job and Jonah mere fables, and Ecclesiastes incoherent and incomplete. He wished that Esther (along with 2 Maccabees) "did not exist," and wanted to "toss it into the Elbe" river.

12) Although the New Testament does not quote any of these books directly, it does closely reflect the thought of the deuterocanonical books in many passages. For example, Revelation 1:4 and 8:3-4 appear to make reference to Tobit 12:15:

• Revelation 1:4 Grace to you . . . from the seven spirits who are before his throne. {see also 3:1, 4:5, 5:6}
  Revelation 8:3-4 And another angel came and stood at the altar with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne; and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God.
  {see also Revelation 5:8} Tobit 12:15 I am Raphael, one of the seven holy angels who present the prayers of the saints and enter into the presence of the glory of the Holy One.
  

St. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 15:29, seems to have 2 Maccabees 12:44 in mind. This saying of Paul is one of the most difficult in the New Testament for Protestants to interpret, given their theology:

• 1 Corinthians 15:29 Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf? 2 Maccabees 12:44 For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead.
  

This passage of St. Paul shows that it was the custom of the early Church to watch, pray and fast for the souls of the deceased. In Scripture, to be baptized is often a metaphor for affliction or (in the Catholic understanding) penance (for example, Matthew 3:11, Mark 10:38-39, Luke 3:16, 12:50). Since those in heaven have no need of prayer, and those in hell can't benefit from it, these practices, sanctioned by St. Paul, must be directed towards those in purgatory. Otherwise, prayers and penances for the dead make no sense, and this seems to be largely what Paul is trying to bring out. The "penance interpretation" is contextually supported by the next three verses, where St. Paul speaks of Why am I in peril every hour? . . . I die every day, and so forth.

As a third example, Hebrews 11:35 mirrors the thought of 2 Maccabees 7:29:

• Hebrews 11:35 Women received their dead by resurrection. Some were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they might rise again to a better life.
  2 Maccabees 7:29 Do not fear this butcher, but prove worthy of your brothers. Accept death, so that in God's mercy I may get you back again with your brothers. {a mother speaking to her son: see 7:25-26}
  
  
  
  If nothing else, you are getting me to read more of the bible and scholarly works on it.