- - - - - -Seal, why do you have to be so condescending when you respond to me? You're practically belittling and making fun of what I believe in. Plus, you're talking down to me like I'm some kid. Try to be more charitable dude, and please, stop calling me "cookie."
Let's not short change the kid now.... I clearly made more points then this. Such as Christ calling the Sandhedrin Children of the Devil which you cleverly left out. Also that Christ is the LOGOS become flesh so should Undivine Books that contradict clear scriptural teachings be considered a foundation of where the Christ quoted from. You didn't address the Trinity of the Egyptians b/c they did have one, Osiris, therefore should they be devotionals as well. I mean a lot of my points debunk your points, which is why I believe you set me up on your own little paradox of what I said. However, I'll fill you in.You really believe I "set you up"? Believe it or not, not everyone is out to get you. And I'm not that dishonest. Ask anyone who's been here a while and they'll tell you I'm one of the most thorough posters here. I always try to cover everything. I said at the beginning of my post that I had trouble following what you were saying and that the list of your arguments was only what I was able to figure out. I knew when I was writing it that it probably didn't cover everything you said. I wasn't trying to be malicious.
As far as the Sanhedrin is concerned, I never mentioned them in my last post so I don't know what that whole argument is all about. Maybe that part was for someone else. All I'm interested in are the arguments that I actually made, and your response to them. As for "undivine books" that "contradict clear scriptural teachings", you have yet to prove this, so I'll wait and respond to your evidence. As for using Egyptian works for devotional purposes, or inserting such works into the canon, I agree with you that neither should take place. After all, everyone knows that those works aren't Christian, or Godly. In order for the same rule to apply to the deuterocanonical books, you have to prove that they aren't Christian or Godly books either.
Okay, I never said that the apocryphal wasn't an Historical document, therefore events of the times would be recorded through it would it now? This is something inferred into what I rendered the Books. Clearly there are areas in the NT that show that the apocrypha had accurate statements in it (Jude and Hebrews). Yet this doesn't give it authoritative qualifications. Like I said in my earlier point it must be 100% Objective (Meaning no Contradictions to Scriptural teachings) and Divinely inspired which it isn't. Paul says that all scripture is inspired and good for teachings but to books that contradict fit this description? C'mon now cookie.If you'll recall, my whole point there was to show that the NT quotes from deuterocanonical books. People try to use that as a rule for what is inspired and what's not, so I was showing that, by their rule, the deuterocanonical books would be inspired. You'll have to show me which parts in the DB's you feel contradict Scripture before I can defend their "100% Objectiveness."
Uh no it wouldn't. John 10:34... All of Old Testament Scripture is considered the Law, unless you say Christ quoted scripture wrong and I don't think you want to do that . If there is any reason to believe the apocrypha is cannonical prove to us that the Sovereign God has chosen to contradict himself and also divinely inspire a group of folks his son would later call the Children of the Devil.First of all, I could really care less about what the Sanhedrin said about the canon. All I know is that Greek-speaking Jews used a canon that included the DB's (the Septuagint) and that Jesus and the NT writers used this canon. One scholar estimates that, of the approximately 300 OT quotes in the NT, about 2/3 of them came from the Septuagint, which included the DB's (you can see 76 such examples here). It's no big leap in logic to deduce from all this that Jesus regarded the DB's to be part of the Jewish scriptures.
Once again, I believe you clearly skimmed over my post by making this statement or saying that I made the statement that Truth isn't found throughout the apocrypha. If you go back and re-read my friend you'd see that I said that I've heard Fred C. Price give an okay message but he doesn't expose the word 100%. So yes there may be some Truth in the apocrypha, but anything that isn't the whole Truth and Divinely Objective is a Big Fat LIE. Therefore, I don't have to go and quote the Church History like Turtellian and others who dismissed the apocrypha as being canonical. I can read it for myself and see why 2nd Temple writings and the apocrypha shouldn't be used to interpret scripture nor included in it.Like I said, I didn't purposefully ignore stuff or try to undcut your arguments. Believe it or not, your posts aren't always very easy to understand. You seem to have a little trouble with getting out on paper what you're thinking in your head. Your logic isn't always very easy to follow. Sometimes I'm like, "What the hell is he talking about?!?!" So, you'll have to excuse me. I'm trying my best to understand you, bro.
That said, let's see the passages from the DB's that contradict objective truth and we'll see who's telling the "BIG LIE." Also, try to be more respectful next time. I would appreciate it.