The Religion Discussion

[pioneer]

pioneer, would you like the opportunity to prevent children from being raped or killed?

Yeah

great!!! believe the gospel, put your faith in Jesus and you will be born of the spirit of God..incorruptible and through you, God will make a difference,people will hear you and perhaps turn from their wicked ways,as long as you use your authority here on earth to execute God's will for mankind much will be achieved.... otherwise you will find yourself complaining about a problem that you are really a part of

the men who a raping and killing babies have either
never heard the gospel
or has but rejected it
but how are they gonna hear it when men try to suppress or stop the message from spreading?
or how are they gonna believe when men selfishly seek to offer arguments to invalidate the message we preach which is then taken by these very rapist as excuses ?

think about this if the woman heard the gospel and followed Gods will, by not sleeping with a man who is not her husband,would she have a problem today ?...no because that man would not have been around and her daughter would not have been killed by him.............



the problems in the world today is that of a nature problem
and God has offered a nature solution for it, that is change that comes from the inside of man .....as long as you are not part of this solution ,you are part of the problem......................................

Pal i don't need the spirit of god to know right from wrong, nor would people need to listen to me "only" if i have shown such spirit.

If people need someone else to tell them raping or killing a baby is wrong, then they don't deserve life.

[d spike]

Which one do you accept as a proper translation?

...to a new christian I will suggest the kjv or nasb

The KJV and the NASB, while the former is great literature and the latter is a decent modern translation, are both lacking certain books which were in the Septuagint, and so are not complete - which then raises the question whether they can be accepted as 'proper' translations.

the fact is the bible (the books)is an actual collection of books that is believed to be inspired (God breathed.)by God, Christians because of their faith in Jesus, can recognise the work of God hence the compilation of the bible....

So these very Christians accept books, such as Maccabees, and compile them with others in the Bible, as they considered them all "inspired", and Luther comes along hundreds of years later and tosses them out, simply because they don't fit his concept of his religion (he even modifies other parts of the Bible, admitting to rewording, even creating, new phrases)... to the point where his errors are upheld for decades, some for centuries...
...and you come claiming

the fact is the bible (the books)is an actual collection of books that is believed to be inspired (God breathed.)by God, Christians because of their faith in Jesus, can recognise the work of God hence the compilation of the bible....

...yet you consider bibles that uphold Luther's errors (and lack books of scripture) as proper translations...

My point is:
How can you consider the compilation of scripture to be "inspired", and the "Word of God"... yet quite happily ignore other perfectly acceptable books that

a man (who) can do as he choose

chose to throw out?
You spout this knee-jerk claptrap:

Luther rejecting scripture have nothing to do with me...
I follow Jesus not Luther.

...and then recommend two translations that hold to Luther's decisions regarding their content.
You still need to think about what you write before you hit that 'Submit' button. (I've told you this already moons ago, haven't I? )
You might think you are "following Jesus", but you are actually walking down Luther's path.
...but don't take my word for it... do some actual research for once... at least "google" Luther, for crying out loud, if finding an encyclopaedia is too much for you... see for yourself.

...one of the reasons why the kjv is preferred by many is that at the time of its translation, there wasn't alot of the "agendas" we have in this modern day

Agendas like preferring accurate translation? Please... the KJV is preferred because its archaic tongue gives it an "official" sound, which simple folk like to hear... "Yeah man, dat soun' like de real ting!"

[d spike]

Being fed up of all the nonsense that has been written regarding that wondrous piece of literature, the KJV, I will put forward a simple example of why this translation is not the wisest choice for someone studying Christianity. I will not go into whether there were any agendas involved in its writing/translation... let it suffice that whether or not it was useful at the time of its printing, it certainly lacks this characteristic at this time, due to both its archaic language and accuracy.

This KJV's except is taken from Jeremiah 10:2-5, and is fairly well-known, as it is regularly quoted by those that don't know better in their argument against the use of Christmas trees...

thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them. For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not. They are upright as the palm tree, but speak not: they must needs be borne, because they cannot go. Be not afraid of them; for they cannot do evil, neither also is it in them to do good.

We are told by presumptuous folk that the author seems to have a very clear awareness of how the pagans acquire and decorate their trees for Christmas... despite the fact that the original writing of this piece predates Christianity by at least 600 years! No matter, says the book-thumpers, evil pagan rituals have been around for a long time. They point out how the workman uses his axe to cut the tree from the forest, how it is trimmed with tinsel (decked with silver and gold), and needs to be fastened to the ground in order to remain upright... a la Christmas tree!

...now check ANY modern translation...

He says, “Do not follow the ways of other nations; do not be disturbed by unusual sights in the sky, even though other nations are terrified. The religion of these people is worthless. A tree is cut down in the forest; it is carved by the tools of the woodworker and decorated with silver and gold. It is fastened down with nails to keep it from falling over. Such idols are like scarecrows in a field of melons; they cannot speak; they have to be carried because they cannot walk. Do not be afraid of them: they can cause you no harm, and they can do you no good.”

The passage is clearly about the making of an idol... not a Christmas tree.
A simple line such as this

it is carved by the tools of the woodworker

translated thus

the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe.

causes quite a bit of misunderstanding... and the use of pronouns instead of the word "idol" itself in the description of its lack of movement didn't help the matter any...

So, verily, verily, I say unto thee, avoid the usage of this tome when material for studious activity is needful; yea, leave it for when the need to meditate on beauteous prose doth arise.

[megadoc1]

Being fed up of all the nonsense that has been written regarding that wondrous piece of literature, the KJV, I will put forward a simple example of why this translation is not the wisest choice for someone studying Christianity. I will not go into whether there were any agendas involved in its writing/translation... let it suffice that whether or not it was useful at the time of its printing, it certainly lacks this characteristic at this time, due to both its archaic language and accuracy.

This KJV's except is taken from Jeremiah 10:2-5, and is fairly well-known, as it is regularly quoted by those that don't know better in their argument against the use of Christmas trees...

thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them. For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not. They are upright as the palm tree, but speak not: they must needs be borne, because they cannot go. Be not afraid of them; for they cannot do evil, neither also is it in them to do good.

We are told by presumptuous folk that the author seems to have a very clear awareness of how the pagans acquire and decorate their trees for Christmas... despite the fact that the original writing of this piece predates Christianity by at least 600 years! No matter, says the book-thumpers, evil pagan rituals have been around for a long time. They point out how the workman uses his axe to cut the tree from the forest, how it is trimmed with tinsel (decked with silver and gold), and needs to be fastened to the ground in order to remain upright... a la Christmas tree!

...now check ANY modern translation...

He says, “Do not follow the ways of other nations; do not be disturbed by unusual sights in the sky, even though other nations are terrified. The religion of these people is worthless. A tree is cut down in the forest; it is carved by the tools of the woodworker and decorated with silver and gold. It is fastened down with nails to keep it from falling over. Such idols are like scarecrows in a field of melons; they cannot speak; they have to be carried because they cannot walk. Do not be afraid of them: they can cause you no harm, and they can do you no good.”

The passage is clearly about the making of an idol... not a Christmas tree.
A simple line such as this

it is carved by the tools of the woodworker

translated thus

the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe.

causes quite a bit of misunderstanding... and the use of pronouns instead of the word "idol" itself in the description of its lack of movement didn't help the matter any...

So, verily, verily, I say unto thee, avoid the usage of this tome when material for studious activity is needful; yea, leave it for when the need to meditate on beauteous prose doth arise.

this is another perfect example of your straw man arguments, both scriptures are basically saying the same thing as you rightly pointed out ..so my question is,if a man in "error" misunderstands what was really being said all because his agenda is to discourage the use of the the Christmas tree , how does this becomes the kjv's fault?..even if you were to show him the modern translation, he will puff up and say its corrupted ....so what your point?

[megadoc1]

Which one do you accept as a proper translation?

...to a new christian I will suggest the kjv or nasb

The KJV and the NASB, while the former is great literature and the latter is a decent modern translation, are both lacking certain books which were in the Septuagint, and so are not complete - which then raises the question whether they can be accepted as 'proper' translations.

the books that were omitted are not considered inspired by some and although they were in the Septuagint they were not found in the Hebrew old testament hence this whole argument in the church
these are the Deuterocanonical books that you seek to make issue with
I am not so much interested

the fact is the bible (the books)is an actual collection of books that is believed to be inspired (God breathed.)by God, Christians because of their faith in Jesus, can recognise the work of God hence the compilation of the bible....

So these very Christians accept books, such as Maccabees, and compile them with others in the Bible, as they considered them all "inspired", and Luther comes along hundreds of years later and tosses them out, simply because they don't fit his concept of his religion (he even modifies other parts of the Bible, admitting to rewording, even creating, new phrases)... to the point where his errors are upheld for decades, some for centuries...

yikes that's a very serious allegation you got on your hands there against luther
but what about Jerome, at the time of his writing didn't he pointed out that those books were not considered canonical by the Jews??? and should not be used to establish doctrine??? wasnt these very books included against the advice of Jerome ??? you rember Jerome right ? the one who came up with the vulgate ?

don't say "these very Christians" in response to what I wrote when
it is clear that some accepted it and some did not,
not all of them "considered them all inspired" as you are claiming

...and you come claiming

the fact is the bible (the books)is an actual collection of books that is believed to be inspired (God breathed.)by God, Christians because of their faith in Jesus, can recognise the work of God hence the compilation of the bible....

...yet you consider bibles that uphold Luther's errors (and lack books of scripture) as proper translations...

yess... your argument is geared to show this is an erorr
you want to say that these books were rejected , what is said is that the books are very good for reference
but are not considered inspired ,meaning its not as significant in the life of a believer in christ as the other books ..I am yet to see believers damned to hell because of the absence of these books? but is sad to see that alot are because of them.(becoming foundation of doctrines)

My point is:
How can you consider the compilation of scripture to be "inspired", and the "Word of God"... yet quite happily ignore other perfectly acceptable books that

a man (who) can do as he choose

chose to throw out?

Luther never threw anything out as you claim , you really need to define what you meant by the term "throw out "
its deceitful if you mean to imply that these books means nothing to luther or to christians
which is not the case it is just that they should not to be used to establish doctrine.
like the other books

Luther rejecting scripture have nothing to do with me...
I follow Jesus not Luther.

...and then recommend two translations that hold to Luther's decisions regarding their content.
You still need to think about what you write before you hit that 'Submit' button. (I've told you this already moons ago, haven't I? )

these books what you speak about are available to Christians for reference just like the many others that are not in the bible
so to really say they were tossed by luther ,or the bibles without those books are lacking
is just an opinion of one used as an argument to what avail?
I have a copy of the kjv 1611 which includes theses books ..where is luther's decision regarding its content?

You might think you are "following Jesus".......,

doh be fass!!!(Jesus would say "satan!! get thee behind me" ) you are in no position to tell me where I am going
thank you



d spike I am curious what version of the bible would you recommend to a believer?

[meccalli]

This is really important because the bible that guys read long ago is not what we have today, major books have been left out books like enoch and are one of my favorites as it clears up a lot of scriptures for me, and helps me gain a more in depth view of the angelic perspective. Also the bible is indeed full of translation errors this is why a good bible student needs to always be in study whenever reading. A simple example would be slaves in the bible, they were 'slaves' (actually translated servants or laboring in free will) because they became so in debt , they could work for someone in their household and be provided needs until they could pay off. The bible event went further on another occasion saying that kidnapping and selling a man as a slave is punishable by death.

[MG Man]

so then you saying there is no hope for the simple man to understand the bible???????

[d spike]

this is another perfect example of your straw man arguments, both scriptures are basically saying the same thing as you rightly pointed out ..so my question is,if a man in "error" misunderstands what was really being said all because his agenda is to discourage the use of the the Christmas tree , how does this becomes the kjv's fault?..even if you were to show him the modern translation, he will puff up and say its corrupted ....so what your point?

I stated my point. Because you look at words without putting rational thinking into gear and consider that reading, you will always fail to see the point.
Try it for once.
You can look at these two passages side by side and see the similarity... but that is because you CAN SEE BOTH PASSAGES SIDE BY SIDE.
A student coming across the KJV alone will consider the errant misunderstanding stated before to have grounds. This error is acceptable? Of course not. The whole point of writing something is so the reader can understand it. If a person reads this excerpt and thinks that Jeremiah was talking about Christmas trees, then clearly, the translation into the reader's language is NOT ACCURATE ENOUGH.

Being fed up of all the nonsense that has been written regarding that wondrous piece of literature, the KJV, I will put forward a simple example of why this translation is not the wisest choice for someone studying Christianity. I will not go into whether there were any agendas involved in its writing/translation... let it suffice that whether or not it was useful at the time of its printing, it certainly lacks this characteristic at this time, due to both its archaic language and accuracy.

(There... you should be able to see it know )

The KJV and the NASB, while the former is great literature and the latter is a decent modern translation, are both lacking certain books which were in the Septuagint, and so are not complete - which then raises the question whether they can be accepted as 'proper' translations.

the books that were omitted are not considered inspired by some and although they were in the Septuagint they were not found in the Hebrew old testament hence this whole argument in the church
these are the Deuterocanonical books that you seek to make issue with
I am not so much interested

The Septuagint isn't Hebrew scriptures? So who put it together for their religious purposes? Hindus?
That "the Septuagint ain't Hebrew scriptures" was part of Luther's erroneous arguments. For someone who knows little about him, you certainly tread in his footsteps very well.

but what about Jerome, at the time of his writing didn't he pointed out that those books were not considered canonical by the Jews??? and should not be used to establish doctrine??? wasnt these very books included against the advice of Jerome ??? you rember Jerome right ? the one who came up with the vulgate ?

don't say "these very Christians" in response to what I wrote when
it is clear that some accepted it and some did not,
not all of them "considered them all inspired" as you are claiming

So???? Of course not all of them were considered inspired. Humans have to argue...
Does your bible have Revelations? Peter's second letter? Quite a few books were not accepted by all. Yet they were found acceptable enough after lengthy discussion... but Luther comes along and tosses books out, and you just trundle merrily down the road behind him, kissing the hem of his garment...

your argument is geared to show this is an erorr
you want to say that these books were rejected , what is said is that the books are very good for reference
but are not considered inspired ,meaning its not as significant in the life of a believer in christ as the other books ..

Oooh... so some of the books considered "inspired" then are not considered so now? Who decided this? Jerome? You consider the Vulgate an accurate translation then? Jerome might have been an intelligent man, but he wasn't infallible... which is why those books continued to remain acceptable as scripture after his remonstrations...
Nah... Luther's your boy...

Luther never threw anything out as you claim , you really need to define what you meant by the term "throw out "

You REALLY should try reading books other than the three you have.
Research Luther's work.
Clearly, you just sit and rattle the couple of ideas you have in your head, in the hope that the sound created will drown out all opposing arguments! So now I have to instruct you? But we covered all this already!!!! Truly, you just do not read what others write. I will have to go and dredge up material that I ALREADY posted in this thread... WHY????? For you to not read it again?

these books what you speak about are available to Christians for reference just like the many others that are not in the bible

There are lots of stuff "available for reference" these days, porn, narcotics, bluefete's posts... that doesn't mean that they are acceptable. So what if you can read the Gospel of Thomas? Can you quote it in an argument to support a traditional Christian belief? Don't be silly. Don't confuse availability with acceptability. Anyone can walk down Carenage and pay one-legged Alice $20 for a quickie on the beach - does that mean one should?

so to really say they were tossed by luther ,or the bibles without those books are lacking
is just an opinion of one used as an argument to what avail?
I have a copy of the kjv 1611 which includes theses books ..

So? I have a copy of the Good News Bible (an SDA publication) that has the deutercanonicals and apocrypha... These types of bibles were put together in a way that clearly states "these odd stories ain't part of the book, but here they are for your perusal". That does not negate my argument.

You might think you are "following Jesus".......,

doh be fass!!!(Jesus would say "satan!! get thee behind me" ) you are in no position to tell me where I am going
thank you

Where you are going is none of my affair, but I recognised Luther's errant pathway, and simply informed you of the direction of your perambulation. Keep on truckin'... Let me know when you start choosing which scriptures to ignore, and twisting scripture to suit yourself... wait a minute, you're doing that already... Carry on, then.

d spike I am curious what version of the bible would you recommend to a believer?

Are you curious? Or are you looking for another target to spit at? Don't worry, when they ask me, I tell them.

[meccalli]

The simple man can ask God to lead him to a good shepherd, one that can instruct what the bible really teaches.

[MG Man]

The simple man can ask God to lead him to a good shepherd, one that can instruct what the bible really teaches.

you do realize the need for a go-between is what led to christianity being so disjointed, seggregated and buggered in the first place...

[Kasey]

The simple man can ask God to lead him to a good shepherd, one that can instruct what the bible really teaches.

Which man considers himself 'simple'? I have yet to hear of anyone who can instruct what the Bible 'really' teaches. Cause as I far as I understand, thats impossible.

[Chimera]

The simple man can ask God to lead him to a good shepherd, one that can instruct what the bible really teaches.

you do realize the need for a go-between is what led to christianity being so disjointed, seggregated and buggered in the first place...

am i the only one who laugh at seeing "christianity" and "buggered" in the same sentence.

[meccalli]

Well the question was asked and I took' simple 'to mean someone who isn't inclined on doing research and in depth study himself. In that case one can only ask God to lead him to a pastor that doesn't lead persons astray via false teaching, sorry if i conveyed it differently. And you are correct it is because of disagreement by religious heads and their clashes over views within a book. As i always believe, me being a follower of Christ isn't me following religion its a relationship and me wanting to be more like my greatest role model.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

pioneer, would you like the opportunity to prevent children from being raped or killed?

Yeah

great!!! believe the gospel, put your faith in Jesus and you will be born of the spirit of God..incorruptible and through you, God will make a difference,people will hear you and perhaps turn from their wicked ways,as long as you use your authority here on earth to execute God's will for mankind much will be achieved.... otherwise you will find yourself complaining about a problem that you are really a part of

the men who a raping and killing babies have either
never heard the gospel
or has but rejected it
but how are they gonna hear it when men try to suppress or stop the message from spreading?
or how are they gonna believe when men selfishly seek to offer arguments to invalidate the message we preach which is then taken by these very rapist as excuses ?

think about this if the woman heard the gospel and followed Gods will, by not sleeping with a man who is not her husband,would she have a problem today ?...no because that man would not have been around and her daughter would not have been killed by him.............

that's a BIG perhaps

Why would God not give children to pious couples, but allow a daughter to be born to this man and woman who you claim did not hear the Gospel and heed it.

what about women who were raped?

the problems in the world today is that of a nature problem
and God has offered a nature solution for it, that is change that comes from the inside of man .....as long as you are not part of this solution ,you are part of the problem......................................

more like if you are not with us you are against us

what about people like Anuradha Koirala who is dedicated to helping victims of sex trafficking. She got the CNN Hero of the Year award in 2010. She has saved thousands of children from sexual abuse and slavery in India and around the world. She is a devout Hindu. She more than likely does not believe in the Gospel, is she part of the problem?

your logic is lacking.

[pioneer]

She just hasn't found the gospel yet...

[bluefete]

pioneer, would you like the opportunity to prevent children from being raped or killed?

Yeah

great!!! believe the gospel, put your faith in Jesus and you will be born of the spirit of God..incorruptible and through you, God will make a difference,people will hear you and perhaps turn from their wicked ways,as long as you use your authority here on earth to execute God's will for mankind much will be achieved.... otherwise you will find yourself complaining about a problem that you are really a part of

the men who a raping and killing babies have either
never heard the gospel
or has but rejected it
but how are they gonna hear it when men try to suppress or stop the message from spreading?
or how are they gonna believe when men selfishly seek to offer arguments to invalidate the message we preach which is then taken by these very rapist as excuses ?

think about this if the woman heard the gospel and followed Gods will, by not sleeping with a man who is not her husband,would she have a problem today ?...no because that man would not have been around and her daughter would not have been killed by him.............

that's a BIG perhaps

Why would God not give children to pious couples, but allow a daughter to be born to this man and woman who you claim did not hear the Gospel and heed it.

what about women who were raped?

the problems in the world today is that of a nature problem
and God has offered a nature solution for it, that is change that comes from the inside of man .....as long as you are not part of this solution ,you are part of the problem......................................

more like if you are not with us you are against us

what about people like Anuradha Koirala who is dedicated to helping victims of sex trafficking. She got the CNN Hero of the Year award in 2010. She has saved thousands of children from sexual abuse and slavery in India and around the world. She is a devout Hindu. She more than likely does not believe in the Gospel, is she part of the problem?

your logic is lacking.

Deuteronomy 22 (King James Version)

23If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;

24Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

25But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.

26But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:

27For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.

28If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

29Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

[bluefete]

Church used us to make millions

The Sowetan, South Africa/March 20, 2009
By Cecil Motsepe

The Universal Church of the Kingdom of God, the country’s fastest growing charismatic church, is little more than a money-making scam, say pastors who have been left to fend for themselves after making a fortune for the church.

The unhappy pastors say that they were even forced to undergo vasectomies to prevent them having children so they would not carry around any "baggage".

Pastors and followers of the church (UCKG) are encouraged to surrender their wealth upon joining the church.

Although they had reservations about the church, they decided to break their silence after some of them were off-loaded because of ill-health.

When Pastor Michael Louw, 49, joined the church 16 years ago, his banker wife surrendered her car and her pension.

"When you join, they tell you that pastors are not supposed to own anything, not a house, a car or even a bank account. I used to make money for them, but today I am sleeping in a sleeping bag," said Louw.

"When people warned us that these Brazilians were here to make money we did not want to believe them. But now we know. They brainwashed us into believing that God would take care of us, but when they kick us out we have nowhere to go," he said.

Congregations run as many as six services a day in which members are constantly exhorted to make donations.

"There is not a single service in which we are allowed to preach without asking for contributions," said Louw.

Sowetan recently visited the church in Brixton and in central Johannesburg. Different pastors continually emphasised the importance of giving the church money.

"Give in abundance and you will be blessed," said one pastor.

The congregation was then presented with Nedbank deposit slips to "give to God".

Prophet Paul Sibeko of the Soweto branch in Diepkloof said he made R6million in one campaign.

"When I was shot by intruders inside the church, my leaders never asked what happened. All they asked was if I had made the target.

"I replaced a pastor who was making R7000 a month in Mpumalanga. I ended up making R60000 a month. You are not allowed to make less than the previous amount," said Sibeko, who served the church for 13 years.

Their disillusionment was echoed by George Ndionga, 40, who quit as pastor last year after 11 years.

"My branch in Ebony Park used to make R90000 a month; in Springs I would make between R35000 and R45000. When I left they gave me a mere R6000," Ndionga said.

"What they do is unbiblical. Deuteronomy 15 says you may release a slave after he had served you for six years, but you can’t let him go empty- handed.

"I got nothing. It’s like I just came out of jail," said Ndionga who gave up his business to join the church.

Ndionga said he was sidelined because of a knee injury.

Asked if he believed the church was a scam, Ndionga said: "In the beginning it was a church for saving souls, but things changed. They used to be concerned with the number of people we recruited, but now they are concerned with the amount of money we bring in," Ndionga said

"If you don’t make money, they put you aside. We have been brainwashed," he said.

The church’s chief executive Elvis Presslin dismissed the claims.

"There is no basis to this claim. The UCKG is the only church that has its books independently audited every year even though we are not obliged to do so. All assets belong to the church. The pastors and the bishops do not own anything," Presslin said.

Pastor Godfrey Adolf, 40, said: "They have turned us into their moneymakers."

He has been with the church for 17 years.

"When they came into the country they had nothing, but today they are rich. They told us to give up all we had. We realised too late that these people were a family and were running a business," he said.

Adolf, who heads the Lawley branch near Lenasia, said a congregant once made a R100000 donation.

"When they build cathedrals, it is simply to make more money. The sad part is that this money comes from our poor people. I am also quitting. This is probably my last day," Adolf said.

Pastors Samuel Mpiza and Erick Dube told us that they were off-loaded after the one was injured on duty and the other one was accused of being defiant.

UCKG spokesperson Nametso Mofokeng confirmed that their pastors undergo vasectomies.

"There are countries where pastors are, where conditions may not be as favourable for a pastor with children, and for this reason pastors are advised of this possibility and the challenges they may face.

"No pastor is forced to undergo a vasectomy. Those pastors who have undergone this medical procedure have done so of their own accord," said Mofokeng.

She added that the church has in some cases offered financial assistance for this procedure.

Louw said that aggrieved pastors are invited to attend a meeting at Joubert Park in Johannesburg tomorrow at 1pm.

http://www.rickross.com/reference/unive ... rsal61.htm

Deuteronomy 23

1He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

[bluefete]

Brazil charges church leaders with embezzling millions from poor
Three leaders of Universal Church of the Kingdom of God accused of laundering cash through offshore bank accounts

The Guardian/September 13, 2011
By Tom Phillips

Three leading members of one of Brazil's most powerful churches have been accused of laundering millions in church donations and using worshippers' money for personal gain.

Founder Edir Macedo
in Brazilian jail 1992

The charges, unveiled on Monday by São Paulo's public prosecutor, relate to 404m reals (£150m) allegedly obtained from mostly impoverished churchgoers by leaders at Brazil's Universal Church of the Kingdom of God.

The money was subsequently channelled out of the country via a network of offshore bank accounts and money changers, federal prosecutors claimed.

Among those charged is Bishop Edir Macedo, a controversial televangelist who founded the church in 1977, and his financial director, Alba Maria Silva da Costa.

Luís Martins de Oliveira, the prosecutor behind the case, claimed followers were tricked into handing over money to the church through "false promises and threats that spiritual and economic assistance would only be bestowed upon those who made financial sacrifices for the church".

Prosecutors claim that although the church claimed to have received around £1.85bn in donations between 2003 and 2006, the actual sum could be much higher.

The charges also allege the church opened two offshore accounts in the early 1990s, in the Cayman Islands and in Jersey, to move donations out of the country.

The Universal Church was founded in northern Rio and today claims a worldwide congregation of 8 million followers.

Church leaders promote "prosperity theology" – through which committed believers are told their faith and regular, generations donations can help them achieve material wealth.

But corruption scandals, including claims that donations were used to buy luxury goods and property, have earned the church many critics.

The church's preachers are also notorious for their open hostility towards Brazil's gay community and African-Brazilian religions.

But Macedo's church also boasts huge support and packed pews have brought incredible wealth.

The church owns one of Brazil's top media outlets and "temples" in Europe, the US, Africa and Asia.

The bishop's blog is written in English, French and Spanish as well as his native Portuguese. With an estimated personal fortune of at least £1.3bn, Macedo leads the charge in promoting "prosperity theology".

Earlier this month, he directed blog readers to an interview with "the US's first billionaire" – oil tycoon John D Rockefeller.

In the blog post, Macedo pointed out that when Rockefeller died in 1937 he had accrued a fortune equivalent to 12 times that of the Microsoft founder, Bill Gates. Rockefeller had also been a generous contributor to his church, Macedo noted.

The church is currently splashing out on a replica of Solomon's Temple in São Paulo that will cost an estimated £130m.

The "mega-church" will have space for 10,000 worshippers and will house a replica of the Ark of the Covenant.

In a statement, the Universal Church rejected Monday's accusations.

"We cannot talk about something we know nothing about," the statement said.

"But from what we can tell through the media, these are the same old accusations … that have always been shown to be untrue."

http://www.rickross.com/reference/unive ... sal73.html

[megadoc1]

this is another perfect example of your straw man arguments, both scriptures are basically saying the same thing as you rightly pointed out ..so my question is,if a man in "error" misunderstands what was really being said all because his agenda is to discourage the use of the the Christmas tree , how does this becomes the kjv's fault?..even if you were to show him the modern translation, he will puff up and say its corrupted ....so what your point?

I stated my point. Because you look at words without putting rational thinking into gear and consider that reading, you will always fail to see the point.
Try it for once.
You can look at these two passages side by side and see the similarity... but that is because you CAN SEE BOTH PASSAGES SIDE BY SIDE.
A student coming across the KJV alone will consider the errant misunderstanding stated before to have grounds. This error is acceptable? Of course not. The whole point of writing something is so the reader can understand it. If a person reads this excerpt and thinks that Jeremiah was talking about Christmas trees, then clearly, the translation into the reader's language is NOT ACCURATE ENOUGH.

nonsense!!! unless the student you speak of is a one verse maniac......
the first time I saw that verse was in the kjv and I knew it spoke of idols
I even posted it here when we were discussing idols, a few hundred pages ago
even in the context of the message it speaks idols

Jer 10:1 Hear ye the word which the LORD speaketh unto you, O house of Israel:
Jer 10:2 Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them.
Jer 10:3 For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe.
Jer 10:4 They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not.
Jer 10:5 They are upright as the palm tree, but speak not: they must needs be borne, because they cannot go. Be not afraid of them; for they cannot do evil, neither also is it in them to do good.
Jer 10:6 Forasmuch as there is none like unto thee, O LORD; thou art great, and thy name is great in might.
Jer 10:7 Who would not fear thee, O King of nations? for to thee doth it appertain: forasmuch as among all the wise men of the nations, and in all their kingdoms, there is none like unto thee.
Jer 10:8 But they are altogether brutish and foolish: the stock is a doctrine of vanities.
Jer 10:9 Silver spread into plates is brought from Tarshish, and gold from Uphaz, the work of the workman, and of the hands of the founder: blue and purple is their clothing: they are all the work of cunning men.
Jer 10:10 But the LORD is the true God, he is the living God, and an everlasting king: at his wrath the earth shall tremble, and the nations shall not be able to abide his indignation.
Jer 10:11 Thus shall ye say unto them, The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, even they shall perish from the earth, and from under these heavens.
Jer 10:12 He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion.
Jer 10:13 When he uttereth his voice, there is a multitude of waters in the heavens, and he causeth the vapours to ascend from the ends of the earth; he maketh lightnings with rain, and bringeth forth the wind out of his treasures.
Jer 10:14 Every man is brutish in his knowledge: every founder is confounded by the graven image: for his molten image is falsehood, and there is no breath in them.
Jer 10:15 They are vanity, and the work of errors: in the time of their visitation they shall perish.
Jer 10:16 The portion of Jacob is not like them: for he is the former of all things; and Israel is the rod of his inheritance: The LORD of hosts is his name.

if the Christmas tree is onto God as the people celebrates it , why then does he have to remind us that he is the true God in this passage ? how can the reader come up with
thinking that it was the christmas tree? c'mon man d spike yuh better than that!!!!

The KJV and the NASB, while the former is great literature and the latter is a decent modern translation, are both lacking certain books which were in the Septuagint, and so are not complete - which then raises the question whether they can be accepted as 'proper' translations.

the books that were omitted are not considered inspired by some and although they were in the Septuagint they were not found in the Hebrew old testament hence this whole argument in the church
these are the Deuterocanonical books that you seek to make issue with
I am not so much interested

The Septuagint isn't Hebrew scriptures? So who put it together for their religious purposes? Hindus?
That "the Septuagint ain't Hebrew scriptures" was part of Luther's erroneous arguments. For someone who knows little about him, you certainly tread in his footsteps very well.

slow down spikey I think you erred upon my erorr
I never said the Septuagint is not Hebrew scripture
I know that the Septuagint is the translation of the hebrew scriptures into greek
I simply pointed out one of the reasons concerning this controversy..
the mistake here is that I said it is not found in the hebrew bible what I meant to say is that those books are not in the jewish bible..the tanakh

but what about Jerome, at the time of his writing didn't he pointed out that those books were not considered canonical by the Jews??? and should not be used to establish doctrine??? wasnt these very books included against the advice of Jerome ??? you rember Jerome right ? the one who came up with the vulgate ?

don't say "these very Christians" in response to what I wrote when
it is clear that some accepted it and some did not,
not all of them "considered them all inspired" as you are claiming

So???? Of course not all of them were considered inspired. Humans have to argue...
Does your bible have Revelations? Peter's second letter? Quite a few books were not accepted by all. Yet they were found acceptable enough after lengthy discussion... but Luther comes along and tosses books out, and you just trundle merrily down the road behind him, kissing the hem of his garment...

lol @ your allegation pal
I really not sure where you are going with this ..the accusations you are trying to lay on me is just silly on your part

your argument is geared to show this is an erorr
you want to say that these books were rejected , what is said is that the books are very good for reference
but are not considered inspired ,meaning its not as significant in the life of a believer in christ as the other books ..

Oooh... so some of the books considered "inspired" then are not considered so now? Who decided this? Jerome? You consider the Vulgate an accurate translation then? Jerome might have been an intelligent man, but he wasn't infallible... which is why those books continued to remain acceptable as scripture after his remonstrations..
Nah... Luther's your boy...

.I guess the same can be said for Luther so your argument is????

Luther never threw anything out as you claim , you really need to define what you meant by the term "throw out "

You REALLY should try reading books other than the three you have.
Research Luther's work.

luther putting those controversial books to the back of his version of the bible is not "tossing them out"

these books what you speak about are available to Christians for reference just like the many others that are not in the bible

There are lots of stuff "available for reference" these days, porn, narcotics, bluefete's posts... that doesn't mean that they are acceptable. So what if you can read the Gospel of Thomas? Can you quote it in an argument to support a traditional Christian belief? Don't be silly. Don't confuse availability with acceptability. Anyone can walk down Carenage and pay one-legged Alice $20 for a quickie on the beach - does that mean one should?

agreed ! so it all comes down to what is accepted, based on doctrinal beliefs and what can or cannot be used to support it which is really the only place it matters most

so to really say they were tossed by luther ,or the bibles without those books are lacking
is just an opinion of one used as an argument to what avail?
I have a copy of the kjv 1611 which includes theses books ..

So? I have a copy of the Good News Bible (an SDA publication) that has the deutercanonicals and apocrypha... These types of bibles were put together in a way that clearly states "these odd stories ain't part of the book, but here they are for your perusal". That does not negate my argument.

is that a toss out?....lol , mosT of the bibles printed without them were done so to save on printing as most people seldom used them or considered them,it hardy had anything to do with luther

You might think you are "following Jesus".......,

doh be fass!!!(Jesus would say "satan!! get thee behind me" ) you are in no position to tell me where I am going
thank you

Where you are going is none of my affair, but I recognised Luther's errant pathway........

thats because you need to convince me that I follow Luther,Christians are followers of Jesus not luther,luther,s actions has no negative effects on followers of Jesus

d spike I am curious what version of the bible would you recommend to a believer?

Are you curious? Or are you looking for another target to spit at? Don't worry, when they ask me, I tell them.

no I am serious what bible would you recommend that I read?

[megadoc1]

Why would God not give children to pious couples, but allow a daughter to be born to this man and woman who you claim did not hear the Gospel and heed it

check your accusations against God ,can't really entertain you there but
I will say this, what ever God blesses us with, its our choice what we do with it

what about women who were raped?

or murdered?
abused ?
what about them?

the problems in the world today is that of a nature problem
and God has offered a nature solution for it, that is change that comes from the inside of man .....as long as you are not part of this solution ,you are part of the problem......................................

more like if you are not with us you are against us

what about people like Anuradha Koirala who is dedicated to helping victims of sex trafficking. She got the CNN Hero of the Year award in 2010. She has saved thousands of children from sexual abuse and slavery in India and around the world. She is a devout Hindu. She more than likely does not believe in the Gospel, is she part of the problem?

your logic is lacking.

if you understood what I meant by nature problem and nature solution this won't be your response ..you are excused

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ no accusations - I was asking based on your logic.
I expected you to cop-out from answering it anyway.

oh and please explain what you mean by a "nature problem" and a "nature solution"

[megadoc1]

^nah I guess i'll cop out on that also

[d spike]

Posted on October 8th 2010

Not by works, but Faith alone... eh? Toyo? Megadoc?

Martin Luther publicly taught that only the Bible should be used as doctrine. One of the rallying cries of his movement was sola Scriptura ( 'the Bible alone').

Although Martin Luther stated that he looked upon the Bible "as if God Himself spoke therein" he also stated, "My word is the word of Christ; my mouth is the mouth of Christ"
Specifically, what Martin Luther wrote in German was "Ich bin sehr gewiss, dass mein Wort nitt mein, sondern Christus Wort sei, so muss mein Mund auch des sein, des Wort er redet" - also translated as "I am confident that it is not my word, but Christ's word, so my mouth is His who utters the words" (God's words - the violence of representation. Universitatea din Bucuresti, 2002. http://www.unibuc.ro/eBooks/filologie/meanings/1.htm" target="_blank, September 25, 2003).

Did Martin Luther really revere and believe the Bible more than his own opinions?
The Bible, in Romans 3:28, states, "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law."
Martin Luther, in his German translation of the Bible, specifically added the word "allein" ('alone') to Romans 3:28-a word that is not in the original Greek. Notice what Protestant scholars have admitted:
"Martin Luther would once again emphasize...that we are "justified by faith alone", apart from the works of the Law (Rom. 3:28), adding the German word 'allein' in his translation of the Greek text. There is certainly a trace of Marcion in Luther's move..." (Brown HOJ. Heresies: Heresy and Orthodoxy in the History of the Church. Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody (MA), 1988, pp. 64-65).
Furthermore, Martin Luther himself reportedly said, "You tell me what a great fuss the Papists are making because the word alone in not in the text of Paul…say right out to him: 'Dr. Martin Luther will have it so,'…I will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough. I know very well that the word 'alone' is not in the Latin or the Greek text..." (Stoddard J. Rebuilding a Lost Faith. 1922, pp. 101-102; see also Luther M. Amic. Discussion, 1, 127).

A second rallying cry for followers of Martin Luther was the expression sola fide (faith alone). But it appears that Martin Luther may have intentionally mistranslated Romans 3:28 for the pretence of supposedly having supposed scriptural justification for his sola fide doctrine.
He also made another change in Romans. Romans 4:15 states, "...because the law brings about wrath; for where there is no law there is no transgression."
Yet in his German translation, Martin Luther added the word 'only' before the term 'wrath' to Romans 4:15 - presumably to attempt to justify his position to discredit the law.
Martin Luther has also been charged with intentionally mistranslating Matthew 3:2, Acts 19:18, and many other scriptures.
Matthew 3:2 states, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!".
Martin Luther, in his German translation, changed the word 'repent' to 'mend' or 'do better', presumably to justify his position that one does not need to obey God's laws through repentance.
Martin Luther, for example, taught, "Be a sinner, and sin boldly, but believe more boldly still. Sin shall not drag us away from Him, even should we commit fornication or murder thousands and thousands of times a day..." (Luther, M. Letter of August 1, 1521 as quoted in Stoddard, p.93).
He seemed to overlook what the Book of Hebrews taught:
"For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries" (Hebrews 10:26-27).
The Bible, in Acts 19:18, states, "And many who had believed came confessing and telling their deeds..." Yet Martin Luther rendered it, "they acknowledged the miracles of the Apostles".
Many who profess sola Scriptura, even in the 21st century, do not know that some of what they have relied on has been intentionally mistranslated.

[d spike]

Also posted on October 2010

More on ol' Luther:

Martin Luther had different views of various books of the Bible. Specifically, he had a fairly low view of the Books of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelations... not to mention the deutercanonicals he tossed out, mainly because they "interfered" with his teachings.
For over a century, the followers of Luther excluded Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelations... Martin Luther himself was the obvious reason why, as he wrote:
"Up to this point we have had the true and certain chief books of the New Testament. The four which follow have from ancient times had a different reputation. In the first place, the fact that Hebrews is not an epistle of St. Paul, or of any other apostle" (Luther, M. Prefaces to the Epistle of the Hebrews, 1546). Regarding the Book of Hebrews, Martin Luther stated, "It need not surprise one to find here bits of wood, hay, and straw";

He also wrote,
"St. James' epistle is really an epistle of straw…for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it..." (Luther, M. Preface to the New Testament, 1546), and "In the first place it is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works…Besides, he throws things together so chaotically that it seems to me he must have been some good, pious man, who took a few sayings from the disciples of the apostles and thus tossed them off on paper. Or it may perhaps have been written by someone on the basis of his preaching..." (Luther, M. Preface to the Epistles of St. James and St. Jude, 1546).
Interestingly the Epistle of James is the only place in the Bible to actually use the term 'faith alone': "You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone" (James 2:24).
One would have to assume that the fact that James 2:24 contradicted Martin Luther's sola fide teaching would have been a major reason that he discounted this book of the Bible.
Protestant scholars have recognized that Martin Luther handled James poorly as they have written:
"The great reformer Martin Luther...never felt good about the Epistle of James...Luther went too far when he put James in the appendix to the New Testament." (Radmacher E.D. general editor. The Nelson Study Bible. Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, 1997, p. 2107);

Martin Luther taught, "Concerning the epistle of St. Jude, no one can deny that it is an extract or copy of St. Peter's second epistle…Therefore, although I value this book, it is an epistle that need not be counted among the chief books which are supposed to lay the foundations of faith..." (Luther, M. Preface to the Epistles of St. James and St. Jude, 1546). Jude does not sound that similar to 2 Peter, but if even it is, should it be discounted? Maybe Martin Luther discounted it because it warns people: "...to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints..." (Jude 3). And this, sadly, is not something that Martin Luther really did (though he did sometimes make some efforts towards that);

Perhaps none of Martin Luther's writings on the Bible are as harsh as what he wrote about "The Revelation of Jesus Christ" (Revelation 1:1). Specifically he wrote:
"About this book of the Revelation of John...I miss more than one thing in this book, and it makes me consider it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic…I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it. Moreover he seems to me to be going much too far when he commends his own book so highly-indeed, more than any of the other sacred books do, though they are much more important-and threatens that if anyone takes away anything from it, God will take away from him, etc. Again, they are supposed to be blessed who keep what is written in this book; and yet no one knows what that is, to say nothing of keeping it. This is just the same as if we did not have the book at all. And there are many far better books available for us to keep…My spirit cannot accommodate itself to this book. For me this is reason enough not to think highly of it: Christ is neither taught nor known in it" (Luther, M. Preface to the Revelation of St. John, 1522).
Another reason Martin Luther may not have been able to accommodate this Revelation of Jesus Christ is because he clearly violated this warning: "For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book..." (Revelation 22:18-19).
Martin Luther took away from this book through his comments about it, and this is the same Martin Luther who added words to the Bible that were not there.

Although Martin Luther decried John for penning the Revelation of Jesus Christ, he did like John. According to Martin Luther,
"The first three speak of the works of our Lord, rather than His oral teachings; that of St. John is the only sympathetic, the only true Gospel and should undoubtedly be preferred above the others. In like manner, the Epistles of St. Peter and St. Paul are superior to the first three Gospels."

As the following quotes show, Martin Luther did not care for several books in the Old Testament either:
"Job spoke not as it stands written in his book, but only had such thoughts. It is merely the argument of a fable. It is probable that Solomon wrote and made this book."

"Ecclesiastes ought to have been more complete. There is too much incoherent matter in it...Solomon did not, therefore, write this book."

"The book of Esther I toss into the Elbe. I am such an enemy to the book of Esther that I wish it did not exist, for it Judaizes too much..."

"The history of Jonah is so monstrous that it is absolutely incredible."

Furthermore, Martin Luther had little use for the first five books of the Old Testament. Of the Pentateuch he says: "We have no wish either to see or hear Moses."

Martin Luther hated the Jews, which may be why he was against Esther, the first five books of the Bible, and other parts of the Hebrew scriptures. Notice that Martin Luther advised his followers:
"...to burn down Jewish schools and synagogues, and to throw pitch and sulphur into the flames; to destroy their homes; to confiscate their ready money in gold and silver; to take from them their sacred books, even the whole Bible; and if that did not help matters, to hunt them of the country like mad dogs..." (Luther’s Works, vol. Xx, pp. 2230-2632 as quoted in Stoddard JL. Rebuilding a Lost Faith, 1922, p.99);

"Accordingly, it must and dare not be considered a trifling matter but a most serious one to seek counsel against this and to save our souls from the Jews, that is, from the devil and from eternal death. My advice, as I said earlier, is: First, that their synagogues be burned down, and that all who are able toss in sulphur and pitch..." (Martin Luther (1483-1546): On the Jews and Their Lies, 1543 as quoted from Luther's Works, Volume 47: The Christian in Society IV, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971). pp 268­293).

These notes I found quite interesting, and showed the mindset of the man on whose teachings so many dogmatic, blinkered folk based their personal system of faith.

[d spike]

Here megadoc, chew on this:

Protestants, Catholics, and most Orthodox agree now that the New Testament should consist at least of the 27 Books (Matthew through Revelation/Apocalypse) that the Catholic Church determined were canonical, but the Protestant Old Testament is lacking 7 entire books (Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus/Sirach, Baruch, I Maccabees, and II Maccabees), 3 chapters of Daniel and 6 chapters of Esther, leaving them with 66 incomplete books while Catholic Bibles have 73 books. How did this come to be?

The canon of the Old Testament that Catholics use is based on the text used by Alexandrian Jews, a version known as the "Septuagint" (also called "LXX" or "The Seventy") and which came into being around 280 B.C. as a translation of then existing texts from Hebrew into Greek by 72 Jewish scribes (the Torah was translated first, around 300 B.C., and the rest of Tanach was translated afterward).

It was a standard Jewish version of the Old Testament, used by the writers of the New Testament, as is evidenced by the fact that Old Testament references found in the New Testament refer to the Septuagint over other versions of the Old Testament. Understand this: the then 300+ year old Septuagint version of Scripture was good enough for Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul, etc., which is evident in their referencing it over 300 times (out of 350 Old Testament references!) in their New Testament writings -- and the Septuagint includes 7 books and parts of Esther and Daniel that were removed from Protestant Bibles some 1,500 years after the birth of Christ.

The Septuagint is the Old Testament referred to in the Didache or "Doctrine of the Apostles" (first century Christian writings) and by Origen, Irenaeus of Lyons, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Cyprian of Carthage, Justin Martyr, St. Augustine and the vast majority of early Christians who referenced Scripture in their writings. The Epistle of Pope Clement, written in the first century, refers to the Books Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom, analyzed the book of Judith, and quotes sections of the book of Esther that were removed from Protestant Bibles.

Bottom line: the Septuagint was the version of the Old Testament accepted by the very earliest Christians (and, yes, those 7 "extra" books were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls which date between 168 B.C. and A.D. 68, and which by the way, support both the Septuagint and the 6th - 10th century A.D. Masoretic texts in various ways, but supporting the Septuagint on average).
["Masoretic texts" refers to translations of the Old Testament made by rabbis between the 6th and 10th centuries; the phrase doesn't refer to ancient texts in the Hebrew language. This needs to be mentioned because, apparently, some people think that the Masoretic texts are the "original texts" and that, simply because they are in Hebrew, they are superior.]

The deuterocanonical books were, though, debated in the early Church, and some Fathers accorded them higher status than others (hence the Catholic term for them: "deuterocanonical," or what St. Cyril of Jerusalem called "secondary rank," as opposed to the other books which are called "protocanonical"). But all the Fathers believed as did St. Athanasius, who, in one of his many Easter letters, names the 22 Books all Christians accept and then describes the deuterocanonicals as "appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness." Church Councils listed and affirmed the present Catholic canon, which was only formally closed at the Council of Trent in the 16th century.

In the 16th century, Luther, reacting to serious abuses and clerical corruption in the Latin Church, to his own heretical theological vision, and, frankly, to his own inner demons, removed those books from the canon that lent support to orthodox doctrine, relegating them to an appendix. Removed in this way were books that supported such things as prayers for the dead (Tobit 12:12; 2 Maccabees 12:39-45), Purgatory (Wisdom 3:1-7), intercession of dead saints (2 Maccabees 15:14), and intercession of angels as intermediaries (Tobit 12:12-15). Ultimately, the "Reformers" decided to ignore the canon determined by the Christian Councils of Hippo and Carthage (and reaffirmed and closed at the Council of Trent), and resort solely to those texts determined to be canonical at the Council of Jamnia.

What was the Council of Jamnia?

Around A.D. 90-100, after the Temple fell, a rabbinical school was formed by Johanan ben Zakkai. The "Council of Jamnia" (also called "Jabneh" or "Javneh") is the name given to the decisions made by this pharisaic school. Please note: the gathering at Jamnia was a Jewish, not a Christian, "council" consisting of Pharisees some 40 years after the Resurrection of our Lord. At that time, Jews were being scattered, and the very existence of Jewry per the Pharisees' vision of "Jewry" was being threatened. At this time, too, Christianity was growing and threatening that same Jewish identity, resulting in severe persecution of Christians by Jews. In reaction to these things and to the fact that "Nazarenes" (i.e., "Christians", who at that time were overwhelmingly Hebrew) used the Septuagint to proselytize other Jews, Zakkai convened the Jamnian school with the goals of safeguarding Hillel's Oral Law, deciding the Jewish canon (which had theretofore been, and possibly even afterward remained, an open canon!), and preventing the disappearance of Jewry into the Diaspora of the Christian and Roman worlds. So, circling their wagons, they threw out the Septuagint that they had endorsed for almost 400 years. Note that at the time of Christ, most Jews spoke Aramaic, Latin (the official language of the area), and/or Greek (the lingua franca at that time), not Hebrew, which was a sacred language used by priests for the Hebrew liturgy. In any case, a new Greek translation was created by Aquila -- but one without the ancient Septuagint's language that proved more difficult for the Jews to defend against when being evangelized by the Christians, the point being that any idea that a book "had" to have been written in Hebrew to be "Biblical" wasn't the issue.

In other words, the Protestant "Reformers" decided against the canon held dear by the Apostles in favor of a canon determined by Pharisees some 40 years after Jesus rose from the dead - the same Pharisees who denied the Truths of the entire New Testament, even accusing the "Nazarenes" of stealing Jesus' body from the tomb and lying to the world! (Interestingly, it was Zakkai's successor, Gamaliel, who forced the "Nazarenes" out of the synagogues. Gamaliel also made it obligatory for Jews to pray the "Prayer of Eighteen Petitions," the 12th petition, which is still prayed today, known as the birkat, being "For apostates may there be no hope, and may the Nazarenes and heretics suddenly perish.")

And do you know why the Book of Maccabees was thrown out by the Jewish Council? Because the Council was conducted under the auspices of the Flavian Roman Emperors and they decided that that particuar book, which tells of the Maccabean Revolt, might be inflammatory and incite rebellion by the Jews. So, all those Protestant Bibles are lacking the Book of Maccabees, which speaks clearly of praying for the dead, because a pagan emperor pressured the Pharisees, around 40 years after the Resurrection of Christ, to exclude it. And lest anyone is still tempted to think that it was the "Roman Church" that came up with these books and that they were not written by pre-Christ Jews (an assertion I've actually read at "Messianic" websites), Jews in other parts of the world who didn't get news of the Council of Jamnia's decisions still use those "extra" 7 books to this very day (research the canon used by Ethiopian Jewry).

[d spike]

this is another perfect example of your straw man arguments, both scriptures are basically saying the same thing as you rightly pointed out ..so my question is,if a man in "error" misunderstands what was really being said all because his agenda is to discourage the use of the the Christmas tree , how does this becomes the kjv's fault?..even if you were to show him the modern translation, he will puff up and say its corrupted ....so what your point?

I stated my point. Because you look at words without putting rational thinking into gear and consider that reading, you will always fail to see the point.
Try it for once.
You can look at these two passages side by side and see the similarity... but that is because you CAN SEE BOTH PASSAGES SIDE BY SIDE.
A student coming across the KJV alone will consider the errant misunderstanding stated before to have grounds. This error is acceptable? Of course not. The whole point of writing something is so the reader can understand it. If a person reads this excerpt and thinks that Jeremiah was talking about Christmas trees, then clearly, the translation into the reader's language is NOT ACCURATE ENOUGH.

nonsense!!! unless the student you speak of is a one verse maniac......

...as so many fundamentalists are... Thank you for highlighting one of my points. I couldn't have said it better!

the first time I saw that verse was in the kjv and I knew it spoke of idols

Well, you are indeed unique (as we all know) as the argument I referred to is well-known and often reiterated (hence my choice for this topic).
Many arguments regarding scripture often occur simply because of a lack of understanding regarding context. (This can be said for other arguments too, this one, for example. You completely fail to realise that I am talking about a non-christian perusing the bible, not some well-versed bible-thumping street-corner preacher, complete with hectoring tone and foam-flecked jaws...)

if the Christmas tree is onto God as the people celebrates it , why then does he have to remind us that he is the true God in this passage ? how can the reader come up with
thinking that it was the christmas tree? c'mon man d spike yuh better than that!!!!

You CLEARLY have missed my point.

the mistake here is that I said it is not found in the hebrew bible what I meant to say is that those books are not in the jewish bible..the tanakh

It is sad to see you attempt to cover a mistake by making a greater one (Hebrew Bible... Jewish Bible? Do you know what you are saying? Do you read what you write?) and I hope you would have attempted to read my post above (with some measure of success, I trust) that dealt with this matter.

don't say "these very Christians" in response to what I wrote when
it is clear that some accepted it and some did not,
not all of them "considered them all inspired" as you are claiming

Again, an attempt to peruse my previous post will illuminate your ignorance regarding this fallacy of assuming that "some did not". Jerome referred to them as "deutercanonical" because they were not present in the Hebrew scripts he was studying (the reason for their absence has been already stated) not because "some found them unacceptable".
Besides, to use your own argument, if some DID find them "inspired", then why do you think otherwise? Do you know better?

Luther never threw anything out as you claim , you really need to define what you meant by the term "throw out "

You REALLY should try reading books other than the three you have.
Research Luther's work.

luther putting those controversial books to the back of his version of the bible is not "tossing them out"

Luther wanted to remove the Epistle of James, Esther, Hebrews, Jude and Revelation from the Bible. Calvin and Zwingli also both had problems with the Book of Revelation, the former calling it "unintelligible" and forbidding the pastors in Geneva to interpret it, the latter calling it "unbiblical". The Syrian (Nestorian) Church has only 22 books in the New Testament while the Ethiopian Church has 8 "extra."

From Wikipedia:

In the early 1520s, however, Martin Luther found much of the contents of, particularly, 2 Maccabees, to disagree with his doctrines and removed the book on the grounds that it was absent from the Masoretic text, along with the Epistle of James.

2 Maccabees was condemned in Protestant circles. Martin Luther said: "I am so great an enemy to the second book of the Maccabees, and to Esther, that I wish they had not come to us at all, for they have too many heathen unnaturalities."

You can quibble all you want about Luther not removing these books from the Bible ("because he put them at the back") but the reality is that he did not consider them part of the canon, and thus were not "inspired" - hence the reason why he "put them at the back" in a section labelled "Apocrypha", which simply means "writings". This action on his part encouraged simple folk to consider them as not belonging in the Bible - which was PRECISELY HIS POINT. No wonder some historians think that the workers at the printing presses took it upon themselves to omit them, they didn't see them as part of the Bible... thanks to who?
Finally, in 1647 the Westminster Confession of Faith was issued which decreed that the books commonly labelled as "Apocrypha" were to be excluded. Who set them aside (and labelled them) as Apocrypha?

Where you are going is none of my affair, but I recognised Luther's errant pathway........

thats because you need to convince me that I follow Luther,Christians are followers of Jesus not luther,luther,s actions has no negative effects on followers of Jesus

Who is trying to convince himself now? You clearly have no idea of history. I suggest you start reading about it.
I don't need to convince you of anything. If it's one thing I have learned while posting in these "religious" threads, is that you refuse to learn. As I have told you before, the only reason I continue with this charade, is to ensure that innocent readers who might stumble across this discussion, do not come away with the mistaken idea that your view is an example of mainstream Christianity, but realise that it is but a twisted, blinkered, erroneous attempt at presenting such a religion. Blind parroted bias is not of God.

[megadoc1]

great!!! so now d spike in all of this,how did you manage to come up with this?

Well, if you are going to swallow everything in the bible wholesale, you are going to end up in a certifiable mess, as the bible is simply a massive collection of writings, made up of many books, written by people who differed in outlook, religious beliefs, and culture. There are writings within the bible that contradict other writings within the bible...

what is really your argument?

[Kasey]

If it's one thing I have learned while posting in these "religious" threads, is that you refuse to learn. As I have told you before, the only reason I continue with this charade, is to ensure that innocent readers who might stumble across this discussion, do not come away with the mistaken idea that your view is an example of mainstream Christianity, but realise that it is but a twisted, blinkered, erroneous attempt at presenting such a religion. Blind parroted bias is not of God.

AMEN!!!!!

I see your point and understand it Spikey. Aggree 100%. Carry on!!

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^nah I guess i'll cop out on that also

thought so

[Scoobert Bauce]

people just love cake I guess