A report by morning! :shock:

I am on Christmas break. :lol: :lol:

 

My Brother-- It is good to see you one here again!! If you could only see the smile on my face..

Can't wait to get your response.. Oh and read Is ch 43, 44, and 45.. It hit deep this morning, and I think you might just understand what I mean..It is not too long! Remember Isaiha was written well over 90 years befor the advent.

 

All right y'all quit dancing around, What--WHere is TF..? Ol Batman is never around when you needem..!

I needs some thoughts here guys, and gals..



On another Note:: I asked Hobo and Windwalker this, want to through it out to Y'all and see what you opinions are..

Why did the Catholic Church Exclude the "hold on let me get the right spelling befor Hobo say's somethin" searching-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Apocrypha Yes that is it, and he cant say I spelt it wrong, cause I just copyed and pasted HA!

Anyway why did they leave it out of the bible?
And do you think they should've or not?

 

Many times these texts have been omitted and returned to the different bibles of various sects.. maybe they just wanted to print less? It means little to nothing and it's not something ELSE to try and rev up and bash the Catholics over.. It usually seems that the Catholic hating wings of the Evangelicals really come out in droves during presidential elections... :?:

 

There ya GO, Slim!! If FOZZY and I agree, or more or less give the same answer, it MUST be true! :lol:

And the ONLY reason I mentioned the spelling, is because you won't get the Wiki sites (or most of the NON-BLOG sites) if you spell it your way. I'm not saying it isn't an "acceptable" spelling..... just not the OFFICIAL one. :wink:

 

Fozzy I am not trying to bash Catholics, I am just trying to understand..
I have read some of the Apcrypha, and did find it quit the read.. Take for Example the letter from Paul to the Loudaceans. The context of it is not much if any diffrent than his other writings.
But the Enoch writings, well to say the least there real interesting, and pretty straight forward, Not much in symbolism, like most prophetic revelation.
But I have seen some Catholic Priest in my younger days, back when I was in the craft use names that I had seen or read in the grimores. And when I had read the Enoch writings I had seen some of the same.. Not to mention alot of the names where right on or real close to old Sumarian and Babylonian Mythology..
The most current bible that mostly is used, only mentions a few of these things, with names, and doesn't go into as much detail as the Apcrypha. Thus the discussion, If it was there and if it was validated, why not use it? Seems a diservice to me, if they wanted someone to believe in what they say, why not put it all on the table instead of changing laws and times, and writings?

I do look forward to your response, it has been a long time since we have discussed anything like this!

 

It really doesn't matter what is included or excluded, someone will always think up a reason for these texts to left out.. and why there has to be a reason (this is where the conspiracy wonks dwell btw) is a problem. If you want to read the texts they are available...

 

Reality --No it doesn't matter at all.. But it could be a good discussion.. Have you read it Fozzy or some of it?

 

Hey Fozzy you interested in discussing somethin like this? If so I will start another thread. If not I will go back to my original subject of this thread.. just need to know, so I can focus on what I need to.

Slimland

 

Enough to see what they where (then) talking about. It's all more drivel to me. But then the big issue for the poster (and why I brought it up) was the anti-catholic slant to the story, and it was an election year then too. It would be a short lived thread I'm afraid.