Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Jesus/God the same?
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2765 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 166 of 183 (81271)
01-27-2004 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by wmscott
01-27-2004 4:12 PM


wmscott writes:
That depends on whether or not you accept Jesus as the Messiah, if he was as most believe, then it was in context.
Whether or not you believe Jesus was the Messiah, Isaiah 7:14 does not apply. We have already scorched that particular earth and I do not care to revist it further.
We also have Jesus quoting from Isaiah and applying one of the prophecies to himself.
You say this as if he quoted from Isaiah chapter seven. Which he, apparently, did not.
You seem to be rejecting him because he did not fulfill all the prophecies at once, ... he had to die and wait at his father's right hand until the appointed time, at that time, the rest of the prophecies will be fulfilled.
You are guessing, of course, but that is not the answer.
... in this you have no logical basis for rejecting Jesus.
Even if that were my logic, which it is not, the line of reasoning you employ reflects rationalizations of those who were disappointed by Jesus' failure; so disappointed that they were compelled to fabricate explanations for why it turned out so bad.
What exactly does your reference state on this and who is the author and publisher?
This handbook is designed for Bible translators, used in theological seminaries, and as far as I know, lacks overt sectarian bias (with the exception of that Judaic sect called: Christian.) There is a section in the very back called: Index of Quotations.
GREEK NEW TESTAMENT, American Bible Society, British and Foreign Bible Society, National Bible Society of Scotland, Netherlands Bible Society, Wurttemberg Bible Society, 1966, Maurice Jacobs, Inc. Philadelphia, U.S.A.
I'm sure there's a more modern version out there.
Paul obviously did not intend to quote from the verse at 1 Maccabees 2:60 since it is talking about Daniel and at 2 Timothy 4:17 Paul is talking about himself!
You just don't get literature, do you?
... even if Paul did use a phrase from something he may have read, I don't see how that by itself implies in any way that he viewed the source as inspired. In Kings and Chronicles there are a number of references to other historical records that we do not have today, even if a copy of one were to turn up today, I doubt any one would be able to successfully claim those books inspired just because they are mentioned by name in the Bible.
What about those portions of the holy scripture which are direct quotes from those books? Are they 'uninspired' statements which should be purged from the scripture? Or, are they considered 'inspired' by virtue of the fact that they are now located between the covers of your Bible?
In order for a book to be accepted as inspired on the basis of being quoted, it would have to be quoted as an inspired source.
I think you may be painting yourself into a corner. Are you saying that because New Testament authors do not say, "Now I am quoting from something inspired by God," that whatever it is they are quoting cannot be considered inspired? What about all the quotes from the Septuagint? Was the Septuagint inspired by God? If so, then why do their quotes from it differ so much from the Hebrew text which formed the basis of the LXX script?
... it would be highly illogical to expect Paul to quote from books that were known in his day by Jews and Christians alike to be uninspired and not part of the inspired Hebrew scriptures.
Temple authorities were not generally pleased with the Septuagint and eventually rejected it entirely. Besides that, the whole concept of 'inspiration' is a Christian concept. O.T. authors actually conversed with God, or so they say.
Preachers today quote 'outside' sources all the time; and for the same purposes Paul did. Have you never quoted anything from sources other than the Bible? You quote from the New Testament don't you? And that was NOT in the Bible during Paul's time. It didn't even exist then. So what makes you think we should accept any of it as 'inspired.'
By what authority did the writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Paul become a part of the Bible?
You know who. And you hate them. You reject their authority. Or do you? Really?
Blind faith in men, but no faith in God or his word.
My faith in men is not blind. And my faith is God, as I define the term, is well informed.
You are unable to support your argument that Paul viewed an apocryphal book as inspired.
Your quarrel is not with me. I'm just the messenger. Your quarrel is with scholars much more powerful than myself. Take it up with them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by wmscott, posted 01-27-2004 4:12 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by wmscott, posted 01-30-2004 9:36 PM doctrbill has replied
 Message 181 by ex libres, posted 05-25-2004 7:15 PM doctrbill has replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2765 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 167 of 183 (81282)
01-27-2004 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by truthlover
01-27-2004 9:32 AM


truthlover writes:
They consider the whole book of Daniel deuterocanonical or just chapters 13 and 14?
I should have read more carefully. Here is what the footnote says, especially in relation to the book of Daniel:
Some editions of the Bible have not admitted these deuterocanonicl books (or parts of books ... in Daniel the passages 3:24-90 and ch. 13-14); or have included them only as Apocrypha.
I don't know why these parts are exluded. I find them decent reading; no more fantastic than any other part of the book.
Perhaps wmscott has some thoughts on this.
The Protestants only accept the first twelve chapters. The last two are the stories of Bel and the Dragon and, uh, I forget the ladies name.
Susanna.
A couple of pretty cool stories, and it seems like a Catholic source would be more likely to refer to those two chapters/stories as deuterocanonical than the whole book, even though a lot of scholars (most? almost all?) would consider Daniel to be written much later than accepted by fundamentalists.
Quite right. The JB (Jerusalem Bible) give the date as "between 167 and 164 B.C., during the persecution under Antiochus Epiphanes and before the Maccabean revolt." I cannot entirely agree with that assessment, for I have compared Daniel's timed-prophecies with the Maccabean timeline and found them to line up quite nicely. But that study was done long ago. It was arduous and tedious and is now lost. Perhaps I will attempt to recreate it someday. I am not currently motivated to do so.
Fundamentalists (if memory serves) desire to connect Daniels prophecy with Cyrus the Mede ca. 456 BC. This produces a cute timeline for the arrival of "the Christ" (assuming we actually know when that was) but fails to explain certain other numbers in the prophecy. The Maccabean timeline, whether following Daniels cues or inspiring them, satisfies those numbers quite nicely (he said without a shred of research in evidence).
At any rate, I concur that it was probably no earlier than 167.
db

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by truthlover, posted 01-27-2004 9:32 AM truthlover has not replied

  
ex libres
Member (Idle past 6932 days)
Posts: 46
From: USA
Joined: 01-14-2004


Message 168 of 183 (81371)
01-28-2004 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by doctrbill
01-20-2004 9:05 PM


Re: Militant Atheism
QUOTE: The greatest problem I see, in connection with the Bible, is the pitiful state of those unfortunate souls who have fallen prey to Bible-thumping charlatans: those blood-sucking minions of a blood-thirsty god who capitalize upon innocent ignorance and simian superstition; all the while advocating an un-American form of government.
db
The greatest problem I see, in connection to you, is that self-serving heathens: those back-stabbing puppets of an Aryan icon (Darwin) who glory in deception: all the while advocating an un-American form of society.
Ex
Un-American form of government? Are you kidding. Read a history book lately son? I would remind you that this America was formed for one, for the exercise of religious freedom.
Mayflower Compact 1620
Agreement Between the Settlers at New Plymouth : 1620
"IN THE NAME OF GOD, AMEN. We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, &c. Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the first Colony in the northern Parts of Virginia;..."
Did you notice?
"Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith..."
The Articles of Confederation of the United Colonies of New England; May 19, 1643
The Articles of Confederation between the Plantations under the Government of the Massachusetts, the Plantations under the Government of New Plymouth, the Plantations under the Government of Connecticut, and the Government of New Haven with the Plantations in Combination therewith:
"Whereas we all came into these parts of America with one and the same end and aim, namely, to advance the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ and to enjoy the liberties of the Gospel in purity with peace;..."
Nearly every state constitution including the US constitution contain refrences to god. The way our government is set up comes from scripture. "The lord is my judge (judicial), my king (executive)and my law giver (legislative)." Look at your money "In God WE (thats the US) Trust" Now if you are going to say that to be a Christian is antithetical to being American you are just plain crazy. If anything, societies shift to secular humanism is un-American. By the way, if the the constitution did not say that we are given INAILENABLE RIGHTS by our CREATOR, then would our rights be inailenable under man? All you have to do is look at the histories of other countries that abandoned God to see that when God is removed from control then tyranny occurs. For tons of examples see: http://www.ukans.edu/carrie/docs/amdocs_index.html
[This message has been edited by ex libres, 01-28-2004]
[This message has been edited by ex libres, 01-28-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by doctrbill, posted 01-20-2004 9:05 PM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by AdminBrian, posted 01-28-2004 5:04 PM ex libres has replied
 Message 170 by crashfrog, posted 01-28-2004 8:18 PM ex libres has not replied
 Message 171 by doctrbill, posted 01-28-2004 9:02 PM ex libres has not replied

  
AdminBrian
Inactive Member


Message 169 of 183 (81374)
01-28-2004 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by ex libres
01-28-2004 4:49 PM


Re: Militant Atheism
HI Ex,
The greatest problem I see, in connection to you
Can I refer you to Forum Rule 3 Respect for others is the rule here. Argue the position, not the person.
Chill a little Ex.
AdminBrian

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by ex libres, posted 01-28-2004 4:49 PM ex libres has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by ex libres, posted 01-29-2004 5:50 PM AdminBrian has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 170 of 183 (81402)
01-28-2004 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by ex libres
01-28-2004 4:49 PM


Read a history book lately son?
Have you read the Constitution lately? And compared it with the Ten Commandments?
Can you show me the Biblical basis for freedom of religion? Because I'm familiar with a Bible that says "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me." Can you show me the Biblical basis for free-market capitalism? Because I'm familiar with a Bible that says "Thou shalt not covet thy neighboor's ass." (Covetousness being the very basis of capitalism.) Can you show me the Biblical basis for democracy? Because I'm familiar with a Bible that historically has always been used to defend monarchies.
This isn't a Christian country. It never has been. It's always been a secular government with an air of ceremonial Deism.
Look at your money "In God WE (thats the US) Trust"
Added in the 1950's in response to "godless" communism. Just like that "One nation under God" bit in the Pledge. Used to just say "one nation" before the 1950's. (I guess you haven't read any history books, either.)
Now if you are going to say that to be a Christian is antithetical to being American you are just plain crazy.
Of course he's not saying that, and neither am I. What he's saying is that allowing the Bible to be used to dictate law to everybody, Christian or not, is un-American. You know, First Amendment and all.
If anything, societies shift to secular humanism is un-American.
Again, it's you who needs to read a history book. I'd start with the writings of Thomas Jefferson who was adamant that Christianity not be allowed to dictate law to non-Christians. It's not a shift. It's the way it's always been.
By the way, if the the constitution did not say that we are given INAILENABLE RIGHTS by our CREATOR, then would our rights be inailenable under man?
Your ignorance embarasses you. The Constitution doesn't say that we have inalienable rights bestowed by our creator. The Constitution makes no mention of a creator, Christian or otherwise. Why don'y you try reading the Constitution before you talk about it?
The document you're thinking of is the Declaration of Independance, which is neither a law nor a foundation of our government. It's simply a declaration.
All you have to do is look at the histories of other countries that abandoned God to see that when God is removed from control then tyranny occurs.
To the contrary. The most prosperous countries, and the ones with the least crime, least poverty, and most affulent citizens, are the most secular ones like Sweden. Whereas here in America our poorest are among the world's poorest. Some Christian nation we are.
Your ignorance of our history is what is un-American. Lord forbid you actually open a history book before you accuse others of not doing so. What a hypocrite.
[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 01-28-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by ex libres, posted 01-28-2004 4:49 PM ex libres has not replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2765 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 171 of 183 (81407)
01-28-2004 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by ex libres
01-28-2004 4:49 PM


Re: Militant Atheism
ex libres writes:
self-serving heathens:
I take no offense at that because I do not consider myself to be one of those.
Un-American form of government? Are you kidding.
No, I'm not kidding. The trouble makers to whom I referred, (hope you're not one of them) clamor to enthrone their King, whom they may call God, or Jesus Christ, or Allah (I should have included the Quran thumpers as well). In the U.S. of A., it is illegal to set up a king. That is what makes us special, as compared to the Euro-lands from which our ancestors emmigrated.
The Articles of Confederation of the United Colonies of New England;
We've made a lot of progress since the days when women, blacks, eighteen-year-olds, poor men and Catholics, were not allowed to vote.
"The lord is my judge (judicial), my king (executive)and my law giver (legislative)."
A slogan which predates the Bible by at least a thousand years. Besides: Our form of government separates these functions due to millenia of experience with what happens when all these functions are the province of an individual Lord. We call it, [i]" Balance of Power"[i] and it is part of what has made this country safe for women, blacks, eighteen-year-olds, poor men and Catholics.
... if you are going to say that to be a Christian is antithetical to being American ...
I'm not going to say that, because I do not believe that.
societies shift to secular humanism is un-American.
Is this NOT the land of freedom?
if the the constitution did not say that we are given INAILENABLE RIGHTS by our CREATOR, then would our rights be inailenable under man?
Pretty words do not secure human rights. Bloodshed, deadly force against all who threaten our "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness," can and has secured it. Aliens are not the only threat to American Liberty. There are persons among us who thump their Bible (or Quran) and talk of God as if they know her; then, propose to suspend certain liberties not in accord with their idealistic imaginations; liberties won by the shedding of blood; the blood of American boys. Modern human sacrifices.
All you have to do is look at the histories of other countries that abandoned God to see that when God is removed from control then tyranny occurs.
Get Real for a moment, will you? The Taliban have not forgotten God. They know what he wants and they are enforcing his will. Why are they so misunderstood? Jones and Koresh did not forget God. Look at the wonderful tyrannies they brought. And don't forget the tyrant God of the Hebrews (same as Christian?) who could have you executed for working through the weekend.
Where is the liberty in that?
**

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by ex libres, posted 01-28-2004 4:49 PM ex libres has not replied

  
ex libres
Member (Idle past 6932 days)
Posts: 46
From: USA
Joined: 01-14-2004


Message 172 of 183 (81540)
01-29-2004 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by AdminBrian
01-28-2004 5:04 PM


Re: Militant Atheism
I agree with the ruling. Only, point out to certain individuals that when they slam Christians they are slaming me personally because I am a Christian. So if they say "you" or "Christians" in a disrespectful way such as the way the reciever of my response, he or she is doing the same thing.
QUOTE: The greatest problem I see, in connection with the Bible, is the pitiful state of those unfortunate souls who have fallen prey to Bible-thumping charlatans: those blood-sucking minions of a blood-thirsty god who capitalize upon innocent ignorance and simian superstition; all the while advocating an un-American form of government.
Quote from Crashfrog: "What a hypocrite."
Lets be equal here.
Thanks.
[This message has been edited by ex libres, 01-29-2004]
[This message has been edited by ex libres, 01-29-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by AdminBrian, posted 01-28-2004 5:04 PM AdminBrian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by AdminBrian, posted 01-29-2004 6:02 PM ex libres has not replied

  
AdminBrian
Inactive Member


Message 173 of 183 (81542)
01-29-2004 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by ex libres
01-29-2004 5:50 PM


Re: Militant Atheism
HI Ex,
I dont think that DoctorBill was slamming Christians in that post, the people he was referring to wouldn't qualify as Christians in my opinion. I find it difficult to believe that you can identify with the type of person Bill was talking about.
But there is a difference between talking about a whole group and making a personal attack on an individual member. If DocBill had referred directly to you I would have asked him to chill as well.
But your point is taken, so I would like to take this opportunity to ask everyone to please raise the quality of the debate here.
AdminBrian.
{A note from Adminnemooseus - I fully agree with AdminBrian. I also note that the message this was a reply to has apparently (fair enough) been significantly edited since AB's reply. Lastly, I find it curious that the "Re: Militant Atheism" message subject is something the originated way back in message 5.}
[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 01-29-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by ex libres, posted 01-29-2004 5:50 PM ex libres has not replied

  
wmscott
Member (Idle past 6248 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 174 of 183 (81732)
01-30-2004 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by Abshalom
01-27-2004 6:30 PM


Re: Curious Parallels
quote:
John 6:35
Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst."
Sirach 24:21
Those who eat of me will hunger for more, and those who drink of me will thirst for more.
First notice that the context is very different, In John, Jesus is speaking of the truth he brought that would fill the spiritual hunger of his listeners, while Sirach is taking about wisdom personified and that a person who learns some wisdom sees it's value and seeks more. Subject in the two verses is different and the effect is reversed. Jesus providing spiritual 'food and water' ties in with a number of verses along simular lines in the OT.
(Amos 8:11) "'Look! There are days coming,' is the utterance of the Sovereign Lord Jehovah, 'and I will send a famine into the land, a famine, not for bread, and a thirst, not for water, but for hearing the words of Jehovah." So there is no indication that John or Jesus was alluding to Sirach, rather there is a reference to a number of verses in the OT.
quote:
Luke 1:16/17
"And he will turn many of the sons of Israel to the Lord their God, (17) And he will go before him in the spirit and power of Eli'jah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready for the Lord a people prepared."
Shirach 48:10
"At the appointed time, it is written, you are destined to calm the wrath of God before it breaks out in fury, to turn the hearts of parents to their children, and to restore the tribes of Jacob."
It is no mystery as to what was being referred to in Luke, all you have to do is check the parallel account in Matthew and the source is named. Matthew 3:1-3 "In those days John the Baptist came preaching in the wilderness of Judea, saying: "REPENT, for the kingdom of the heavens has drawn near." This, in fact, is the one spoken of through Isaiah the prophet in these words: "Listen! Someone is crying out in the wilderness, 'Prepare the way of Jehovah, YOU people! Make his roads straight.'" Luke was also referring to Malachi 4:5-6 "Look! I am sending to YOU people Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and fear-inspiring day of Jehovah. And he must turn the heart of fathers back toward sons, and the heart of sons back toward fathers; in order that I may not come and actually strike the earth with a devoting [of it] to destruction."
quote:
Luke 1:52
"He has put down the mighty from their thrones, and exalted those of low degree."
Shirach 10:14
"The Lord overthrows the thrones of rulers, and enthrones the lowly in their place."
Both verses here are referring to what was stated in the OT. The first part of the verse from Luke may very well be referring to Daniel 4:37 "Now I, Nebuchadnezzar, am praising and exalting and glorifying the King of the heavens, because all his works are truth and his ways are justice, and because those who are walking in pride he is able to humiliate." The King who is speaking here had been removed and restored to his throne by God, at the time this King was probably the most powerful ruler on earth. The second part of the verse refers to God favoring or raising up the humble. 2 Samuel 22:28 "And the humble people you will save; But your eyes are against the haughty ones, [that] you may bring [them] low." So both verses are referring to things said about Jehovah in the OT, there is nothing to suggest that Luke was referring to Shirach.
The parallels some times found are not curious or even unexpected, once you understand that both are referring to the OT.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Abshalom, posted 01-27-2004 6:30 PM Abshalom has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by doctrbill, posted 01-31-2004 12:17 AM wmscott has not replied

  
wmscott
Member (Idle past 6248 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 175 of 183 (81735)
01-30-2004 9:36 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by doctrbill
01-27-2004 10:27 PM


You really have run out of gas, you are just sputtering. Seems like we have exhausted your defence, you didn't really anything to use anyway. You put your faith in scholars who say what you want to hear and ignore the ones who say what you don't want to hear.
quote:
"They have not had the sanction of the Jewish and the early Christian Church; ... are wholly wanting in the prophetic spirit...; not only do not claim inspiration but bewail the want of it; are characterized in many passages by an air of romance and mythology alien to the simple grandeur of the Bible; contradict themselves and some well-known facts of secular history; teach doctrines not contained in the Bible...; and appear never to have been quoted as an authority by the Lord or his apostles."Dictionary of Religious Knowledge, Abbott, pp. 50, 51"There is no question of any one's having excluded them from the New Testament: they have done that for themselves."M. R.James, The Apocryphal New Testament, pages xi, xii.
"We have only to compare our New Testament books as a whole with other literature of the kind to realize how wide is the gulf which separates them from it. The uncanonical gospels, it is often said, are in reality the best evidence for the canonical."G. Milligan, The New Testament Documents, page 228.
"It cannot be said of a single writing preserved to us from the early period of the Church outside the New Testament that it could properly be added to-day to the Canon."K. Aland, The Problem of the New Testament Canon, page24. .
Paul was well acquainted with the apocryphal books, he warned against such things in many of his letters. Titus 1:1 "paying no attention to Jewish fables and commandments of men who turn themselves away from the truth." 2 Timothy 4:4 "and they will turn their ears away from the truth, whereas they will be turned aside to false stories." 1 Timothy 6:20 "O Timothy, guard what is laid up in trust with you, turning away from the empty speeches that violate what is holy and from the contradictions of the falsely called "knowledge."" Paul and his generation regarded the apocryphal books as Jewish fables and false stories, which is why he never cited them as a source. One of the key reasons Paul had such a negative view of the apocryphal books is stated at; 1 Timothy 4:7 "But turn down the false stories which violate what is holy" much of what is taught in the apocryphal is in conflict with inspired scripture, which clearly marks the apocryphal as being apocryphal. Paul warned against wasting time on such things because; 1 Timothy 1:3-4 "Just as I encouraged that you . . . might command certain ones not to teach different doctrine, nor to pay attention to false stories and to genealogies, which end up in nothing, but which furnish questions for research rather than a dispensing of anything by God in connection with faith." there is nothing spiritually to be gained from false stories. Of course there was an even greater danger of course; Colossians 2:8 "Look out: perhaps there may be someone who will carry YOU off as his prey through the philosophy and empty deception according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ;" and that is what has happened to you. You think you have become wise, and see things clearly, however your spiritual condition is described at; Revelation 3:17 "Because you say: "I am rich and have acquired riches and do not need anything at all," but you do not know you are miserable and pitiable and poor and blind and naked," I know you say you are happy as you are, but your being spiritually blind is why you are fumbling about in the dark tripping over things that are clearly seen by those with spiritual vision. You think you come up with great issues that disprove the inspiredness of the Bible, while those of us with eyes see that you have simply fallen into another obvious pitfall, the solutions are simple but you are too blind to see them. When someone tries to tell the solution to your problem, it doesn't make any sense to you, because you have rejected the light of God's word. All these things you come up with are simple little things, but trying to describe them to you is sometimes like trying to describe colors to someone who is not only blind but also refuses to believe that there are such things as colors to begin with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by doctrbill, posted 01-27-2004 10:27 PM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by doctrbill, posted 01-30-2004 10:30 PM wmscott has replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2765 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 176 of 183 (81748)
01-30-2004 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by wmscott
01-30-2004 9:36 PM


wmscott writes:
You put your faith in scholars who say what you want to hear and ignore the ones who say what you don't want to hear.
And you don't do this. Right?
Paul was well acquainted with the apocryphal books, he warned against such things in many of his letters. Titus 1:1 "paying no attention to Jewish fables and commandments of men who turn themselves away from the truth."
Please show, specifically, where this applies to 1 Maccabees, or Ecclesiasticus. Please show specific instances where these books may be called "Jewish fables" or shown to be written by, "men who turn themselves away from the truth."
Paul and his generation regarded the apocryphal books as Jewish fables and false stories,
What evidence can you offer for this bold assumption.
which is why he never cited them as a source.
That has not been established.
One of the key reasons Paul had such a negative view of the apocryphal books is stated at; 1 Timothy 4:7
You say he never quotes them. You say he never cites them. And now, you say he specifically warned his audience about them? Prove it.
"But turn down the false stories which violate what is holy" much of what is taught in the apocryphal is in conflict with inspired scripture,
Can you demonstrate that? Or are you putting "your faith in scholars who say what you want to hear"? Give examples please, IF you can. Show how this may be applied to 1 Maccabees, or Ecclesiasticus. BTW: Originally called Sirach, after its author Jesus ben Sirach, this book was used in worship servicdes by the early church. Thus the name: Ecclesiasticus - The Church Book.
Paul warned against wasting time on such things because; 1 Timothy 1:3-4 "Just as I encouraged that you . . . might command certain ones not to teach different doctrine, nor to pay attention to false stories and to genealogies, which end up in nothing, but which furnish questions for research rather than a dispensing of anything by God in connection with faith." there is nothing spiritually to be gained from false stories. Of course there was an even greater danger of course; Colossians 2:8 "Look out: perhaps there may be someone who will carry YOU off as his prey through the philosophy and empty deception according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ;" and that is what has happened to you. You think you have become wise, and see things clearly, however your spiritual condition is described at; Revelation 3:17 "Because you say: "I am rich and have acquired riches and do not need anything at all," but you do not know you are miserable and pitiable and poor and blind and naked," I know you say you are happy as you are, but your being spiritually blind is why you are fumbling about in the dark tripping over things that are clearly seen by those with spiritual vision. You think you come up with great issues that disprove the inspiredness of the Bible, while those of us with eyes see that you have simply fallen into another obvious pitfall, the solutions are simple but you are too blind to see them. When someone tries to tell the solution to your problem, it doesn't make any sense to you, because you have rejected the light of God's word. All these things you come up with are simple little things, but trying to describe them to you is sometimes like trying to describe colors to someone who is not only blind but also refuses to believe that there are such things as colors to begin with.
Spare me the boo hoo, woe is you, homily!
I believe you are attempting to sidestep the REALLY BIG QUESTION which I have repeatedly raised in this discussion.
By what authority was the New Testament added to the sacred canon?
You know it wasn't the Jews.
You know it wasn't Paul.
So, who was it?
db

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by wmscott, posted 01-30-2004 9:36 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by wmscott, posted 01-31-2004 3:14 PM doctrbill has replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2765 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 177 of 183 (81752)
01-31-2004 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by wmscott
01-30-2004 9:30 PM


Re: Curious Parallels
Abshalom offered this comparison suggesting that Luke quotes Sirach.
quote:
Luke 1:52
"He has put down the mighty from their thrones, and exalted those of low degree."
Shirach 10:14
"The Lord overthrows the thrones of rulers, and enthrones the lowly in their place."
And wmscott replies:
Both verses here are referring to what was stated in the OT. The first part of the verse from Luke may very well be referring to Daniel 4:37 "Now I, Nebuchadnezzar, am praising and exalting and glorifying the King of the heavens, because all his works are truth and his ways are justice, and because those who are walking in pride he is able to humiliate." The King who is speaking here had been removed and restored to his throne by God, at the time this King was probably the most powerful ruler on earth. The second part of the verse refers to God favoring or raising up the humble. 2 Samuel 22:28 "And the humble people you will save; But your eyes are against the haughty ones, [that] you may bring [them] low." So both verses are referring to things said about Jehovah in the OT, there is nothing to suggest that Luke was referring to Shirach....
In a footnote re: Luke 1:52 the Good News Bible offers three possible sources of the sentiment expressed there.
Job 5:11 "it is God who raises the humble,"
Job 12:19 "He humbles priests and men of power." And,
Sirach 10:14 "The Lord has overthrown kings and put humbler people in their place."
Of these three possiblities, Sirach is the obvious choice. The line in Luke is virtually identical with it. On the other hand, the OT passages you cite are VERY UNLIKE the verse in Luke.
You are very liberal in what you accept as evidence for a quote from or allusion to the Hebrew Canon; but you apply a different standard of evidence for quotes from or allusions to non-canonicals.
The parallels some times found are not curious or even unexpected, once you understand that both are referring to the OT.
Sirach's thought was undoubtedly influenced by Hebrew literature but his way of expressing it was new and succint. It had never been stated quite that way before. That is what makes Sirach special; why Luke alludes to him; why the early church adopts his book for their worship service and call it Ecclesiasticus. And Sirach's book was included in the Greek Bible (Septuagint), the popular Bible of Jesus' (and Paul's) day.
If, as you seem to believe, there can be nothing inspired which was not a part of the Jewish canon, then you'll have to rethink the matter of New Testament inspiration. Why not, instead, broaden your horizons as Paul did? Give ordinary people, even JW's, the possibility of being inspired. What do you think?
db

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by wmscott, posted 01-30-2004 9:30 PM wmscott has not replied

  
wmscott
Member (Idle past 6248 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 178 of 183 (81832)
01-31-2004 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by doctrbill
01-30-2004 10:30 PM


On scholars opinions, you can probably find one to support any position if you look long enough, which is why it is not wise to believe something just because a "scholar" states it. It is necessary to consider the overall majority viewpoint of scholars in general when considering such opinions and it must be remembered that even the mainstream view can still be wrong sometimes, which is why it is always best to look at the evidence and make up your own mind. The mainstream opinion on the matter of the NT quoting the apocrypha is that there are no direct quotes. I disagree with that, looking at the evidence myself it is my opinion that the supposed indirect quotes are accidental word matches due in large part to a common cultural and literary background of the respective writers. The 'indirect quotes' which seem to be apocryphal references can be viewed as such if only the words are looked at by themselves, which is the trap it appears that some of the scholars have fallen into, looking at the meaning of the words it is clear that the NT and the apocryphal are cut from two very different cloths. It would make no sense for the NT writers to use as inspired sources books which were in conflict with the things they were teaching, it would be like a mainstream respected geologist quoting from the book "The Genesis Flood" as a reference, no matter if there were common phrases used by both it would be ridiculous to expect a genuine quotation. The NT writers could have quoted the historical events related in some of the apocrypha when such were correct, without implying anything about the rest of the book, but they didn't seem to do even that. What we find instead is a common word usage here or there, or a common reference to events in the OT, such occurrences are probably coincidental and considering the intend of the NT writers they must indeed be unintended.
As for showing you the contradictions between the Bible and the Apocrypha. it is a lengthy list and much of it you will not understand since you are spiritually blind. Some of the simpler points is that the apocrypha books are not always very historically accurate, some are better than others and are useful as historical sources, others can only be regarded as fiction due to their gross historical inaccuracy. Many of the events in the apocrypha are foolish stories and are obviously fiction. Then there are apocrypha statements that contradict biblical teachings and doctrines, the Bible states one thing and the apocrypha states something else. On a side point, some of the Catholic doctrines which are non biblical are taught in the apocrypha which accounts for the church's more favorable attitude toward such books.
On the fact that in the first century the Jews did not view the apocrypha as inspired is supported by a number of historical sources which point out that the Great Synagogue of the Palestinian Jews, the historian Josephus and Philo, did not view the apocrypha as inspired books. The early church fathers of the first few centuries viewed the apocrypha as secondary to scripture and only much later when many non biblical doctrines had been adopted by the church were the apocrypha books given biblical status by some. The adoption of the apocrypha was part of the falling way from the truth that was predicted to happen after the death of the apostles.
quote:
1 Maccabees, or Ecclesiasticus. Please show specific instances where these books may be called "Jewish fables" or shown to be written by, "men who turn themselves away from the truth."
On 1 Maccabees "the Jewish Encyclopedia tells us that in it "history is written from the human standpoint." Its author seems to have been a Sadducee, as he ignores the crimes the chief priests committed during that time, thus betraying his lack of objectivity. Another authority excuses the "few historical and geographical inaccuracies," but divine history does not thus err. More than that, the prophetic, miraculous and the Messianic elements are entirely lacking as is also any reference to the resurrection hope. The writer even studiously avoids naming the Creator as either "God" or "Jehovah.""
On Ecclesiasticus; "Ecclesiasticus has the twofold distinction of being the largest of the Apocryphal books and of having a definitely known author, one Jesus the son of Sirach. It has a lie in its very first Prologue (written by another), for it claims that this Jesus "was not less famous for wisdom and learning" than was King Solomon. The author himself, however, in the second Prologue apologizes: "Pardon us, wherein we may seem to come short of some words, which we have labored to interpret. For the same things uttered in Hebrew and translated into another tongue have not the same force in them." Actually an apologetic self-justification.
How obviously this book is of man rather than of God can be further seen by its worldly wisdom and, in particular, by the writer's low opinion of womankind. In contrast to God's Word, which squarely blames the man Adam for our woes, he says: "Of the woman came the beginning of sin, and through her we all die." "Give me ... any wickedness, but the wickedness of a woman." "All wickedness is but little to the wickedness of a woman.""
I did some checking on the web and found the followinig web sites with coments on the apocrypha which I thought bear well on the subect.
quote:
1. Jews did not (and still do not) regard the Apocrypha as Scripture
2. The New Testament never quotes the Apocrypha
3. Until 1548 (at the Roman Catholic Council of Trent), the Apocrypha had a secondary status, and was not regarded as true Scripture. (And the Eastern Orthodox Church still gives the secondary status to the Apocrypha. See Timothy Ware, "The Orthodox Church", Penguin Books, 1963, p.208-209).
4. Therefore the Protestant Reformers (1520's, 1530's) were clarifying the historical position of the early church when they excluded the Apocrypha.
[The early Christian church was predominantly Greek-speaking so used the LXX as their OT, however, while the NT extensively contains about 250 quotaations from the OT (usually using the LXX), it contains _NO_ quotations from the Apocrypha Reference: New Bible Dictionary, 2nd Edition (Ed. J.D.Douglas, N.Hillyer; England:IVP, 1982), p. 1005 "Quotations (in the New Testament)", by E.E.Ellis, Ph.D, (Research Professor of New Testament Literature, New Brunswick Theological Seminary, New Jersey)].
http://www.answering-islam.org/Bible/pbotapoc.html
Recognizing the fact that the Septuagint was probably available to both Jesus and his disciples, it becomes even more remarkable that there are no direct quotes from any of the Apocryphal books being championed for canonicity. Jesus makes clear reference to all but four Old Testament books from the Hebrew canon, but he never directly refers to the apocryphal books.
The Old Testament Apocrypha Controversy - The Canon of Scripture
3. The New Testament quotes all but seven of the Old Testament books. (Obadiah, Nahum, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Esther, Ezra, and Nehemiah. Some list only Esther, Ecclesiastes & Song of Solomon.)
The Apocrypha, those books included in the Roman Catholic Canon, were never quoted in the New Testament. The Apocrypha was accepted as part of the Catholic Canon at the Council of Trent in A.D. 1546.
Welcome open.org - BlueHost.com
But the New Testament writers never quote these additional writings as Scriptures.
Page Not Found - Christian Classics Ethereal Library
Reasons to Reject the Apocrypha
Protestants give numerous reasons for rejecting these additional books:
1. Though there are some allusions to the apocryphal books by New Testament writers (Hebrews 11:35 compares with 2 Maccabees 7, 12) there is no direct quote from them. Also, no New Testament writer ever refers to any of these fourteen or fifteen books as authoritative. Quotes from the accepted books are usually introduced by the phrase, "It is written," or the passage is quoted to prove a point. But never do the New Testament writers quote the Apocrypha in this way.
2. There is no evidence that the books were in the Septuagint as early as the time of Christ. Remember, the earliest manuscripts that have them date back to the fourth century A.D. Even if they were in the Septuagint at this early date, it is noteworthy that neither Christ nor the apostles ever quoted from them.
3. Though some of the early leaders of the church accepted them, many did notAthanasius, Origen, and Jerome, to name a few.
4. The evidence that Augustine accepted the Apocrypha is at best ambiguous. For one thing, he omits Baruch and includes 1 Esdras, thus accepting one and rejecting another in contrast to the Council of Trent. For another, he seemed to change his mind later about the validity of the Apocrypha.
Jerome, while making a Latin translation of the Bible, disputed with Augustine about the value of these additional books. Though Jerome did not want to translate them, he eventually made a hurried translation of them but kept them separate from his translation of the Bible. However, after his death, these books were brought into his Latin translation.
Augustine, as mentioned, argued in favor of the Apocrypha, though he later seemed to give them a kind of secondary canonicity. His testimony, though important, is not entirely clear.
5. Even the Roman Catholic church made a distinction between the Apocrypha and the other books of the Bible prior to the Reformation. For example, Cardinal Cajetan, who opposed Luther at Augsburg, in 1518 published A Commentary on all the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament. His commentary, however, did not include the Apocrypha.
6. The first official council of the Roman Catholic church to ratify these books was at the Council of Trent in 1546, only twenty-nine years after Luther posted his ninety-five theses on the door of the church at Wittenberg. The acceptance of these books at this time was convenient since the books were being quoted against Luther. For example, 2 Maccabees speaks of prayers for the dead (2 Macc. 12:45-46) and another book teaches salvation by works (Tob. 12:19).
Even so, the Roman church accepted only eleven of the fifteen books; we naturally would expect that these books, since they were together for so many centuries, would be either accepted or rejected together.
7. The content of the Apocrypha is sub-biblical. Some of the stories are clearly fanciful. Bel and the Dragon, Tobit, and Judith have the earmarks of legend; the authors of these books even give hints along the way that the stories are not to be taken seriously.
What is more, these books have historical errors. It is claimed that Tobit was alive when the Assyrians conquered Israel in 722 B.C. and also when Jeroboam revolted against Judah in 931 B.C., which would make him at least 209 years old; yet according to the account, he died when he was only 158 years. The Book of Judith speaks of Nebuchadnezzar reigning in Nineveh instead of Babylon.
These inaccuracies are inconsistent with the doctrine of inspiration which teaches that when God inspires a book it is free from all errors.
8. Finally, and most important, we must remember that the Apocrypha was never part of the Old Testament Hebrew canon. When Christ was on earth, he frequently quoted from the Old Testament but never from the Apocryphal books because they were never a part of the Hebrew canon.
In Christ's time, there were twenty-two books in the Old Testament, but the content was identical to the thirty-nine books in our present Old Testament (several of the books in the Hebrew Bible were combined, which accounts for the different figure). Genesis was the first book in the Hebrew canon and 2 Chronicles was the last. On at least one occasion, Christ referred specifically to the content of the Hebrew canon when he said:
Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city, that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar (Matt. 23:34-35)
In the Hebrew canon, the first book of the Bible was Genesis, where the death of Abel is recorded, and the last book was 2 Chronicles where near the end of the book the murder of Zechariah is described (24:21). In between these two events lay the entire content of the Old Testament. He assumed it ended with the Hebrew Scriptures and not the Apocrypha.
The Apocryphal books were written in Greek after the close of the Old Testament canon. Jewish scholars agree that chronologically Malachi was the last book of the Old Testament canon. The books of the Apocrypha were evidently written about 200 B.C. and occur only in Greek manuscripts of the Old Testament. Since Christ accepted only the books we have in our Old Testament today, we have no reason to add to their number.
How Many Books Are in the Bible? | Bible.org
As you should be tell, many of the points I have been making to you are referred to in the above sites. The apocrypha is obviously not inspired and is not part of the Bible and was not directly quoted as an inspired source and was more probably not quoted at all by the NT.
quote:
By what authority was the New Testament added to the sacred canon?
By the authority of the holy spirit. The books were selected before 200 AD, and each book was included based on it being in total harmony and complete unity with the rest of the Bible. The early Christians through the power of the holy spirit had many miraculous abilities such as resurrecting the dead, and one of the gifts of the spirit was the ability was being able to discern whether or not something was inspired. 1 Corinthians 12:7-10 "But the manifestation of the spirit is given to each one for a beneficial purpose. For example, to one there is given through the spirit speech . . . discernment of inspired utterances," So in the early Christian congregation the selection of the books of the NT proceeded directly under the action of the holy spirit. Through the holy spirit they knew if a book was actually inspired by holy spirit or not. Even today without the aid of a gift of the holy spirit of discernment, we can still see that the right choices were indeed made when we examine the books that were included and those that were excluded. For those of us with spiritual discernment, we can recognise the inspired ness of the Bible when we read it while the apocrypha books read like cheap trash, the difference is like night and day. This is part of the problem I was referring to about you being spiritually blind, you have no idea of what I am talking about, you can't see the different, but remember just because you can't see it doesn't mean no one else can. If you wanted to debate the finer points of string theory would have to first really study the theory so you could discern the differences in the various theories and see why the differences matter and what effect they would have, it is simular with spiritual things, being spiritually blind you can't tell the difference between the Bible books and the apocrypha books which to those of us who can see these things, it is so obvious. It is really ridiculous watching you repeatedly walk into walks all the while refusing to even try opening your eyes. You can certainly keep your eyes closed if you wish, but offering your self as a guide is silly in the extreme.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by doctrbill, posted 01-30-2004 10:30 PM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by doctrbill, posted 01-31-2004 4:42 PM wmscott has replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2765 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 179 of 183 (81844)
01-31-2004 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by wmscott
01-31-2004 3:14 PM


From a website you quoted? -
quote:
Since Christ accepted only the books we have in our Old Testament today, we have no reason to add to their number.
Except of course, those to which we are directed by The Ghost. (Besides: Where do you suppose the story of Lazarus and the Rich man comes from?)
wmscott writes:
The apocrypha ... is not part of the Bible ...
Not a part of your Bible. But it was a part of the Bible, in Jesus day. No, not the Official Bible of the Temple authorities; but the Popular Bible, the Bible of the People, the Septuagint. Most people could read Greek in those days. Most Jews could not read Hebrew in those days. If Matthew could have read Isaiah in Hebrew, he would have had no reason to get excited about Chapter 7 verse 14.
... and was more probably not quoted at all by the NT.
Considering the double standard you apply to evidence, I suppose you will never be persuaded.
the apocrypha books read like cheap trash,
And how is that cheap trash different from the cheap trash in your Bible?
you have no idea of what I am talking about,
Sure I do. You're talking about superstition, prejudice, and exclusivism.
you can't see the different, ... it is simular with spiritual things,
No comment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by wmscott, posted 01-31-2004 3:14 PM wmscott has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by wmscott, posted 02-03-2004 8:37 PM doctrbill has not replied

  
wmscott
Member (Idle past 6248 days)
Posts: 580
From: Sussex, WI USA
Joined: 12-19-2001


Message 180 of 183 (82848)
02-03-2004 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by doctrbill
01-31-2004 4:42 PM


quote:
[The apocrypha ... is not part of the Bible ...] Not a part of your Bible. But it was a part of the Bible, in Jesus day. No, not the Official Bible of the Temple authorities; but the Popular Bible, the Bible of the People, the Septuagint. Most people could read Greek in those days. Most Jews could not read Hebrew in those days. If Matthew could have read Isaiah in Hebrew, he would have had no reason to get excited about Chapter 7 verse 14.
At the time the writers of the NT lived, the apocrypha books were not part of the Septuagint, they were not added until about 180 AD which was after the NT was completed. I found a web site that had excellent information on this subject.
"Josephus' own testimony to the canon, given above, denies to the Septuagint the presence of the Apocrypha, at least in his day (before 100 AD). Josephus was a Greek-speaking Jew who presumably used this very translation about whose preparation he wrote. Further, we know that many Jewish intellectuals in that day, including Philo and Josephus, considered the Septuagint Greek translation to be inspired in and of itself. Yet, Josephus pointedly denies the apocryphal books a place in the canon of the scriptures which he gives, as does Philo through his complete and utter disuse of these books. . . .
The other major translation of this period was that of Theodotion (c. 180 AD), also an Ebionite, but one from Ephesus with only a marginal knowledge of Hebrew . Theodotion's work cannot really be properly called a translation, but rather a revision of the then-existing Greek Old Testament. Theodotion's Greek Old Testament was widely used by Christians after it was produced, and its reading of Daniel eventually replaced the older Septuagintic translation of that book . It is interesting to note that, unlike other Greek Old Testament translations to that time, Theodotion's revision contained certain of the apocryphal books, these being apocryphal additions to Job, and also the additions to Daniel .
Thus, it would seem that the first introduction of the Apocrypha into the Christian scriptures arose from Theodotion's revision of the Septuagint, and that it was from thence that we see the Apocrypha gain wider respect among Christians."
http://www.studytoanswer.net/rcc/rvb_apocrypha.html#lxx3rdc
I recommend that you check out the historical background on Theodotion's translation and why the Apocrypha was included. As I have been saying, and as the historical evidence proves, the Jews and the early Christians did not view the Apocrypha as inspired. It was only later in history as they fell away from the teachings of Christ and adopted non biblical beliefs, that the Apocrypha books began to gain acceptance. Hence the acceptance of the Apocrypha happened many years afterwards, and it was not viewed as inspired at the time of the writing of the NT.
quote:
If Matthew could have read Isaiah in Hebrew . . .
I don't see why he couldn't considering he is believed to have first written his gospel in Hebrew and later translated it into Greek..
"Matthew first wrote his Gospel account in Hebrew. For instance, Eusebius (of the third and fourth centuriesC.E.) said that "the evangelist Matthew delivered his Gospel in the Hebrew tongue." (Patrologia Graeca, Vol. XXII, col. 941) And Jerome (of the fourth and fifth centuriesC.E.) stated in his work De viris inlustribus (Concerning Illustrious Men), chapter III: "Matthew, who is also Levi, and who from a publican came to be an apostle, first of all composed a Gospel of Christ in Judaea in the Hebrew language and characters for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed.... Moreover, the Hebrew itself is preserved to this day in the library at Caesarea, which the martyr Pamphilus so diligently collected." (Translation from the Latin text edited by E.C. Richardson and published in the series "Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur," Leipzig, 1896, Vol. 14, pp. 8,9.)"
quote:
[the apocrypha books read like cheap trash'] And how is that cheap trash different from the cheap trash in your Bible?
You can't see the difference because you are blind spiritually, due no doubt in large part to your lack of appreciation of spiritual things as demonstrated by your comment. "But a physical man does not receive the things of the spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot get to know [them], because they are examined spiritually." 1 Corinthians 2:14 As long as you have such a bad attitude you will never be able to understand.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by doctrbill, posted 01-31-2004 4:42 PM doctrbill has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024