Posted on 11/30/2011 9:01:01 PM PST by Belteshazzar
Remember the Lectures on Faith sections in the Mormon scripture, “Doctrine and Covenants?” No? But they were there for 86 years? I’m reading an 1918 “Doctrine and Covenants” and sure enough, there’s Lectures on Faith.” What about “Section 101″ in early D&C editions, the “Article on Marriage” that says men and women should only have one spouse? No, haven’t heard of that one either? It was eventually deleted by church leaders and replaced by Section 132, which details celestial marriage and having multiple wives. Decanonization of scripture is not talked about much in the LDS church, and it’s certainly far less frequent than examples of added scripture in Mormon canon, but it does happen.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearreligion.org ...
Romney not a “flip-flopper”?
Pro-Choice....err... no, Pro-life
Pro-Government healthcare/mandates...oops... run away from it (though he can’t since he and his advisors helped Obama with Obamacare...)
Path to citizenship for illegals....or... amnesty leads to more people coming here illegally...
He stated that he doesn’t “line up” with the NRA... yet claims to be a MEMBER of the NRA...
He supported the assault weapons ban.... yet claims he does not support any gun control legislation...
Has supported limits on carbon emissions to protect the environment (global warming), yet more recently has railed against Al Gore and the efforts to limit carbon emissions (claiming to cling to conservative growth principles).
Has publicly stated that he doesn’t know what’s causing climate change, but has also clearly stated that he believes humans have contributed to global warming...
Romney said “it’s not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one man” yet in regards to OBL “he is going to pay, and he will die”.
Romney stated that his healthcare plan in Mass. would reduce healthcare costs, yet he stated a couple of years ago that they didn’t even attempt to address the issue of cost when they established Romneycare...
So -Romney not a flip-flopper? Maybe his inability to be consistently anything BUT a flip-flopper is a product of his chosen religion?
Is that Better? Luther was a dolt if not a heretic and I don't see how anyone can be shocked by another religion changing their canon if they're part of any sort of Protestant or Protestant derived religion, including "Independent my own Pope" ones. Sure, Mormons wrote them self a brand new book, but Luther changed the interpretation and canon of existing Scripture so much he may as well have just done the John Smith. Even Calvin wrote a book he claimed should be included in the canon as being equal to anything the Apostles wrote, so far from being a big brave guy, Luther was just a horny drunk who couldn't get his own head around Grace. There, no drive by.
Now, exactly what's the big deal about Mormons doing far less than Luther the dolt did? And I ask that having spent the majority of my life a devout Lutheran. Right up until I found and read as many of his own writings as I could find rather than accepting the BS about him. Anyone who reads all of what Luther and Calvin wrote will either be some flavor of Catholic by the time they're finished, or never believed in anything but their own intellect to begin with.
JMHO
have a nice day
Well, Rash, you chose an apt moniker. I will devote the same amount of thought to your reply to my question as you did ...
I repeat, how can any non-Catholic Christian pretend to be shocked by another religion altering their canon?
Well, Rash, I’m glad you could read my mind and heart before I even said anything. Impressive. I am somewhat heartened in that you seem to admit the possibility of there being such a thing as a “non-Catholic Christian.” And, finally, I find it telling that you see the parallel between the Mormons “altering THEIR canon” and the Roman Catholic church being offended that someone would be “altering THEIR canon.” This is such a blind spot for Catholics.
While the Joseph Smith translation of the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, and the Doctrine and Covenants are most certainly the property of the Latter Day Saints, their proprietary canon - and they are welcome to it, for Christians want no part of it! - the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are not YOUR canon. Why? “For God so loved THE WORLD that He gave His only begotten Son that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life ... and truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may life in His name ... This is the disciple who testifies of these things, and wrote these things; and we know that his testimony is true. And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen.” (John 3:16; 20:31-32; 21:24-25)
I find Rome’s claim of proprietary rights to the Holy Scriptures wholly unpersuasive (and I will limit myself to that single adjective) and John’s testimony wholly persuasive. So, if you want to wax rash again, Rash, go ahead. I find your rashness wholly unpersuasive.
Good, I'm glad to see you respect my gifts.
"I am somewhat heartened in that you seem to admit the possibility of there being such a thing as a “non-Catholic Christian."
I'm glad I can hearten you. Of course there are non-Catholic Christians and just as amazing to some, there are even Catholic Christians as well.
Thanks for the obligatory witness, now you're off the hook and can answer the question I originally asked. I could care less what you think of Rome the same as I could care less what you think about the thousands of different Protestant derived denominations you're not a part of, including the nondenomination denomination. Why are you so surprised that the Mormons would change their canon when you profess to be a Christian who agrees with Luther throwing entire books out of the Bible but at the same time seem happy that he was stopped from throwing out the portions of the New Testament he wanted to?
I do not understand how you can be upset at the Mormons for something you agree with when your forebears do it. Is that so difficult to understand? Are you honestly incapable of answering a direct question simply because you don't like admitting to the reality of what you profess? Come on, all the noise is just that. Why are you shocked by Mormons doing the same thing Luther did? This is no blind spot, bub, it's a simple question about a historical fact. A blind spot would be someone who tried to ignore what was done and you're the one ignoring history, not I.
You had some point in mind when you posted the article about them changing their canon, apparently that they don't talk about it and pretend it's no big deal, I didn't understand why that was upsetting to you and now that you're doing the exact same thing, pretending it didn't happen and is no big deal, I really don't understand your point. And don't bother with the rote BS you think anyone who disagrees with you must need to hear, I know it by heart as well as you do and probably better.
Now, what is so shocking about what you mention in your article, that's all I want to know? Or, was there no point to the article, some point about them doing it quietly or what? Geez, I'm sorry I ever asked you an honest question with a reason for the question embedded in it. I should have known better.
have a wonderful day
““Twasn’t Luther that “threw entire books out of the Old Testament...” He did question the canonicity of the Apocrypha (but didn’t remove those books that were actually ADDED by the Roman Church to back up extra-biblical teachings. The Apocryphal books saw opposition throughout history, including within the Catholic church (though church historians haven’t exactly always been honest about it). It wasn’t until the 1880’s that “Protestants” began printing Bibles without the Apocryphal books.”
Show me, when AND where the Roman Catholic Church “added” the books in question. I am referring to Church documents. Be Specific. I was trying to be nice. In spite of the snideness of the comment presented. Please, next time someone makes a gentle suggestion, try to leave the pomposity at home. It isn’t warranted.
Oh, good. I didn’t get that post either.
Rashputin wrote:
“Why are you so surprised ... I do not understand how you can be upset at the Mormons ... Why are you shocked by Mormons ... why that was upsetting to you ... what is so shocking about what you mention in your article ...
Well, gee, Rash, it wasn’t my article. It was written by someone else and contained a bit of information I did not previously know. I found it interesting, as one who has paid some attention to mormonism for many years. I thought others would find it interesting as well. I posted it without comment.
So, you don’t see where an assumption or two has been made on your part as to motive on my part?
As I said, you are rash.
The thread was about something within mormonism, you changed the subject to Luther. Let me repeat that for the hard of hearing, YOU CHANGED IT TO LUTHER, which I pointed out, admittedly with a little sarcasm occasioned by the tone of your post.
You remain rash, and yours is the language that is intemperate.
Yeah, well, what can I say? I don’t get it either.
I guess next time I post an article I’ll try to find something uninteresting. Maybe that will satisfy everyone.
Thank you for the response, and thank you for admitting you have no reason whatsoever to be upset about Mormons doing the same thing as Luther.
Rashputin wrote:
“And you remain unwilling to answer a direct and simple question whether you posted the article or not.”
Do you read posts before you reply?
I'm sorry I thought if you posted and article you had some point in doing so and wanted to discuss the content of the article. I won't make that mistake again.
Rashputin wrote:
“I won’t make that mistake again.”
Oh, I think think you will ... and soon.
If the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem is a nail.
That is rich!!
ROFLOL!!!
And so were the politicians!!!
when did the “roman catholic church” add these books?
when did the orthodox church “add” these books”
when did the first 66 book bible appear on the world scene?
“...if Luther can throw entire books out of the Old Testament.”
Luther simply accepted the Jewish version of the Old Testament, their own books—as the Jews have recognized them since at least the 1st Century...and likely the very same canon Jesus and the Apostles also recognized.
The Apocrypha, even in Roman Catholic bibles—are not even arranged as within the Old Testament—and never have been. Even the Roman Catholic proper term “Deuterocanonical books” recognizes this fact.
Luther sided with some of the most notable ancient and medieval Roman Catholic scholars that came before him too... The idea that somehow Luther arbitrarily picked and chose to exclude certain books in an innovation—is nothing by an old Roman Catholic lie.
The Jews to this day do not recognize the Apocrypha (St. Jerome’s term for it)—that is Jewish books written after Malachi, before Christ, as inspired. Luther and all Protestants agree. Hardly arbitrary or an innovation.
You probably knew that though, already, however.
There is no room here for an exhaustive history of the Apocryphal (Deuterocanonical to Catholics) books, but I will give an overview here.
The books referred to as the “Apocrypha” (14 or 15 books, depending on if you go by an earlier version or later - the earlier editions included the “Letter of Jeremiah” as the last part of Baruch) were never part of the Hebrew canon, but first appeared in the Septuagint (the Greek Old Testament). At some point after the Hebrew canon had closed, some point to the Selucid and Ptolemaic kingdoms that followed Alexander the Great as the origin - with a process of translating the Jewish scriptures in to Greek for the large Jewish population at Alexandria (around 250 BC). The Law of Moses was completed in fairly short order. While the Septuagint was first translated centuries before Christ, these books were not completely added to the Septuagint until the 4th Century. No manuscripts earlier than the 4th Century contain the Apocrypha. The Apostles quoted from the first-century Septuagint, but there are zero quotes form the Apocrypha in their writings.
From early in Christian history, there was debate regarding the “true” canon - even among the today’s mutually accepted books (Homologoumena).
Jerome (4th Century Catholic church father) stated in his preface to the books of Solomon that these books were not received as canonical Scriptures, but endorsed reading them for edification of the people, but not as authoritative confirmation of doctrine.
Other early Catholic leaders including Origin, Ambrose, Amphilochus, Gregory Nanzianzus, Julius Africanus, Jerome, Athanasius (Bishop of Alexandria), and Cyril of Jerusalem - all of which denied the inspiration and canonicity of these books.
In 170 A.D., Melito - bishop of Sardis wrote of the books of the Old Testament - and did not include the so-called Deuterocanonical books.
Athanasius wrote of the canon, including the 65 books of what we call the Protestant Bible (Esther was later accepted), and he also mentioned a few of the apocryphal books (Wisdom of Solomn, Wisdom of Sirach, Judith, and Tobit) but also stated that they were “not indeed included in the Canon” - they were “appointed by the Fathers to be read .... for instruction in the word of godliness” (Paschal Letter 39).
The Jews in Israel of the first century (not that they are the best model of Godliness...) rejected the Apocrypha.
At the Council of Ephesus (225 A.D.), the number of books in the Bible canon were accepted as 66. The Council of Rome (382 A.D.) and the Council of Hippo (393 A.D.) were the two assemblies that began to “recognized” the apocryphal books as canon, primarily under the influence of Augustine. Ironically, Augustine recognized that the ancient Jews rejected these books - but his primary argument for accepting them was the mention of “extreme and wonderful suffering of certain martyrs”. Also, the Septuagint of the 4th Century, as mentioned above, then included these books.
It was not until 1546 A.D. at the Council of Trent that the Catholic Church officially deemed the apocryphal books as scripture - interestingly less than half a century after Luther posted his protests (”Theses), many of which were practices in the church that were completely based on the spurious books of the Apocrypha. Oddly - even a handful of the apocryphal books that were rejected, were then added to existing unquestioned books - including “Susanna” which became chapter 13 of Daniel, “Bel and the Dragon” which became Daniel 14.
As far as the history of the Bible from the Reformation forward -
Luther prefaced the Apocrypha: “Apocrypha — that is, books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriptures, and yet are profitable and good to read.”
While the King James translators never considered the Apocrypha to be the word of God, it was included as an appendix between the Old and New Testament as reference material.
The Apocrypha began to be omitted from the Authorized Version in 1629. Puritans and Presbyterians lobbied for the complete removal of the Apocrypha from the Bible and in 1825 the British and Foreign Bible Society agreed. From that time on, the Apocrypha has been eliminated from practically all English Bibles outside of Catholic and some pulpit Bibles.
Differences in “Catholic” acceptance of Apocrypha-
Roman Catholicism recognizes 1 and 2 Maccabees, Baruch, Daniel additions, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), Esther additions, Judith, Letter of Jeremiah in Baruch, Tobit, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus).
Slavonic Orthodox Catholics: Same as the Catholic Apocrypha plus 2 Esdras, 3 Esdras, and 3 Maccabees, Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151.
Greek Orthodox: Same as Slavonic Orthodox Apocrypha plus 4 Maccabees in the appendix.
Coptic Christians: 1, 2, 3 Maccabees, Baruch, Daniel additions, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), Esther additions, Judith, Letter of Jeremiah, Psalm 151, Tobit, Wisdom of Solomon. However, under Cyril V (1874-1927), The Coptic church later rejected these books as part of the Bible.
Even the evidence within these books in question brings a great deal of doubt to their authenticity as scripture. While this has already been a fairly long post, I will sum up these internal evidences in two main points - extensive historical errors and doctrines that directly conflict with the rest of universally accepted (among Christians) scriptures.
There is far more, but it is well past time for me to get to bed for some sleep. Long day planned at the office tomorrow.
All were present and accepted by at least SOME Christians in the 1st Century (before the Apocryphal books even appeared in the Septuagint).
As far as your other two questions - se my above long post.
Better still, I know when and why the Jews tossed the same books. When those books were the ones most successfully used by the Apostles and others to lead Jews to Christ.
But you knew that, right?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.