Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Bible - 73 or 66 Books? (Ecumenical Thread)
Catholic Bible ^

Posted on 12/25/2012 9:50:07 AM PST by narses

So why does the Catholic Bible have 73 books, while the Protestant Bible has only 66 books? Some protestants believe that the Catholic Church added 7 books to the Bible at the Council of Trent in response to Luther’s Reformation, but that couldn’t be further from the truth.

In about 367 AD, St. Athanasius came up with a list of 73 books for the Bible that he believed to be divinely inspired. This list was finally approved by Pope Damasus I in 382 AD, and was formally approved by the Church Council of Rome in that same year. Later Councils at Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (397 AD) ratified this list of 73 books. In 405 AD, Pope Innocent I wrote a letter to the Bishop of Toulouse reaffirming this canon of 73 books. In 419 AD, the Council of Carthage reaffirmed this list, which Pope Boniface agreed to. The Council of Trent, in 1546, in response to the Reformation removing 7 books from the canon (canon is a Greek word meaning “standard”), reaffirmed the original St. Athanasius list of 73 books.

So what happened? How come the King James Bible only has 66 books? Well, Martin Luther didn’t like 7 books of the Old Testament that disagreed with his personal view of theology, so he threw them out of his bible in the 16th Century. His reasoning was that the Jewish Council of Jamnia in 90 AD didn’t think they were canonical, so he didn’t either. The Jewish Council of Jamnia was a meeting of the remaining Jews from Palestine who survived the Roman persecution of Jerusalem in 70 AD. It seems that the Jews had never settled on an official canon of OT scripture before this. The Sadducees only believed in the first 5 books of the Bible written by Moses (the Pentateuch), while the Pharisees believed in 34 other books of the Old Testament as well. However, there were other Jews around from the Diaspora, or the dispersion of the Jews from the Babylonian captivity, who believed that another 7 books were also divinely inspired. In fact, when Jesus addressed the Diaspora Jews (who spoke Greek) he quoted from the Septuagint version of the scriptures. The Septuagint was a Greek translation by 70 translators of the Hebrew Word. The Septuagint includes the disputed 7 books that Protestants do not recognize as scriptural.

Initially, Luther wanted to kick out some New Testament Books as well, including James, Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation. He actually said that he wanted to “throw Jimmy into the fire”, and that the book of James was “an epistle of straw.” What is strange is that Luther eventually accepted all 27 books of the New Testament that the Catholic Pope Damasus I had approved of in 382 AD, but didn’t accept his Old Testament list, preferring instead to agree with the Jews of 90 AD. Luther really didn’t care much for Jews, and wrote an encyclical advocating the burning of their synagogues, which seems like a dichotomy. Why trust them to come up with an accurate canon of scripture when you hate and distrust them so much? And why trust the Catholic Church which he called “the whore of Babylon” to come up with an accurate New Testament list? Can you imagine the outrage by non-Catholics today if the Pope started throwing books out of the Bible? But strangely, Luther gets a pass on doing that exact same thing.

For the record, Jesus took the Kingdom away from the Jews (Matthew 21:43), and gave it to Peter and His new Church (Matthew 16:18), so the Jewish Council of Jamnia had no Godly authority to decide anything in 90 AD. They used 4 criteria for deciding whether or not certain books were canonical –

1. The books had to conform to the Pentateuch (the first 5 books of the Bible- ......Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy);

2. They could not have been written after the time of Ezra (around 400 BC);

3. They had to be written in Hebrew;

4. They had to be written in Palestine.

So this method employed by first century Jews would automatically exclude all of the Gospels, and the Epistles of the New Testament, which were also written in the first century. But there were other books written before Christ, after Ezra, and some in Greek as well. These 7 books were accepted by the Diaspora Jews (the Alexandrian Canon) who were not in Palestine. These 7 books are Tobit, Judith, Baruch, Wisdom, Sirach, First Maccabees, and Second Maccabees, as well as additional verses of Daniel and Esther. These books are called the “deuterocanon”, or second canon, by Catholics, and the “apocrypha”, or hidden/obscure, by Protestants (Christians who protest against the Catholic Church).

There are several objections to these 7 books, besides not being approved at the Jewish Council Jamnia. Some say that since the New Testament never references these disputed books, then that proves that they are not canonical. But that isn’t right, because the non-disputed books of Ecclesiastes and Ezra aren’t mentioned in the New Testament at all, not even once. By this standard then, Ecclesiastes and Ezra aren’t canonical either. On the other hand, there are many references indeed from the deuterocanonicals in the New Testament. Anybody who reads the book of Wisdom 2: 12-20 would immediately recognize that this is a direct reference to the Jews who were plotting against Jesus in Matthew 27:41-43:

Wisdom 2:12-20: "Let us lie in wait for the righteous man, because he is inconvenient to us and opposes our actions; he reproaches us for sins against the law, and accuses us of sins against our training. He professes to have knowledge of God, and calls himself a child of the Lord. He became to us a reproof of our thoughts; the very sight of him is a burden to us, because his manner of life is unlike that of others, and his ways are strange. We are considered by him as something base, and he avoids our ways as unclean; he calls the last end of the righteous happy, and boasts that God is his father. Let us see if his words are true, and let us test what will happen at the end of his life; for if the righteous man is God's son, he will help him, and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries. Let us test him with insult and torture, that we may find out how gentle he is, and make trial of his forbearance. Let us condemn him to a shameful death, for, according to what he says, he will be protected." Matthew 27: 41-43: So also the chief priests, with the scribes and elders, mocked him, saying, "He saved others; he cannot save himself. He is the King of Israel; let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him. He trusts in God; let God deliver him now, if he desires him; for he said, `I am the Son of God.’”

Another similar instance of this is Hebrews 11:35 being a direct reference to 2 Maccabees 7, where the mother and her 7 sons were slaughtered by the evil King for not forsaking the Jewish law. Romans 1:19-25 is also referenced in Wisdom 12-13. The clincher, of course, is that Jesus Himself observed the feast of Hannukah, or the Dedication of the Temple, in John 10. This can be found in the Old Testament book of First Maccabees, Chapter 4, which is in the Catholic Bible, but not in the Protestant Bible.

Additionally, there are some unscriptural books referenced in the New Testament, like Enoch and the Assumption of Moses (in the book of Jude), so if the standard is that books referenced in the New Testament are canonical, then Enoch and the Assumption of Moses would be in the Old Testament, but they are not.

Some people object to these 7 books because they claim some of the early church fathers like St. Jerome didn’t think they were divinely inspired. While it’s great that all of a sudden so many non-Catholics start quoting the early Church Fathers, it’s not right to quote them on this and then not on the Eucharist, the papacy, or the supremacy of Rome, all which prove that the Catholic Church was the only Church around in those days. St. Jerome initially had some concerns about these books, saying that the Palestinian Jews didn’t consider them canonical, but St. Jerome was not infallible, and later agreed that they were. All of the early Church Fathers accepted these disputed books as divinely inspired.

Still others object to some of the disputed 7 books because of historical or geographical errors in them. And there are some, but it has to be remembered that not all stories in the Bible are historical. For instance, was there really a rich man who died and went to hell, and then saw his poor servant in the bosom of Abraham? Was there really a young man who sold his inheritance and went off to a faraway country and squandered it, and returned home as the prodigal son? Was there really a vineyard where the workers who showed up late got paid the same as the workers who worked all day? Or is it rather not more important that these parables teach important theological lessons than it is for them to be 100% historically accurate? In other words, books of fiction that relate Biblical truths can be divinely inspired.

It’s important also to note that the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls included the book of Tobit and the book of Sirach, proving that the people back then thought them canonical, because they were found with the book of Isaiah and other Old Testament books.

And you can check all of this out for yourself. The first bible ever printed was the Gutenberg Bible, in the century BEFORE Luther started his Reformation. And the 7 books are indeed in that Bible. To see for yourself, click here.

And an interesting numerology coincidence occurs here as well. In the bible, the number 7 denotes perfection (God rested on the 7th day, 7 spirits that minister to God, 7 sacraments), and the number 3 represents the Holy Trinity. On the other hand, the number 6 represents imperfection (as in 666). Therefore, 73 books sure sounds a lot better than 66 books!

To check out a great list of all of the New Testament references to the deuterocanonicals by Catholic genius and all around good guy Jimmy Akin, click here.

Some of the more interesting items in these 7 books are as follows:

In 2 Maccabees 12:39-45, we learn how Judas Maccabees prayed for the dead and made atonement FOR THEM by sending money to the temple as a sin offering (purgatory).

In 2 Maccabees 6:12-14, we learn how God punishes nations.

In 2 Maccabees 2:4-7, we learn the final resting place of the Ark of the Covenant and when it will be found (Sorry Indiana Jones!).

In 2 Maccabees 15:12-17, we learn about how saints in heaven pray for us and help us out here on earth.

In Wisdom 7, we see a biblical type of the Blessed Virgin Mary known as "wisdom."

In Sirach 38:1-15, we learn about the role of the physician and how God uses him/her to cure us.

In Tobit, we learn about the Archangel Raphael (a name which means God Heals), the only place in the entire bible where he is mentioned. We also learn about the anti-marriage demon Asmodeus.

In Judith, we see a biblical type of Mary crushing the head of the serpent; Judith cuts off the head of the evil General Holofernes, and saves Israel.


TOPICS: Catholic; Ecumenism
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-259 next last

1 posted on 12/25/2012 9:50:11 AM PST by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

Comment #2 Removed by Moderator

To: narses; mgist; raptor22; victim soul; Isabel2010; Smokin' Joe; Michigander222; PJBankard; ...

Religion Forum threads labeled “Ecumenical”

Ecumenical threads are closed to antagonism.

To antagonize is to incur or to provoke hostility in others.
Unlike the “caucus” threads, the article and reply posts of an “ecumenical” thread may discuss more than one belief, but antagonism is not tolerable.

More leeway is granted to what is acceptable in the text of the article than to the reply posts. For example, the term “gross error” in an article will not prevent an ecumenical discussion, but a poster should not use that term in his reply because it is antagonistic. As another example, the article might be a passage from the Bible which would be antagonistic to Jews. The passage should be considered historical information and a legitimate subject for an ecumenical discussion. The reply posts however must not be antagonistic.

Contrasting of beliefs or even criticisms can be made without provoking hostilities. But when in doubt, only post what you are “for” and not what you are “against.” Or ask questions.

Ecumenical threads will be moderated on a “where there’s smoke, there’s fire” basis. When hostility has broken out on an “ecumenical” thread, I’ll be looking for the source.

Therefore “anti” posters must not try to finesse the guidelines by asking loaded questions, using inflammatory taglines, gratuitous quote mining or trying to slip in an “anti” or “ex” article under the color of the “ecumenical” tag.

Lord, in this holy season of prayer and song and laughter, we praise you for the great wonders you have sent us: for shining star and angel’s song, for infant’s cry in lowly manger. We praise you for the Word made flesh in a little Child. We behold his glory, and are bathed in its radiance.

Be with us as we sing the ironies of Christmas, the incomprehensible comprehended, the poetry made hard fact, the helpless Babe who cracks the world asunder. We kneel before you shepherds, innkeepers, wisemen. Help us to rise bigger than we are. Amen.


3 posted on 12/25/2012 9:55:48 AM PST by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: narses; mgist; raptor22; victim soul; Isabel2010; Smokin' Joe; Michigander222; PJBankard; ...

Religion Forum threads labeled “Ecumenical”

Ecumenical threads are closed to antagonism.

To antagonize is to incur or to provoke hostility in others.
Unlike the “caucus” threads, the article and reply posts of an “ecumenical” thread may discuss more than one belief, but antagonism is not tolerable.

More leeway is granted to what is acceptable in the text of the article than to the reply posts. For example, the term “gross error” in an article will not prevent an ecumenical discussion, but a poster should not use that term in his reply because it is antagonistic. As another example, the article might be a passage from the Bible which would be antagonistic to Jews. The passage should be considered historical information and a legitimate subject for an ecumenical discussion. The reply posts however must not be antagonistic.

Contrasting of beliefs or even criticisms can be made without provoking hostilities. But when in doubt, only post what you are “for” and not what you are “against.” Or ask questions.

Ecumenical threads will be moderated on a “where there’s smoke, there’s fire” basis. When hostility has broken out on an “ecumenical” thread, I’ll be looking for the source.

Therefore “anti” posters must not try to finesse the guidelines by asking loaded questions, using inflammatory taglines, gratuitous quote mining or trying to slip in an “anti” or “ex” article under the color of the “ecumenical” tag.

Lord, in this holy season of prayer and song and laughter, we praise you for the great wonders you have sent us: for shining star and angel’s song, for infant’s cry in lowly manger. We praise you for the Word made flesh in a little Child. We behold his glory, and are bathed in its radiance.

Be with us as we sing the ironies of Christmas, the incomprehensible comprehended, the poetry made hard fact, the helpless Babe who cracks the world asunder. We kneel before you shepherds, innkeepers, wisemen. Help us to rise bigger than we are. Amen.


4 posted on 12/25/2012 9:56:50 AM PST by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raygunfan

Ask King James, or King Henry VIII. Power makes for strange ideas.


5 posted on 12/25/2012 9:57:25 AM PST by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: narses
The Apocrypha and Why it's Not Scripture
6 posted on 12/25/2012 9:57:37 AM PST by Yashcheritsiy (It's time to Repeal and Replace the Republican Party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: narses

Post #2 breaks this rule but let’s see if anything is done about it.


7 posted on 12/25/2012 9:59:26 AM PST by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DManA

Also post #5.


8 posted on 12/25/2012 10:00:36 AM PST by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: narses

The DSS show us that there is more information to be had than what “modern” man has allowed to be passed down. I think we will find over time there are many more documents to be had. In both the name of science and faith we need to continue to seek them out and study their authors and content. From a faith viewpoint, I don’t think God handed us in modern times all the of his words as easily as it seems but demands we seek them out.


9 posted on 12/25/2012 10:01:48 AM PST by CodeToad (Liberals are bloodsucking ticks. We need to light the matchstick to burn them off.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

here is another interesting approach...a link to an anti catholic page, that uses protestant ‘scholarship’ as some sort of proof.

and yet, AGAIN, the historicity of the early church clearly shows the usage of the catholic version of the bible.

when push comes to shove, i will take those who literally walked and talked with apostles, and other church fathers, and their take on scripture, under the auspices of the one holy catholic and apostolic church, during the birth of the church, as opposed to protestant ‘scholarship’ that DISAGREES WITH THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TO BEGIN WITH, and builds its case from there.


10 posted on 12/25/2012 10:02:00 AM PST by raygunfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: narses
I think I heard that there were 18 books refereed to in the new Testament that were not included. Some no longer exist so much has been lost. I don't like the idea of just one person deciding what should be included and what should not be.
11 posted on 12/25/2012 10:03:28 AM PST by mountainlion (Live well for those that did not make it back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

but with that thinking, that allows for anyone to say anything to bolster their version of scripture and christianity...and who is to determine what is to be ‘sought out’ and considered right, if you have no divinely appointed authority, as the catholic church has?

has the thousands of splintering churches from the reformation not taught us the dangers of assuming god will be with us when seeking the truth in the word alone?


12 posted on 12/25/2012 10:04:19 AM PST by raygunfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: DManA

Also post #10 when he puts the word scholarship in scare quotes.


13 posted on 12/25/2012 10:05:00 AM PST by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: narses

The Protestant, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Assyrian bibles all differ, with four of those being in the original Catholic (not Roman Catholic) church.

Not sure what the point is here.


14 posted on 12/25/2012 10:06:49 AM PST by Free Vulcan (Vote Republican! [You can vote Democrat when you're dead]...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mountainlion
I don't like the idea of just one person deciding what should be included and what should not be.
You have company. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Seminar

The issue, from where I sit, is did Our Lord appoint Apostles to run His Church after He Ascended into Heaven? And if He did, did He give the Apostles the authority to answer questions like these? That has a great deal to do with why I am Catholic.

15 posted on 12/25/2012 10:07:05 AM PST by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

Comment #16 Removed by Moderator

To: Free Vulcan

“Not sure what the point is here.”

Edification. My Christmas gift to the Religion Forum.


17 posted on 12/25/2012 10:09:04 AM PST by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Yashcheritsiy

Thanks for that link.
This is one item that confused the heck out of me:

“Judas Maccabees prayed for the dead and made atonement FOR THEM by sending money to the temple as a sin offering...”

So Jesus’ death and resurrection was not enough? There needs to be additional money payments made?

I don’t think I have enough money to atone for MY sins (for they are many).


18 posted on 12/25/2012 10:11:35 AM PST by Psalm 73 ("Gentlemen, you can't fight in here - this is the War Room".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: narses

From the Roman Catholic perspective, which is also not supported by the other catholic churches in addition to the Protestants, which you neglected to mention.


19 posted on 12/25/2012 10:12:08 AM PST by Free Vulcan (Vote Republican! [You can vote Democrat when you're dead]...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Free Vulcan
From the Roman Catholic perspective,...
Yes. Exactly right. Glad you understood that.
...which is also not supported by the other catholic churches in addition to the Protestants, which you neglected to mention.
Sorry you missed the very clear mention of the Protestant view here. Merry Christmas and May Our Lord Bless you and yours on this, His Nativity.
20 posted on 12/25/2012 10:15:13 AM PST by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Psalm 73

You’re most welcome. Just doing my part to help clear the air of misconceptions about the Bible.


21 posted on 12/25/2012 10:17:05 AM PST by Yashcheritsiy (It's time to Repeal and Replace the Republican Party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Psalm 73; Yashcheritsiy

Prayers for the Dead, the Communion of the Saints and Purgatory are all issues that many great theologians have broken their teeth on.


22 posted on 12/25/2012 10:17:05 AM PST by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: narses
I am reading several books that are not accepted by one group or another. Sometimes I am not sure if I can accept what they say but I am learning form them.
23 posted on 12/25/2012 10:17:19 AM PST by mountainlion (Live well for those that did not make it back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: narses

But not mentioned was the other branches of the catholic church.

Wouldn’t that essentially negate your assertions against the Protestants, while essentially begging the question of why you are not mentioning the positions of the other catholic churches in the interest of full disclosure?


24 posted on 12/25/2012 10:18:26 AM PST by Free Vulcan (Vote Republican! [You can vote Democrat when you're dead]...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: mountainlion

Years ago I was in a weekly Bible study group, 25 or so members, and probably 15 different translations and versions of Holy Writ. It became clear that at least some of the translations and deletions were done to make the Writ conform to the Sect. That struck me as cheating.


25 posted on 12/25/2012 10:19:14 AM PST by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: narses

So?

Sorry, but I find arguments from authority to be exceedingly unsatisfactory. If you want to believe something just because some great theologian 500 years ago did, well, that’s your business.


26 posted on 12/25/2012 10:20:26 AM PST by Yashcheritsiy (It's time to Repeal and Replace the Republican Party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Yashcheritsiy
Sorry, but I find arguments from authority to be exceedingly unsatisfactory.
And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age." (Mt 28:18-20)
If you want to believe something just because some great theologian 500 years ago did, well, that’s your business.
As Augustine put it, 'I would not believe in the Gospels were it not for the authority of the Catholic Church' - but if you want to believe something different just because, well, that’s your business. Merry Christmas!
27 posted on 12/25/2012 10:30:43 AM PST by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: narses

True...but neither you nor your religious organisation have Christ’s authority.


28 posted on 12/25/2012 10:35:53 AM PST by Yashcheritsiy (It's time to Repeal and Replace the Republican Party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: narses

True...but neither you nor your religious organisation have Christ’s authority.


29 posted on 12/25/2012 10:35:53 AM PST by Yashcheritsiy (It's time to Repeal and Replace the Republican Party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: raygunfan

“if you have no divinely appointed authority, as the catholic church has?”

I don’t believe they do. Can you describe the divine intervention they have been provided?


30 posted on 12/25/2012 10:38:41 AM PST by CodeToad (Liberals are bloodsucking ticks. We need to light the matchstick to burn them off.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Yashcheritsiy
True...but neither you nor your religious organisation have Christ’s authority.
Really? Then who did the Apostles leave to govern the Church? No one?
31 posted on 12/25/2012 10:38:52 AM PST by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: narses

Why, local church pastors to shepherd the local churchES, of course.


32 posted on 12/25/2012 10:39:58 AM PST by Yashcheritsiy (It's time to Repeal and Replace the Republican Party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: narses

Question - is the Roman Catholic Bible the Septuagent (pre-Christ Greek translation by Jews) or is the later Masoretic text (post-Christ Hebrew consolidation by Jews)?


33 posted on 12/25/2012 10:56:17 AM PST by Liberty Tree Surgeon (Mow your own lawn!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Psalm 73
“Judas Maccabees prayed for the dead and made atonement FOR THEM by sending money to the temple as a sin offering...”

So Jesus’ death and resurrection was not enough? There needs to be additional money payments made?

Did you not realize Judas Maccabees lived over 150 years before Christ was born? This isn't Judas Iscariot.

34 posted on 12/25/2012 10:57:16 AM PST by newzjunkey (bah)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Yashcheritsiy

“Why, local church pastors to shepherd the local churchES, of course.”

And who chose them?


35 posted on 12/25/2012 10:58:40 AM PST by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

“I don’t believe they do.”

Do you believe that Our Lord appointed the Apostles?


36 posted on 12/25/2012 11:00:51 AM PST by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: narses
In the interest of reasonable accuracy:

The 'Damasian List' is found in a spurious document called the 'Gelasian Decretal' which likely dates to somewhere around 600AD, and has no historical value whatsoever.

The Council of Jamnia nonsense has long been put to bed, and Graetz is long dead.

Stopped reading right there, as a document that relies upon such gibberish is hardly to be taken seriously.

There was no Jewish canon because there was no concept of canon. The Jewish 'Canon' was the Torah. The approved prophets were secondary, and the approved writings were tertiary... And the prophets and writings were in flux.

However, the Masoretic Texts, when they did become canonized, were thought to be a close representation of the Temple collection - And the Dead Sea Scrolls prove that out, being 65% proto-Masoretic in origin. Incidentally, the Alexandrian tradition (read: Septuagint) is reckoned in single digit percentages within the DSS collection, far below even the Babylonian tradition and the local writings of the Qumran community.

37 posted on 12/25/2012 11:07:50 AM PST by roamer_1 (Globalism is just socialism in a business suit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: narses

bookmark


38 posted on 12/25/2012 11:12:06 AM PST by paradoxical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: roamer_1

Using Wikipedia as a source impedes your own arguments.

Stopped reading right there, as claims that rely on such irregular pseudo-scholarship can hardly be taken seriously.


39 posted on 12/25/2012 11:12:06 AM PST by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: narses

“2. They could not have been written after the time of Ezra (around 400 BC);

3. They had to be written in Hebrew;”

Which is why the Septuagint included them?


40 posted on 12/25/2012 11:12:15 AM PST by JCBreckenridge (Texas is a state of mind. - John Steinbeck :))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mountainlion

So then who decides what should be in and what should be out?

If you’re not comfortable with one person - why would you support Luther’s canon?


41 posted on 12/25/2012 11:14:09 AM PST by JCBreckenridge (Texas is a state of mind. - John Steinbeck :))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: narses; Yashcheritsiy

>> “ Then who did the Apostles leave to govern the Church? No one?” <<

.
The “Church” is a mystic body, whose members are indiscernable, thus not governable.

The Church has no offices on Earth; it is headed by Christ, and guided by the Holy Spirit.

Christ called those that would turn his church into a governed body “Nicolaitans,” and stated that he hates them.

The Holy Spirit guides teachers (pastors / bishops) but appoints none of them over anyone. So, yes, he left no one to govern his church, but he left many to guide it.


42 posted on 12/25/2012 11:14:10 AM PST by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: narses; roamer_1

>> “Using Wikipedia as a source impedes your own arguments.” <<

.
Said one of our biggest Wikipedophiles.


43 posted on 12/25/2012 11:16:32 AM PST by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: narses
Using Wikipedia as a source impedes your own arguments.

LOL! Then go look for yourself. Wikipedia is easily at hand, but it is not representing these things falsely.

44 posted on 12/25/2012 11:17:59 AM PST by roamer_1 (Globalism is just socialism in a business suit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge
To err is human. If Luther is generally accepted then OK. If everyone that comes along gets to change things to leave his mark on history it really means little.
45 posted on 12/25/2012 11:18:05 AM PST by mountainlion (Live well for those that did not make it back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

“The “Church” is a mystic body, whose members are indiscernable, thus not governable.”

Then why did Christ preach, “by the fruits you will know them? Why did he appoint the 12 to serve as his disciples? Was not Peter rebuked for denying that he was one of Christ’s disciples?

As Christ himself said - the world will hate you because they hated me. Any of you who is not hated is not his servant. You can tell his true disciples.

“The Church has no offices on Earth; it is headed by Christ, and guided by the Holy Spirit.”

And Christ himself appointed the 12, and as Acts itself says, the 12 replaced their own members.

“Christ called those that would turn his church into a governed body “Nicolaitans,” and stated that he hates them.”

Where does he say this?

“The Holy Spirit guides teachers (pastors / bishops) but appoints none of them over anyone. So, yes, he left no one to govern his church, but he left many to guide it.”

So the Holy Spirit did not elevate the disciples to Apostles?


46 posted on 12/25/2012 11:18:09 AM PST by JCBreckenridge (Texas is a state of mind. - John Steinbeck :))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: narses; CodeToad

>> “Do you believe that Our Lord appointed the Apostles?” <<

.
Nonsequitur.

There is no link between the apostles and the nicolaitans that formed the false churches and then governed them.

The Lord intended that the Holy Spirit would guide his church. That is who he said that he would send.


47 posted on 12/25/2012 11:27:13 AM PST by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

“Nonsequitur”

Not at all, it is a simple question, did Our Lord appoint the Apostles?


48 posted on 12/25/2012 11:32:40 AM PST by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge

>> “and as Acts itself says, the 12 replaced their own members.” <<

.
Yes, it does say that, but there is no recorded fruit from the “appointed” replacement, and he was quickly replaced by Paul as the 12th apostle.

>> “Where does he say this?” <<

.
IN his “Letters to the seven churches” in Revelation.

.
> “So the Holy Spirit did not elevate the disciples to Apostles?” <<

.
All of the apostles were appointed by Christ, in person.

The apostles were charged in the Great Commission with spreading the way to all the world. When they were gone, the Holy Spirit provided all of the guidance to the church through his pastors, and still does to this day.

You cannot look up Christ’s church in any phone book; you have to seek it through prayer.


49 posted on 12/25/2012 11:39:46 AM PST by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: narses

Open eyes, then see http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2972164/posts?page=49#49


50 posted on 12/25/2012 11:41:49 AM PST by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-259 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson