Posted on 02/28/2015 5:16:22 PM PST by RnMomof7
Yeah since the Catholics were here first, their interpretation has more validity than the newbies that want to limit the Bible to 66 books.
The Book of Job enrages me with its inequity.
What inequality/inequity?
Job gets everything back at the end because he didn’t coplain.
Baptists, at least Southern Baptists believe they go back to very early times. I think I have heard Moses but am not really up on the church’s history.
I do know my Father’s WWII dog tags had a “B” for Baptist instead of a “p” for Protestant.
Just curious, what is the difference between Hebrew and Jew since Abram was called a Hebrew in Genesis 14:13? I always thought them to be the same thing.
The question is, Why did Luther THROW OUT books of the Bible that had been part of the canon for 1500 centuries?
Because they were incompatible with his new heresy, Protestantism.
That’s 1500 years.
He is supposed to be a God of righteousness and justice. That’s what He says anyway.
Rome had an open Canon until Trent. btw Jerome did not believe that the apocryphal writings were inspired. He placed them out of the OT scriptures
The question is why some FRoman Catholics continue to assert something that they have been shown time and again is a blatant falsehood!? I'm curious, what did these extra-Biblical/Deuterocanonical/Apocryphal books contain that would have been "incompatible" with the doctrines of Luther?
For probably the twentieth time, let me refer you to some facts about that spurious charge so maybe you might think twice before trying to slip it in again:
From Luther and the Canon:
Even after Luther finished his translation, he never ceased revising it. Phillip Schaff has pointed out, He never ceased to amend his translation. Besides correcting errors, he improved the uncouth and confused orthography, fixed the inflections, purged the vocabulary of obscure and ignoble words, and made the whole more symmetrical and melodious. He prepared five original editions, or recensions, of his whole Bible, the last in 1545, a year before his death. This is the proper basis of all critical editions.[10] Great care and work went into Luthers Bible. This means that every book in the Bible was given great concern and attention. No book of the Bible was left un-translated. As Catholic writer John Todd observed, The work was done with great method [11] Todd then relates this famous description:
Dr. M. Luther gathered his own Sanhedrin of the best persons available, which assembled weekly, several hours before supper in the doctors cloister, namely D. Johann Burgenhagen, D. Justus Jonas, D. Creuziger, M. Philippum, Mattheum Aurogallum; Magister Georg Roerer, the Korrektor was also present M. Philipp brought the Greek text with him. D Creuziger a Chaldean Bible in addition to Hebrew. The professors had their rabbinical commentaries. D. Pommer also had the Latin text The President submitted a text and permitted each to speak in turn and listened to what each had to say about the characteristics of the language or about the expositions of the doctors in earlier times.[12]
Thus, Luthers Bible is not simply the result of Martin Luther: Especially in his work on the Old Testament, Luther considered himself to be only one of a consortium of scholars at work on the project. He was convinced a translator should not work alone, for as he said, the correct and appropriate words do not always occur to one person alone.[13] Rather than Luther expressing authoritarian power over the translation or removing books from the Bible by fiat, the facts of history show Luther involved other capable scholars. They worked throughout their lives to translate every book of the Bible, and even those books which are not held equal to the Scriptures, but are useful and good to read.
Those who assert Luther took books out of the Bible sometimes wrongly use this sentiment interchangeably with Luther removed books from the canon. For an example of such confusion, see the claims of this Catholic apologist here. If indeed Luther took books out of the Bible, then one expects to open Luthers Bible and find certain books missing. One does not. Catholic apologists that equivocate in such a way should either define their arguments more carefully, or account for the fact that Luther included all the books in his Bible.
Yeah, they kinda do...no, they aren't a higher authority than God, but they are here on Earth and have been assigned the task, by God, to be the teaching authority for Christianity....The Magesterium of the church pretty much has the authority of God to proclaim the Gospel and the truth that is Christianity......you didn't think that He would leave it up to individuals to interpret the Bible as each saw fit did you???
They have handled that task quite successfully for 2,015 years and were promised that they would do so until the end of time.....hang tight!!
Yup, that's what the Holy Spirit had in mind when He made the Magesterium of the Catholic church the arbiter of what went in and what went out....He did a MARVELOUS job....
The twentieth time? I thought it was about 3,975 times by now. 😄😃😃😊
Now that's funny....you did some research on a 2,000 year old religion and decided that 1,600 years AFTER the fact...someone threw out parts of that religion and you think that it was the right thing to do........O.K...chuckle
1609....John Smythe...Amsterdam
Accepting and defending only the 66 book Anti-Christ Pharisee Approved Luther Subset rather than the entire Bible that includes the entire Old Testament is nothing less than asserting that the Holy Spirit is imperfect because the Holy Spirit cannot and did not protect His Holy Word from including error for over fifteen hundred years.
"And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come."
Matthew 12:32
Anyone who falls for and repeats the lie (in any of the many forms it takes) that the anti-Christ Pharisees and/or Martin Luther are perfect but the flawed, imperfect, Holy Spirit cannot and did not protect His Holy Word from the inclusion of error is proving they're under the strong delusion that will lead them to their own destruction.
Their being under a strong delusion in no way mitigates their blaspheming of the Holy Spirit.
Even though James is considered the earliest book written in the contemporary N.T., it was one of last accepted as canonical, and was taken in and out a number of times over the centuries. Some eastern countries have never accepted James (traditional Indian Christian communities, for example). In fact, James in many ways proves itself non-canonical, but only one example is necessary to draw doubt from any open mind. The following is from my book, MetaChristianity VI - Unlocking James Bible Mysteries:
quote==>
Ja.2.21 Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?
James made this claim to justify his works-righteousness gospel:
Ja.2.22-24 You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23 And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called God’s friend. 24 You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.
But Abraham was credited as righteous (Ge.15.6, Ga.3.6) ten years before the incident with Isaac in Ge.22. There is nothing about Abraham being considered righteous because of the incident with Isaac. This incident with Isaac was about Abraham’s obedience to God’s specific instructions and subsequent earthly blessings bestowed on him, not his righteousness. “Now I know that you fear God...I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and the sand on the seashore.” Abraham’s righteousness was “fulfilled” when “he believed God” in Ge.15. Between these two events God instructed Abraham to institute circumcision as part of His covenant with Abraham (Ge.17). Why would James not site this as the “fulfillment” of Abraham’s righteousness? Was it not enough works? Paul explains:
Ro.4.9-11a Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham’s faith was credited to him as righteousness. 10 Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! 11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised.
Paul confirms that Abraham was credited with “righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised.” Here’s the timeline:
1) faith/righteousness = Ge.15
2) circumcision = Ge.17
3) Isaac incident = Ge.22
But, presuming James is correct, how does James know that the Isaac incident was enough? And how are we to know when we have done enough works so that our own righteousness is “complete” as James attributed to Abraham? Must we offer up our sons as well? What if we don’t hear God say “stop!”? And just what are we to make of the statement of Ge.15.6 “Abraham believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness”? If Abraham, without sufficient works, was not “completely” credited as justified for the ensuing ten years, what did Moses think he was doing declaring that God credited Abraham as righteous just for believing?
Ja.2.24 You see that a person is [being] justified by what he does and not by faith alone.
James here illustrates that not only does he not understand justification, but he is not even consistent in what he espouses. In verse twenty one he claimed that Abraham “was considered righteous for what he did”. He also claims in verse twenty two that “his faith was made complete by what he did.” So Abraham had accomplished righteousness according to James. But then James in an about face claims that justification is an ongoing process - “a person is [being] justified by what he does”. (Even though the “being” is excluded from most translations it is correct based on the Greek grammar.) James now claims that justification is an open-ended proposition. In other words, James insists that justification is a continually on-going process - a complete contrast with what he claimed about Abraham.
The answer to James original question is NO, Abraham was NOT considered righteous “for what he did.” Paul confirms this in Romans:
Ro.4.1-5 What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, discovered in this matter? 2 If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works [or as James put it, “what he did”], he had something to boast aboutbut not before God. 3 What does Scripture say? Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.
4 Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation. 5 However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness.
If Paul had agreed with James he would have confirmed what James said. But he did not - he contradicted James in stark black and white. Paul and Moses agree, and James is the odd man out. James tried to pull a fast one, and even if this were the only evidence against the canonicity of James, it would be enough by itself.
<==/quote
As a side note, Mid-Acts Dispensationalism does not explain this blatant contradiction between James, and Mose and Paul.
This is just one of many evidences that I explore in my book that leads the conclusion that the epistle of James is not inspired of God and not canonical.
Good for you that you accept whatever the Catholic Church has to dole out to convince people of the worthiness. If whatever you believe provides you comfort more power to you.
Don’t you think that the Council of Carthage in AD 397 deserves at least a mention?
Once someone insists the Holy Spirit is imperfect and incapable of keeping His Word free from error there's no real limit on what alterations to Scripture they'll advocate because they've elevated their Self above the Holy Spirit.
Throwing Scripture into the garbage and defaming what Scripture clearly teaches should be sacred is an example of how right Bishop Fulton Sheen was when in 1931 in response to non-Catholics accepting contraception he said,
"Since a week ago last Saturday, we can no longer expect them to defend the law of God. These sects will work out the logic of their ways and in fifty or a hundred years there will be only the Church and paganism. We'll be left to fight the battle alone and we will."
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.