Catholic bible and the Deuterocanon

[Anna_Scott]

thearda.com/mapsReports/reports/evangelical.asp
religioustolerance.org/chr_evan.htm
nobts.edu/Faculty/ItoR/LemkeSW/Personal/SBCfuture.pdf
sbc.net/globalrelations/AboutUs.asp?url=iframe-aboutus.asp

BrianH,
None of those links say the SBC is part of the National Association of Evangelicals. As I said, Southern Baptists are evangelical in a sense–to a degree. For Southern Baptists, it all about the Southern Baptist Convention. The Southern Baptist Convention is the Southern Baptist Church.

Peace,
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

First, my apologies to the OP for this off-topic sidebar.

thearda.com/mapsReports/reports/evangelical.asp
religioustolerance.org/chr_evan.htm
nobts.edu/Faculty/ItoR/LemkeSW/Personal/SBCfuture.pdf
sbc.net/globalrelations/AboutUs.asp?url=iframe-aboutus.asp

BrianH,
None of those links say the SBC is part of the National Association of Evangelicals. As I said, Southern Baptists are evangelical in a sense–to a degree. For Southern Baptists, it all about the Southern Baptist Convention. The Southern Baptist Convention is the Southern Baptist Church.

Peace,
Anna

BrianH,
I had to leave for a bit, but still have more to say. I do understand the confusion regarding Southern Baptists and Evangelicalism. There has been quite a bit of discussion on the issue.

. .Southern Baptists can be considered evangelical to a degree:

There has been much intra-denominational controversy over the years over whether or not Southern Baptists are evangelicals, but Finn argued that Southern Baptists are evangelicals because they have much in common with evangelicals in doctrine and understanding the Christian life. news.sbts.edu/2009/10/13/sout…nce-attendees/

I don’t keep up with the SBC issues as I did in the past; because I’m no longer in the Church, and my emphasis of study has changed.

However, I wouldn’t be surprised if the SBC does eventually join the National Association of Evangelicals. That’s why I said, “I’m open to correction, if you have more recent information,” regarding membership. One could call Baptists “Denominational Evangelicals.” That’s usually the slot used, when there is a need to place Southern Baptists in a category.

However, if you search the question, “Are Southern Baptists Evangelicals?” You will find multiple articles arguing both yes and no. It’s a complicated issue, to say the least. The fact that the word “Evangelicalism” is difficult to define, contributes to the confusion. When I was a Southern Baptist, I did not consider myself to be Evangelical. Though, others in my congregation might identify more with the term. Bottom line: it’s complicated.

Anyway, I really don’t want to spend anymore time on this—it’s off our thread topic. You can research the issue, if you are so inclined.

Peace,
Anna

 

[CopticChristian]

Okay. I think I understand. You said “you equate” and I had not mentioned Luther or Jerome. I thought that you thought that I had mentioned them. I have not.

 

[CopticChristian]

BrianH,

Then say “leadership” in mainline denominations. As I said before, we can’t read your mind Brian.

Peace,
Anna

Anna,

I am so grateful that you cannot read my mind…it would drive you nuts…I have problems living with myself and could not imagine anyone else reading the chaos.

 

[David]

Some proof the Catholic Church was right:

Rabbi Akiva (ca.17–ca.137 CE)
"Eminent as Akiva was by his magnanimity and moral worthiness, he was still more so by his intellectual capacity, by which he secured an enduring influence upon his contemporaries and upon posterity. In the first place, Akiva was the one who definitely fixed the canon of the Old Testament books.** He protested strongly against the canonicity of certain of the Apocrypha, the Wisdom of Sirach,** for instance so that Akiva’s utterance reads, “He who reads aloud in the synagogue from books not belonging to the canon as if they were canonical,” etc.

He has, however, no objection to the private reading of the Apocrypha, as is evident from the fact that he himself makes frequent use of Sirach (W. Bacher, Ag. Tan. i. 277; H. Grätz, Gnosticismus, p. 120). Akiva stoutly defended, however, the canonicity of the Song of Songs, and Esther (Yad. iii.5, Meg. 7a). Grätz’s statements (Shir ha-Shirim, p. 115, and Kohelet, p. 169) respecting Akiva’s attitude toward the canonicity of the Song of Songs are misconceptions, as I.H. Weiss (Dor, ii. 97) has to some extent shown. To the same motive underlying his antagonism to the Apocrypha, namely, the desire to disarm Christians—especially Jewish Christians—who drew their “proofs” from the Apocrypha, must also be attributed his wish to emancipate the Jews of the Dispersion from the domination of the Septuagint, the errors and inaccuracies in which frequently distorted the true meaning of Scripture, and were even used as arguments against the Jews by the Christians."

From Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akiva_ben_Joseph

The point here is that Rabbi Akiva could not protest against these books had they not been included in the canon. There would be no reason to protest books not considered canonized.

Peace
David

 

[Anna_Scott]

Anna,

I am so grateful that you cannot read my mind…it would drive you nuts…I have problems living with myself and could not imagine anyone else reading the chaos.

Coptic, Coptic, Coptic,

Guess it’s a good thing I can’t read your mind, or anyone’s for that matter. It might be too scary.

I get after BrianH, because he posts things that sound different from what he eventually ends up saying. Gotta give someone a heard time.

Peace,
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

Okay. I think I understand. You said “you equate” and I had not mentioned Luther or Jerome. I thought that you thought that I had mentioned them. I have not.

Second thing you say “There was no ecclessial body that did so”.

The Council of Trent officially canonized the Deuterocanonical Books and that was circa 1545 to around 1560 or so.
The thirty nine articles of the Church of England (from which we stem) in 1563 did state: . . .

BrianH,

The Anglican view of the DC Books is not always in line with the 39 Articles. If you discuss the DC with a group of Anglicans (which I have on another forum,) you will get different opinions re whether or not the DC are “inspired” and carry the same weight as the Protocanonical Books. Anglo Catholics, such as myself, are more inclined to agree with Catholics in Communion with Rome, when it comes to the Canon.

Peace,
Anna

P.S. Keep in mind, when Henry first broke away from Papal authority, England was Catholic without a Pope. Protestant influences entered later.

 

[Anna_Scott]

BrianH,
Wikipedia???

Southern Baptists can be considered evangelical to a degree:

There has been much intra-denominational controversy over the years over whether or not Southern Baptists are evangelicals, but Finn argued that Southern Baptists are evangelicals because they have much in common with evangelicals in doctrine and understanding the Christian life. news.sbts.edu/2009/10/13/sout…nce-attendees/

So are you saying that Southern Baptists should not be considered evangelicals?
What then?
They are not mainline so what other category are you suggesting?

The SBC is evangelical in a sense, but they are not part of the National Association of Evangelicals; and they consider themselves too conservative to be categorized as “mainline protestants.” Southern Baptists are Southern Baptists.

Peace,
Anna

thearda.com/mapsReports/reports/evangelical.asp
religioustolerance.org/chr_evan.htm
nobts.edu/Faculty/ItoR/LemkeSW/Personal/SBCfuture.pdf
sbc.net/globalrelations/AboutUs.asp?url=iframe-aboutus.asp

BrianH,
None of those links say the SBC is part of the National Association of Evangelicals. As I said, Southern Baptists are evangelical in a sense–to a degree. For Southern Baptists, it all about the Southern Baptist Convention. The Southern Baptist Convention is the Southern Baptist Church.

Peace,
Anna

. . .BrianH,
I had to leave for a bit, but still have more to say. I do understand the confusion regarding Southern Baptists and Evangelicalism. There has been quite a bit of discussion on the issue. . .

I don’t keep up with the SBC issues as I did in the past; because I’m no longer in the Church, and my emphasis of study has changed.

However, I wouldn’t be surprised if the SBC does eventually join the National Association of Evangelicals. That’s why I said, “I’m open to correction, if you have more recent information,” regarding membership. One could call Baptists “Denominational Evangelicals.” That’s usually the slot used, when there is a need to place Southern Baptists in a category.

However, if you search the question, “Are Southern Baptists Evangelicals?” You will find multiple articles arguing both yes and no. It’s a complicated issue, to say the least. The fact that the word “Evangelicalism” is difficult to define, contributes to the confusion. When I was a Southern Baptist, I did not consider myself to be Evangelical. Though, others in my congregation might identify more with the term. Bottom line: it’s complicated.

Anyway, I really don’t want to spend anymore time on this—it’s off our thread topic. You can research the issue, if you are so inclined.

Peace,
Anna

BrianH,

I asked the question, “Are Southern Baptists Evangelicals?” on a Baptist Forum at christianforums.com. BrookeGF gave a very insightful answer in Post #7 at this link: christianforums.com/t7625655/#post59601083.

Hope this helps.

Again, to the OP: Please forgive the sidebar.

Peace,
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

BrianH,

I asked the question, “Are Southern Baptists Evangelicals?” on a Baptist Forum at christianforums.com. BrookeGF gave a very insightful answer in Post #7 at this link: christianforums.com/t7625655/#post59601083.

Hope this helps.

Again, to the OP: Please forgive the sidebar.

Peace,
Anna

BrianH,

Also, see WinBySurrender’s post #10, regarding my statement about Southern Baptists being "“considered evangelical to a degree.” Link: christianforums.com/t7625655/.

I defer to Southern Baptists and appreciate their help in clarifying their position regarding Evangelical/Evangelicalism.

Peace,
Anna

 

[PerryJ]

Below is from the Catholic Answers Browse and has been discussed on CA radio…the onus is to prove otherwise…

Who took the Apocrypha out of the Bible?

Originally it was effectively against the law to print the Bible in America, because the Crown held the copyright on the King James Version (it still does in England) but did not license any printers in their American colonies. The American Revolution made the United States an independent country. Since there were no international copyright treaties at the time, it was possible to print an English Bible in the United States. Shortly after the Revolution, the First Great Awakening created a big demand for Bibles.

For the first time, it was both profitable and legal to print English-language Bibles in America.

American printers discovered that they could leave out the Apocrypha and sell the Bible for the same price, and no one would care because it wasn’t used much. So they left out the Apocrypha to increase their profits. Some of the homegrown religious groups naïvely assumed that whatever was not in their Bible was not in the canon. Later, when Catholics became a significant segment of the population, a non-Catholic would say, “That’s not in my Bible” to a Catholic, completely unaware that it was the printer who left it out. A Lutheran pastor told me that one of his parishioners was insistent that the Lutheran Church did not recognize the Apocrypha as Scripture. The parishioner was astonished when he saw the church by-law that says it is. The parishioner had assumed that his copy of the Bible was complete when it wasn’t.

Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox Christians use the Apocrypha and it is part of the Bible for them. Many independent churches and low-church denominations are only aware that it is not in their printing of the Bible, and think it is a Catholic addition when it is really a printer’s subtraction.

In other words, printers removed the Apocrypha from the Bible, not any church.

I dont know why your discussing anything from the Age of the America’s. The Reformation was driven in Europe and your parsing is not relevant. The America’s were an after thought. The DCs inclusion and exclusion was a debate much early then this quote. What you are describing is merely a reaction to the Reformation at a later time. Protestants already deemed the books irrelevant. Why would a printer include books considered irrelevant? They were deemed irrelevant in Europe.

To state that that the DCs were excluded by printers is like saying people stopped buying whips for horses because they were expensive. No people stopped buying whips because they were buying cars.

 

[PerryJ]

Jewish eschatology ranges from annihilationism to an undefined and vague belief in Sheol in parts of the Old Testament. Mainline Protestants are certain aware that Jewish eschatology in intertestamental times included a belief in an intermediate state. The inclusion of the Deuterocanonical Books does not change Christian eschatology. It just would not in the mainline denominations. However your background and what you are describing is certainly not mainline it appears. Elders?
The polity you are describing is what denomination exactly?

That is a very Protestant thought “Jewish eschatology ranges from annihilationism to and undefined and vague belief in Sheol” the Old Testament can not be parsed in such a manner and as such I do not understand your point. You can not pull parts of of the play Camelot out and make any sense of it. The Bible/old Testament has to be understood in its entirety.

Inclusion of the DCs changes the mainline belief that most Protestants hold against purgatory.

I am not sure why you do not understand the term elders. Soem denominations use deacons. Both are very much used in many mainline Churches and they are in the Bible. ???

 

[BrianH]

That is a very Protestant thought “Jewish eschatology ranges from annihilationism to and undefined and vague belief in Sheol” the Old Testament can not be parsed in such a manner and as such I do not understand your point. You can not pull parts of of the play Camelot out and make any sense of it. The Bible/old Testament has to be understood in its entirety.

Protestant thought. Really?
From the Catholic Encyclopedia

Old Testament eschatology
Without going into details either by way of exposition or of criticism, it will be sufficient to point out how Old Testament eschatology compares with ethnic systems, and how notwithstanding its deficiencies in point of clearness and completeness, it was not an unworthy preparation for the fullness of Christian Revelation.

(1) Old Testament eschatology, even in its earliest and most imperfect form, shares in the distinctive character which belongs to Old Testament religion generally. Such additions and developments occur in Old Testament teaching; but before noticing them it is well to call attention to the two chief defects, or limitations, which attach to the earlier eschatology and continue, by their persistence in popular belief, to hinder more or less the correct understanding and acceptance by the Jewish people as a whole of the highest eschatological utterances of their own inspired teachers.
(2) The first of these defects is the silence of the earlier and of some of the later books on the subject of moral retribution after death,** or at least the extreme vagueness **of such passages in these books as might be understood to refer to this subject. Death is not extinction; but Sheol, the underworld of the dead, in early Hebrew thought is not very different from the Babylonian Aralu or the Homeric Hades, except that Jahve is God even there. It is a dreary abode in which all that is prized in life, including friendly intercourse with God, comes to an end without any definite promise of renewal. Dishonour incurred in life or in death, clings to a man in Sheol, like the honour he may have won by a virtuous life on earth; but otherwise conditions in Sheol are not represented as retributive, except in the vaguest way

 

[PerryJ]

Protestant thought. Really?
From the Catholic Encyclopedia

Do you understand this quote? It supports my statement.

 

[CopticChristian]

I dont know why your discussing anything from the Age of the America’s. The Reformation was driven in Europe and your **parsing **is not relevant. The America’s were an after thought. The DCs inclusion and exclusion was a debate much early then this quote. What you are describing is merely a reaction to the Reformation at a later time. Protestants already deemed the books irrelevant. Why would a printer include books considered irrelevant? They were deemed irrelevant in Europe.

To state that that the DCs were excluded by printers is like saying people stopped buying whips for horses because they were expensive. No people stopped buying whips because they were buying cars.

I understand your notion of where I am parsing. My parsing sometimes takes various forms depending on what I am parsing. Sometimes my parsing is complete. Sometimes my parsing is incomplete. In the context of the question I want answered I am not sure if I parsed so that you understand what it is I am asking. This parsing should of course take into consideration that no one person parses like any other unless there is agreement on parsing.

My question. What ecclesial body took the DC out of any Bible?

I don’t care what Jerome thought. I don’t care what Luther thought? I don’t care what any ecclesial body thought. I want action. As you know all actions require intention and will to produce some action thereby causing something. In the course of parsing I am interested in the action. That action is “what ecclesial body” took the DC out of the Bible…Yes there were thoughts. Yes there was debate. Somebody did something. In the parsing explain what ecclesial body removed the DC. Are we on the same page?

I love similes, metaphors and symbolic language. In using similes they have to make sense and have to be relevant particularly in the parsing.

There is no one way to know why people stopped buying whips. Some people may have bought a car and had a horse and therefore continued to buy whips. Some people got rid of their whips because they no longer had horses. Some people continued to buy whips because they bought a car and did not understand that the horsepower under the hood did not need a whip. Some people stopped buying whips because they could not afford it. Some people stopped buying whips because as they parsed they chose not to.

This simile has little relevance to parsing, horsepower or the Bible.

 

[Anna_Scott]

So are you saying that Southern Baptists should not be considered evangelicals?
What then?
They are not mainline so what other category are you suggesting?

BrianH,

I asked the question, “Are Southern Baptists Evangelicals?” on a Baptist Forum at christianforums.com. BrookeGF gave a very insightful answer in Post #7 at this link: christianforums.com/t7625655/#post59601083.

Hope this helps.

Again, to the OP: Please forgive the sidebar.

Peace,
Anna

BrianH,

Also, see WinBySurrender’s post #10, regarding my statement about Southern Baptists being "“considered evangelical to a degree.” Link: christianforums.com/t7625655/.

I defer to Southern Baptists and appreciate their help in clarifying their position regarding Evangelical/Evangelicalism.

Peace,
Anna

BrianH,

Just want to make sure you had a chance to check the links I posted. Please let me know.

Thanks,
Anna

 

[BrianH]

Do you understand this quote? It supports my statement.

Well it certainly supports my statement as well!

 

[BrianH]

BrianH,

Just want to make sure you had a chance to check the links I posted. Please let me know.

Thanks,
Anna

Yes. Thanks.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Yes. Thanks.

Thanks for letting me know.

Anna

 

[CopticChristian]

That is a very Protestant thought “Jewish eschatology ranges from annihilationism to and undefined and vague belief in Sheol” the Old Testament can not be parsed in such a manner and as such I do not understand your point. You can not pull parts of of the play Camelot out and make any sense of it. The Bible/old Testament has to be understood in its entirety.

Inclusion of the DCs changes the mainline belief that most Protestants hold against purgatory.

I am not sure why you do not understand the term elders. Soem denominations use deacons. Both are very much used in many mainline Churches and they are in the Bible. ???

Are you able to name and direct me to any ecclesial body that acted to remove the DC?

 

[CopticChristian]

Yes. Thanks.

Are you able to name and direct me to any ecclesial body that acted to remove the DC?