Deuterocanonical books

[adf417]

Wasn’t saying demographically , I was making the point that only Roman Catholics accept 21 councils , hence number of churches , however combine the numbers of the EO and the Reformation churches then yes the majority of Christians support at most seven councils

Based on this logic you are proving Christianity is not true a religion. The majority of people think it is not therefore it must not be, right? Remember this majority includes millions maybe billions that were at one time Christians them selves.

Peace!!!

 

[steve_b]

Why would you not address an Anglo-Catholic as “Anglo-Catholic”? Would you address someone who is Orthodox as “Heterodox”?

minus the exception already mentioned

If a visitor came to your town and asked for directions to the Catholic Church, would they be sent to the Anglican Church, or the Orthodox Church, neither one being Catholic?

Now if by chance they did do that, a Catholic would certainly know they were given wrong directions.
D:

The Polish National Catholic Church is not in communion with Rome, but its sacraments are valid. They will happily tell you they are not Roman Catholic but they are certainly an proudly Polish National Catholics. They are an interesting group and a half, and an interesting off-shoot from the tree for theological dialogue.

Since Peter was the bishop of Rome, and was martyred there, and where Peter is there is the Catholic Church, (famous line from Cyprian ), and since the Polish group you mention is NOT in union with Peter, and Jesus hates division in His Church, I’ll just say, we’ll leave their fate and all the individuals in it, up to Jesus.
D:

With notable exceptions, “those Anglicans” now in full communion with Rome … Roman Catholics of the Anglican Use

and are 100% Catholic
D:

An their love for the KJV will be undiminished.

Yet the KJV is scripture lite (minus 7 OT canonical books). That on its own, diminishes that translation by definition

 

[steve_b]

By the majority of Christian Churches , sorry

Still wrong.

The Orthodox also have those 7 books in their canon.

Luther removed those books on his own. Protestantism as a whole followed him.

And don’t use the argument that Jews don’t have those books in their testament. Those Jews didn’t accept Jesus or the Church He established. The Jews that DID accept Jesus and His Church accepted the Septuagint and those 7 books are scripture. And not to forget, In the beginning the Church was 100% Jewish.

Luther picked the Jews on the wrong side of things, to follow.

 

[JonNC]

minus the exception already mentioned

If a visitor came to your town and asked for directions to the Catholic Church, would they be sent to the Anglican Church, or the Orthodox Church, neither one being Catholic?

Now if by chance they did do that, a Catholic would certainly know they were given wrong directions.

Since Peter was the bishop of Rome, and was martyred there, and where Peter is there is the Catholic Church, (famous line from Cyprian ), and since the Polish group you mention is NOT in union with Peter, and Jesus hates division in His Church, I’ll just say, we’ll leave their fate and all the individuals in it, up to Jesus.

and are 100% Catholic

Yet the KJV is scripture lite (minus 7 OT canonical books). That on its own, diminishes that translation by definition

There’s an Anglican Church I visit from time to time, and that KJV has all 73 books. And they read from the DCs making them canonical.

Jon

 

[steve_b]

There’s an Anglican Church I visit from time to time, and that KJV has all 73 books. And they read from the DCs making them canonical.

Jon

which KJV is THAT?

I looked at the KJV, the NKJV, the AKJV and none have those books.

Look for yourself. Every translation is presented here

biblegateway.com/passage/ that is NOT a Catholic site

As an aside, which Protestant sect refers to the apocrypha as scripture? If they think it’s scripture why do ALL their bibles exclude those books?

 

[JonNC]

Still wrong.

The Orthodox also have those 7 books in their canon.

Luther removed those books on his own. Protestantism as a whole followed him.

And don’t use the argument that Jews don’t have those books in their testament. Those Jews didn’t accept Jesus or the Church He established. The Jews that DID accept Jesus and His Church accepted the Septuagint and those 7 books are scripture. And not to forget, In the beginning the Church was 100% Jewish.

Luther picked the Jews on the wrong side of things, to follow.

Luther didn’t have the power to change the canon, Steve. He only had the power to state his opinion.
Protestants, OTOH, have the power to make their own decisions and are responsible for them. I don’t agree with Zwingli, Calvin, the anabaptists, etc. on a lot of things, but I do not believe they were lemmings, who simply followed Luther ( except that they didn’t). Regardless of the opinions of St. Jerome, Luther , Cajetan, and others on the DCs, Protestants make their own decisions.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

which KJV is THAT?

I looked at the KJV, the NKJV, the AKJV and none have those books.

Look for yourself.

biblegateway.com/passage/ that is NOT a Catholic site

The KJV started with the all 73 books.

kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611-Bible/
Jon

 

[steve_b]

The KJV started with the all 73 books.

kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611-Bible/
Jon

From that site

            **Apocrypha     [What is this?](http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Apocrypha-Books/)**

(all emphasis mine)

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                "The apocrypha is a selection of books which were published in the  original 1611 King James Bible. These apocryphal books were positioned  between the Old and New Testament (it also contained maps and  geneologies). The **apocrypha** was a part of the **KJV for 274 years until  being removed in 1885 A.D**. A portion of these books were called  deuterocanonical books by some entities, such as the Catholic church.

Many claim the apocrypha should never have been included in the first place, raising doubt about its validity and believing it was not God-inspired (for instance, a reference about magic seems inconsistent with the rest of the Bible: Tobit chapter 6, verses 5-8). Others believe it is valid and that it should never have been removed- that it was considered part of the Bible for nearly 2,000 years before it was recently removed a little more than 100 years ago. Some say it was removed because of not finding the books in the original Hebrew manuscripts. Others claim it wasn’t removed by the church, but by printers to cut costs in distributing Bibles in the United States. Both sides tend to cite the same verses that warn against adding or subtracting from the Bible: Revelation 22:18. The word ‘apocrypha’ means ‘hidden.’ Fragments of Dead Sea Scrolls dating back to before 70 A.D. contained parts of the apocrypha books in Hebrew, including Sirach and Tobit source].

Keep this in mind when reading the following apocryphal books. Martin Luther said, “Apocrypha–that is, books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriptures, and yet are profitable and good to read.” (King James Version Defended page 98.)"

By your own source, There is

• zero encouragement to read those books as scrip[ture.[/COLOR]
• zero understanding by Protestants that those books are scripture

That’s why they (all Protestants and their bibles) don’t even include the apocrypha anymore. To THEM THEY ARE NOT SCRIPTURE

 

[Starwarsfan2]

Preface to 2 Maccabees (1534)
" It is proper for the first book to be included among the sacred scriptures " and
" However the whole thing is left ( i.e. left in the canon referring to 2 Macc) and refered to the pious reader to judge and to decide " ( i.e. He’s not excommunicating people who hold to a different canon )

and also

" Yet it’s words and speech adhere to the same style as the other books of sacred scripture "
LW 35:350-351 ( referring to 1 Macc)

He quotes Sirach as Scripture in LW 31:187

And again 74 books in the bible is evidence that he held them as canonical, but he held some in higher value than others .

 

[Starwarsfan2]

From that site

            **Apocrypha     [What is this?](http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Apocrypha-Books/)**

(all emphasis mine)

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                "The apocrypha is a selection of books which were published in the  original 1611 King James Bible. These apocryphal books were positioned  between the Old and New Testament (it also contained maps and  geneologies). The **apocrypha** was a part of the **KJV for 274 years until  being removed in 1885 A.D**. A portion of these books were called  deuterocanonical books by some entities, such as the Catholic church.

Many claim the apocrypha should never have been included in the first place, raising doubt about its validity and believing it was not God-inspired (for instance, a reference about magic seems inconsistent with the rest of the Bible: Tobit chapter 6, verses 5-8). Others believe it is valid and that it should never have been removed- that it was considered part of the Bible for nearly 2,000 years before it was recently removed a little more than 100 years ago. Some say it was removed because of not finding the books in the original Hebrew manuscripts. Others claim it wasn’t removed by the church, but by printers to cut costs in distributing Bibles in the United States. Both sides tend to cite the same verses that warn against adding or subtracting from the Bible: Revelation 22:18. The word ‘apocrypha’ means ‘hidden.’ Fragments of Dead Sea Scrolls dating back to before 70 A.D. contained parts of the apocrypha books in Hebrew, including Sirach and Tobit source].

Keep this in mind when reading the following apocryphal books. Martin Luther said, “Apocrypha–that is, books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriptures, and yet are profitable and good to read.” (King James Version Defended page 98.)"

By your own source, There is

• zero encouragement to read those books as scrip[ture.[/COLOR]
• zero understanding by Protestants that those books are scripture

That’s why they (all Protestants and their bibles) don’t even include the apocrypha anymore. To THEM THEY ARE NOT SCRIPTURE

The " Apocrypha " is just a name , it does not necessarily mean that it’s not canonical, and no not all Reformation Churches follow Luther as I earlier mentioned Anglo Catholics accept those books , the reformed follow Calvins views on the matter , not Luthers .

 

[steve_b]

Luther didn’t have the power to change the canon, Steve. He only had the power to state his opinion.

He didn’t have the power to do a lot of things including making his own bible. It didn’t stop him
J:

Protestants, OTOH, have the power to make their own decisions and are responsible for them.

And they all followed Luther, the founder and quintessential Protestant
J:

I don’t agree with Zwingli, Calvin, the anabaptists, etc. on a lot of things, but I do not believe they were lemmings, who simply followed Luther ( except that they didn’t). Regardless of the opinions of St. Jerome, Luther , Cajetan, and others on the DCs, Protestants make their own decisions.

Jon

If all the Protestant sects did NOT follow Luther, (which we know they did), then who do you think they followed? There was no other bible other than what the Catholic Church produced. And it had 73 books to the canon. It is the same canon decreed by pope Damasus I, in 382 a.d.

Jerome’s Vulgate had all 73 books as canon. No apocrypha section. Cajetan changed nothing about the canon.

Luther OTOH prints his bible, with 66 books to the canon, and presto majesto, all the other Protestant sects have 66 books in their canon. Gee that’s awefully coincidental don’t ya think? Luther started the revolt and the deformation, AND his own bible that all the deformers followed, had an apocrypha section, Just like Luther’s, where the same 7 OT books were demoted from scripture to not scripture.

 

[steve_b]

Preface to 2 Maccabees (1534)
" It is proper for **the first book to be included among the sacred scriptures **" and
" However the whole thing is left ( i.e. left in the canon referring to 2 Macc) and refered to the pious reader to judge and to decide " ( i.e. He’s not excommunicating people who hold to a different canon )

and

" Yet it’s words and speech adhere to the same style as the other books of sacred scripture "
LW 35:350-351 ( referring to 1 Macc)

He quotes Sirach as Scripture in LW 31:187

And again 74 books in the bible is evidence that he held them as canonical, but he held some in higher value than others .

If **they (those books) **were to be included in sacred scripture, he wouldn’t have put those books into the apocrypha and said

Luther said “Apocrypha–that is, books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriptures, and yet are profitable and good to read.”

 

[Starwarsfan2]

He didn’t have the power to do a lot of things including making his own bible. It didn’t stop him

And they all followed Luther, the founder and quintessential Protestant

If all the Protestant sects did NOT follow Luther, (which we know they did), then who do you think they followed? There was no other bible other than what the Catholic Church produced. And it had 73 books to the canon. It is the same canon decreed by pope Damasus I, in 382 a.d.

Jerome’s Vulgate had all 73 books as canon. No apocrypha section. Cajetan changed nothing about the canon.

Luther OTOH prints his bible, with 66 books to the canon, and presto majesto, all the other Protestant sects have 66 books in their canon. Gee that’s awefully coincidental don’t ya think? Luther started the revolt and the deformation, AND his own bible that all the deformers followed, had an apocrypha section, Just like Luther’s, where the same 7 OT books were demoted from scripture to not scripture.

1. He didn’t
   2.False on both counts
2. Calvin , Bucer , Anabaptist reformers , etc
3. :banghead:

 

[Starwarsfan2]

If **they (those books) **were to be included in sacred scripture, he wouldn’t have put those books into the apocrypha and said

Luther said “Apocrypha–that is, books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriptures, and yet are profitable and good to read.”

You just ignored all my quotes , wow

 

[steve_b]

You just ignored all my quotes , wow

The important quote is from your founder

Luther said “Apocrypha–that is, books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriptures, and yet are profitable and good to read.”

 

[Starwarsfan2]

The important quote is from your founder

Luther said “Apocrypha–that is, books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriptures, and yet are profitable and good to read.”

Our founder is Christ my Lord , no one else , and who are you to shut down debate because you don’t like an opponents quotes , I gave you multiple quotes from Luther showing that he accepted the deuterocanical books , and Jon gave some good arguments, but somehow their not important

 

[JonNC]

The important quote is from your founder

Luther said “Apocrypha–that is, books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriptures, and yet are profitable and good to read.”

Steve,
We’ve covered this “your founder” comment before. Unless you are saying and stating, against the teaching of your own Communion, that we are not Christian, but apostate, you know it is a false statement. It is exactly the same kind of false statement others say against Catholics, that you are not Christian. Our ( Catholics and Lutherans) founder is Christ, and Him crucified.

Jon

 

[steve_b]

Our founder is Christ my Lord , no one else , and who are you to shut down debate because you don’t like an opponents quotes , I gave you multiple quotes from Luther showing that he accepted the deuterocanical books , and Jon gave some good arguments, but somehow their not important

Obviously something in wrong in your understanding of your founders own words

Luther said “Apocrypha–that is, books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriptures, and yet are profitable and good to read.”

 

[steve_b]

Steve,
We’ve covered this “your founder” comment before. Unless you are saying and stating, against the teaching of your own Communion, that we are not Christian, but apostate, you know it is a false statement. It is exactly the same kind of false statement others say against Catholics, that you are not Christian. Our ( Catholics and Lutherans) founder is Christ, and Him crucified.

Jon

Jon,

Every one of these founders is Christian. The Great Heresies of history.

As far as “founder”
(emphasis mine)

"Lutheranism, the religious belief held by the oldest and in Europe the most numerous of the Protestant sects,** founded by the Wittenberg reformer, Martin Luther****.** The term Lutheran was first used by his opponents during the Leipzig Disputation in 1519, and afterwards became universally prevalent. Luther preferred the designation “Evangelical”, and today the usual title of the sect is “Evangelical Lutheran Church”. In Germany, where the Lutherans and the Reformed have united (since 1817), the name Lutheran has been abandoned, and the state Church is styled the Evangelical or the Evangelical United. …

For the full article
Lutheranism

Jesus founded His Church in the 1st century on Peter. Pope Francis is the 266th successor to Peter.

Luther founded your religion

 

[JonNC]

Jon,

Every one of these founders is Christian. The Great Heresies of history.

As far as “founder”
(emphasis mine)

"Lutheranism, the religious belief held by the oldest and in Europe the most numerous of the Protestant sects,** founded by the Wittenberg reformer, Martin Luther****.** The term Lutheran was first used by his opponents during the Leipzig Disputation in 1519, and afterwards became universally prevalent. Luther preferred the designation “Evangelical”, and today the usual title of the sect is “Evangelical Lutheran Church”. In Germany, where the Lutherans and the Reformed have united (since 1817), the name Lutheran has been abandoned, and the state Church is styled the Evangelical or the Evangelical United. …

For the full article
Lutheranism

You dodged my post, Steve. If Luther is our founder, that means we worship him and are apostate. Is that your claim? If it is not, them you must recognize our founder as Christians is Christ.
Jon