J
justasking4
Guest
No. Where these OT deutro canonical come books come into play is with doctrines and practices. In my observations i see Macabees being used to promote praying for the dead.
Is Jesus Christ and the Roman Catholic Church the only way to salvation?
- Status
S
sodak
Guest
Still up to your old tricks? Let’s be clear about this, as if I wasn’t already. You misspoke about what was in the Bible. I corrected you, and gave you the opportunity to recant. You didn’t, and now you are repeating the lie. And it’s a lie that is EASILY refuted. Praying for the dead is absolutely in the Bible, and there can be NO uncertainty or “interpretation”.
This is a Catholic forum. You insult our Bible and lie about it, not too many people are going to be interested in what you have to say. I pretty much skip over your posts, as I see your anti-Catholic bigotry on display, as well as the bigotry of others, such as protestantman.
I used to be interested in what Protestants have to say, but after enough time in this and other threads, posters like you really have nothing to add. Just slurs and calumny. Perhaps in politics if you repeat a lie often enough people will start to believe it, but the Catholics on this forum, I’m very happy to see, defend the truth over and over again.
J
justasking4
Guest
Is not what you are referring to are the deutro canonical books which were not consider fully “inspired-inerrant” by the church until Trent?
Do you know who Judas Macabee (?) was? Isn’t he the one who said it was good to pray for the dead?
Does this mean were no longer friends?
What does calumny mean?
G
guanophore
Guest
I see that you would be correct on that point. This is one of the clearest examples where this was practiced for some time before Christ. And Jesus reinforced this, by making it clear that God is not the God of the dead, but the living. He told those that did not believe “you are quite wrong”.
No. That is the same as saying that the Gospels and Epistles were not considered canonical until the fourth century. You know that this is not true. The books were listed because the reformers wanted to take them out, and it is the duty of the Church to preserve sound doctrine. You know yourself that scripture is considered infallible and inerrant the moment it is penned. Even Peter affirmed Paul’s letters as such. To say they were “not considered fully inspired-inerrant” until proclaimed as such in a council is just a lie.
This would be an interesting study for you, ja4. You will find that Jesus was fully supportive of what happened, and was in the Temple celebrating the rededication that was initiated as the result fo the Macabean revolt. It was the Feast of Lights that prompted Jesus to say “I am the Light of the world”.
It is difficult to be friends with people who deliberately bear false witness against their neighbor.Does this mean were no longer friends?
It is your modus operandi, and is found woven through all your posts. You are a master of it.
S
steve_b
Guest
No, grace comes first, then faith comes second. That’s the way the passage is written.
reteeks:
I asked, what happens to the one who does NOT do what God prepared in advance for them to DO?
P
peary
Guest
*Originally Posted by *reteeks21 **
Because without verse 9, there is no verse 10. Works are born out the faith He gives in verses 8-9.
What do you mean by ‘works’?
Because without verse 9, there is no verse 10. Works are born out the faith He gives in verses 8-9.
What do you mean by ‘works’?
G
guanophore
Guest
This is a good criteria and is the one used by the Catholic Church to recognize that Bible alone, faith alone, grace alone, once saved always saved and other modern newfangled doctrines are not correct.
R
rbarcia
Guest
Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation. Once you are saved you become part of the church, which is the members.
John 14:6
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
Acts 4:12
Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."
Exodus 34:14
Do not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.
1 John 2:22
Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist—he denies the Father and the Son.
1 John 2:23
No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.
belonging to the Lord is the result, not the cause of salvation. the church are the believers, not a separate entity.
1 Corinthians 11:18
For first of all, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you, and in part I believe it.
John 14:6
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
Acts 4:12
Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."
Exodus 34:14
Do not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.
1 John 2:22
Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist—he denies the Father and the Son.
1 John 2:23
No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.
belonging to the Lord is the result, not the cause of salvation. the church are the believers, not a separate entity.
1 Corinthians 11:18
For first of all, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you, and in part I believe it.
G
guanophore
Guest
Jesus is the only way to salvation, but one becomes part of the church through baptism, and one is not “saved” until one has finished the race. The Church is comprised of more than the “members”.
J
justasking4
Guest
Where did Jesus or His apostles teach that Christians to pray for the dead in the NT?
It was not about the reformers wanting to take these deutrocanonical books out but that the council of Trent decided at this council in response to the reformation to elevate these books to full canon status.
You did not answer my question. Perhaps you don’t know your own bible that well…
J
justasking4
Guest
If what you say is true --“one is not “saved” until one has finished the race” then what am to make of this passage in Ephesians 2:8-9 which says nothing of baptism–
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;
9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.
or in I Corinthians 15:1-4:
:1 Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand,
2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.
3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,
Again, the scriptures speak of being saved now and not waiting to the end to be saved.
L
Lampo
Guest
Did Martin Luther remove them?
So the New Testament wasn’t “full canon status” either until Trent?
J
justasking4
Guest
Here’ what i found about this question:
"Initially Luther had a low view of the books of Esther, Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation. He called the Epistle of James “an epistle of straw,” finding little in it that pointed to Christ and His saving work. He also had harsh words for the book of Revelation, saying that he could “in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it.”[3] He had reason to question the apostolicity of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation because the early church categorized these books as antilegomena, meaning that they were not accepted without reservation as canonical. Luther did not, however, remove them from his editions of the Scriptures. His views on some of these books changed in later years.
Luther chose to place in the Apocrypha, an inter-testamental section of his bible, those portions of the Old Testament found in the Greek Septuagint but not in the Hebrew Masoretic text. These were included in his earliest translation, but were later set aside as “good to read” but not as the inspired Word of God. The setting aside (or simple exclusion) of these texts from Bibles was eventually adopted by nearly all Protestants."–Wikipedia
No. The NT had full canon status since the 4th century.
J
justasking4
Guest
This also applies to the marian doctrines, purgatory, infallible pope, celibate leadership, treasury of merit, praying to dead saints, eating meat on Fridays during lent is a sin, etc.Originally Posted by justasking4
It depends what it is and if it runs counter to what has been revealed then no.
guanophore;
This is a good criteria and is the one used by the Catholic Church to recognize that Bible alone, faith alone, grace alone, once saved always saved and other modern newfangled doctrines are not correct.
L
Lampo
Guest
How does this *not *mean removing them?
But that doesn’t follow your reasoning. Let’s see, the Council of Rome in 382 determined the Canon of Scripture (46 OT Books and 27 NT Books). The Council of Hippo in ~386 ratified the Council of Rome. The Council of Carthage in ~397 confirmed the two previous councils and the Canon of Scripture was settled - 46 Old Testament Books and 27 New Testament Books.
You are right that the NT had full canon status since the 4th Century. It only follows that the Deuterocanonicals did as well since they were included when determining the Canon at the same Councils the NT was determined to be part of the Canon.
J
justasking4
Guest
You asked if Luther did and it appears he himself did not. Later protestants did and for good reasons.
What you are referring to is the OT canon and not the NT.
Not so. The apocrypha was considered deutrocanonical i.e. second canon. In fact no council of the first 4 centuries accepted them as inspired.
L
Lampo
Guest
So you admit to following traditions of men.
Nope. I’m referring to both.
Either you are ignorant of this or you are a liar. I pray it is the former. I can prove my arguments by pointing you to the documents of the said Councils. Show me where these Councils excluded the Deuterocanonicals while at the same time accepting the NT Books.
J
justasking4
Guest
Only if they teach the truth.
Since the 4th century the NT canon has always been accepted. The Deuterocanonicals though were not accpted by all at the same level as the other 39 books of the OT.
Why do you think the term “deutrocanonical” is applied to these books?
L
Lampo
Guest
How do you determine that they are teaching the truth? By your own authority? By going to the Pillar and Bullwark of Truth, the Church?
This simply is not true. They were in fact accepted by the same Councils at the same time the NT Canon was accepted. Deuterocanonical means second canon, but that does not imply they were not accepted as the official Canon of Scripture as is evidenced by them being included when determining the official Canon in the Councils of Rome, Hippo and Carthage. You just cannot get around the facts sir, as hard as you might try.
J
justasking4
Guest
I do what Paul commanded the Thessalonians in 5:21–But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good;
Sometimes i will consult others who have greater knowledge than i do such as a pastor who would be part of the church you speak of.
Quote:
Why do you think these books were put in this “second canon”?
- Status