Is simple better?

[LutheranScholar]

So yeah, simple and basic really* is* better. See what kind of arguments can stem from debating minutiae like this? I suppose I could go on to describe Jerome’s opposition to regarding the Apocrypha as Scripture justforcatholics.org/a108.htm and Cajetan’s opposition to including the Apocrypha in the canon in the Council of Trent beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/01/cajetan-on-canon-hes-ok-bcause-hes-one.html, but again, it’s almost adiaphoric nit- picking. It’s also common knowledge that the canon was never truly closed until the descendants of the Early Church, the Lutherans and the Catholics, in their respective councils, decided just what was canon and what wasn’t. The other Protestants tended to fall in line behind Luther despite their doctrines when it came to Scriptural canon. The case is what it is today and even without the seven disputed books, we Protestants have an Old Testament a Jew might perhaps readily recognize as containing the books of their own Tanach ( if in different order).

 

[Hatikvah]

No there are others you will find in the Orthodox canon. Depending on which branch because they still dont have a universally approved canon today. My orthodox bible has like 76 books

The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church and its Eritrean counterpart has 81, the biggest of the Christian canons. They’re Oriental Orthodox, though, not Eastern Orthodox.

Many of them are actually old, and answering some questions about Adam and Eve, they have further implications, etc. They even have books after Revelation…

ethiopianorthodox.org/english/canonical/books.html

 

[LutheranScholar]

How was your walk?

I thought it was only seven books? We use sixty-six books, everybody but Restorationists use seventy-three. Or is there a difference between the deuterocanon and the Apocrypha?

This EWTN source says that Luther excluded seven, too: ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage.asp?number=438095

It was all right. I walked the dog and got accosted by a stranger who didn’t appreciate my letting my dog take a dook by the mailbox, but fortunately my handy- dandy pick up bag was there to collect the mess.

cph.org/p-19305-the-apocrypha-the-lutheran-edition-with-notes.aspx

AARRRGGHHHH!!! My Steinbrenner German Lutheran ancestors did read the Apocrypha and my Gooding English Methodist ancestors were*** too damned lazy*** to put the books in!!! I stand humbled!
cph.org/p-19305-the-apocrypha-the-lutheran-edition-with-notes.aspx

 

[Lenten_ashes]

The 1611 Middle English Authorized Version of the King James Bible also had the Deuterocanon, and theirs was a post-English Reformation Anglican translation.

Yes, the Gutenberg bible was 1455 and those books were there and considered scripture.

I think the two you mentioned both had them but separated with some sort of different classification as uninspired. We still used them in the Anglican church for teaching purposes when i was there.

Btw had King Henry been granted a annulment they would still be considered scripture for Anglicans as well

 

[JoyToTheWhirled]

Seriously you guys, always something interesting to learn here, however complex or simple

 

[Hatikvah]

AARRRGGHHHH!!! My Steinbrenner German Lutheran ancestors did read the Apocrypha and my Gooding English Methodist ancestors were too damned lazy to put the books in!!! I stand humbled!
cph.org/p-19305-the-apocrypha-the-lutheran-edition-with-notes.aspx

Oh, my grandparents are Catholic and they have a Bible with an Apocrypha in it… but it’s in Canadian French, won’t help much.

 

[LutheranScholar]

Oh, my grandparents are Catholic and they have a Bible with an Apocrypha in it… but it’s in Canadian French, won’t help much.

Neat. My Mom’s Mom was half Cajun French and she had *beaucoup *Catholic things like Rosary beads, portraits of Jesus and Mary and a wooden crucifix her grandfather made. I asked for them when she passed away. I’d spoken to her a couple of times in my dreams since. The Pecot family was hard core Catholic back in the day. When my great grandmother insisted on marrying a Protestant ( in a Catholic ceremony, of course), she was disowned. Until my great- grandfather agreed to receive instruction and convert. I still have his confirmation certificate. He converted a couple of years after Granny was born ( 1913).

 

[Monica4316]

Protestant teaching generally holds that you need do only one thing to be saved, that is to have faith that Jesus died for your sins and that is it, the job is done. Some take this further than others for sure, but that is the gist of it, and indeed is it’s unique selling point.

Catholic teaching (and Orthodox as I understand it) requires much more of the believer. In comparison to the simplicity of protestant ‘believe and be saved’ does Catholicism come across as woefully complicated and far too difficult?

No I think it’s just realistic… I mean what happens if someone “accepts Jesus” but doesn’t actually try to follow Him, do they really love Him? we show our love through actions. What happens if they leave God through a grave sin in the future? each grave sin is essentially leaving God. They’d need to repent

 

[Hatikvah]

No I think it’s just realistic… I mean what happens if someone “accepts Jesus” but doesn’t actually try to follow Him, do they really love Him? we show our love through actions. What happens if they leave God through a grave sin in the future? each grave sin is essentially leaving God. They’d need to repent

There are differences. The guy who wrote the ultra-Fundamentalist website jesus-is-savior.com denounces everything as a “cult” and says that we have eternal security as a “license to sin.” (I’m sure you can find some articles on that.)

 

[Lenten_ashes]

The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church and its Eritrean counterpart has 81, the biggest of the Christian canons. They’re Oriental Orthodox, though, not Eastern Orthodox.

Many of them are actually old, and answering some questions about Adam and Eve, they have further implications, etc. They even have books after Revelation…

ethiopianorthodox.org/english/canonical/books.html

Just looking at their list I get why they would include Clement. It almost made it into our NT.

The other ones I need to read more on.

BTW, they SHOULD(EO’s anyway) have the exact same canon as the Catholic Church as they were at II Nicea and recognized the binding canons of the Council of Carthage of 397AD.

This is why I say the 1054AD split is a arbitrary number. They were doing their own thing long before that.

Pax

 

[Hatikvah]

Just looking at their list I get why they would include Clement. It almost made it into our NT.

Yes, but I’m wondering why they included the Didascalia when almost all scholars agree that the Twelve Apostles did not write it, but it was written in the fourth century. It’s a pseudepigraphon. Also, the 3 John…

But I’m not an Ethiopiologist, so I wouldn’t know.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

So yeah, simple and basic really* is* better. See what kind of arguments can stem from debating minutiae like this? I suppose I could go on to describe Jerome’s opposition to regarding the Apocrypha as Scripture justforcatholics.org/a108.htm and Cajetan’s opposition to including the Apocrypha in the canon in the Council of Trent beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/01/cajetan-on-canon-hes-ok-bcause-hes-one.html, but again, it’s almost adiaphoric nit- picking. It’s also common knowledge that the canon was never truly closed until the descendants of the Early Church, the Lutherans and the Catholics, in their respective councils, decided just what was canon and what wasn’t. The other Protestants tended to fall in line behind Luther despite their doctrines when it came to Scriptural canon. The case is what it is today and even without the seven disputed books, we Protestants have an Old Testament a Jew might perhaps readily recognize as containing the books of their own Tanach ( if in different order).

Jews considered the Septuagint inspired scripture up until about 100 AD.

Didn’t like it and changed because 1.) the books in it like Wisdom were being used to convert Jews to Christianity(read Wisdom chapter 2 and you see why) and they didn’t like the fact that it was in Greek and that is not their native tongue, of course.

Jews also edit their own Mishnah if they see anything that even remotely looks like it could be pointing to Jesus. So not sure why Luther found them to be credible at that point. I do understand him taking Jerome and other Christian disputers into consideration but not Jews who had their axe to grind and rejected our Lord… but I guess that’s another topic for another day.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Yes, but I’m wondering why they included the Didascalia when almost all scholars agree that the Twelve Apostles did not write it, but it was written in the fourth century. It’s a pseudepigraphon. Also, the 3 John…

But I’m not an Ethiopiologist, so I wouldn’t know.

Perhaps they believe that the author(s) were under the authority of the apostles and taking dictation which would have made it acceptable if that’s the case. But pretty much everyone says this book couldn’t have been from that era, so I think they are just in error.

 

[Hatikvah]

So not sure why Luther found them to be credible at that point. I do understand him taking Jerome and other Christian disputers into consideration but not Jews who had their axe to grind and rejected our Lord… but I guess that’s another topic for another day.

Luther had his own issues with the Jews (though that did not affect his doctrine, just his political and social views): en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_and_antisemitism

(read Wisdom chapter 2 and you see why)

I can absolutely see the parallels here, especially in Wisdom 2:12-16. I’ll quote 2:16:

He judges us debased;
he holds aloof from our paths as from things impure.
He calls blest the destiny of the righteous
and boasts that God is his Father.

And I see it also reinforces original sin:

For God formed us to be imperishable;
the image of his own nature he made us.

But by the envy of the devil, death entered the world,
and they who are allied with him experience it. (Wisdom 2:23-24)

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Luther had his own issues with the Jews (though that did not affect his doctrine, just his political and social views): en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_and_antisemitism

I can absolutely see the parallels here, especially in Wisdom 2:12-16. I’ll quote 2:16:

And I see it also reinforces original sin:

You are a bright young theological mind. In fact, it’s hard to believe you are so young. Would have guessed you were mid 30’s before you revealed your age

That passage looks a lot like Isaiah 53, right?

Unlike many Catholics, I do like Luther and think the guy loved God and was actually pretty brilliant. He did what he thought was right.

 

[Hatikvah]

You are a bright young theological mind. In fact, it’s hard to believe you are so young. Would have guessed you were mid 30’s before you revealed your age

Thank you very much. Which threads did you see me post that on?

I can only thank God and the Christians before me for the corpus of ideas they have left behind for us.

That passage looks a lot like Isaiah 53, right?

Yeah, I think so, but Isaiah 53 has mention of the atonement, this one does not.

Unlike many Catholics, I actually like Luther and think the guy loved God and was actually pretty brilliant. He did what he thought was right.

I see that in him, too. He also had a great love for music, being a composer and he laid down some reformed social values (one of which was freedom of religion, saying that true faith cannot be coerced).

 

[LutheranScholar]

There are differences. The guy who wrote the ultra-Fundamentalist website jesus-is-savior.com denounces everything as a “cult” and says that we have eternal security as a “license to sin.” (I’m sure you can find some articles on that.)

Oh my God, I read that site ( shortly before my computer crashed). It’s a great place to go if you want to feel insulted. Here are some doozies about some expressions of faith I happen to hold in high regard. Remember that a couple of marks of a habitual liar are #1: sweeping generalizations and #2: Unrealistic exaggerations. You will see plenty of both on this site. Also remember that these people are parroting arguments easily defeated by basic apologetics: jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Lutherans/whats_wrong_with_the_lutheran_religion.htm, jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/episcopal_church_exposed.htm, jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/anglican.htm, jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Doctrines/presbyterian.htm, jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Doctrines/protestantism.htm. Be warned… the graphics are very good and the whole astronomy theme is kind of cool, but there is a lot of hate and bile in these links. I post them as a warning. I didn’t post the links that lead to anti- Catholic bile because #1: I’d already seen that all before and the arguments are really rather boring and #2: I’m a bit more distant from that church than the churches I actually listed.

 

[LutheranScholar]

Jews considered the Septuagint inspired scripture up until about 100 AD.

Didn’t like it and changed because 1.) the books in it like Wisdom were being used to convert Jews to Christianity(read Wisdom chapter 2 and you see why) and they didn’t like the fact that it was in Greek and that is not their native tongue, of course.

Jews also edit their own Mishnah if they see anything that even remotely looks like it could be pointing to Jesus. So not sure why Luther found them to be credible at that point. I do understand him taking Jerome and other Christian disputers into consideration but not Jews who had their axe to grind and rejected our Lord… but I guess that’s another topic for another day.

Thanks for responding, but I think I wrote above that the Apocrypha was actually included initially and was taken out a lot later. I already ate my humble pie.

cph.org/p-19305-the-apocr…ith-notes.aspx

Although the books aren’t regarded as inspired, they are regarded as useful. I’ll have to order a Lutheran copy of them myself at some point… maybe after I’ve done that Y- DNA test at Family Tree DNA.

 

[Hatikvah]

Oh my God, I read that site ( shortly before my computer crashed). It’s a great place to go if you want to feel insulted. Here are some doozies about some expressions of faith I happen to hold in high regard. Remember that a couple of marks of a habitual liar are #1: sweeping generalizations and #2: Unrealistic exaggerations. You will see plenty of both on this site.

What’s ironic is that the writer would be considered a Protestant by pretty much all standards, though he really butchers sola fide and… everything else. Yet he still holds to his own versions that can’t be defended, and at the same time tries to ruin compatible practices.

If we would call that “simple,” I don’t want to be anywhere near it.

 

[LutheranScholar]

What’s ironic is that the writer would be considered a Protestant by pretty much all standards, though he really butchers sola fide and… everything else. Yet he still holds to his own versions that can’t be defended, and at the same time tries to ruin compatible practices.

If we would call that “simple,” I don’t want to be anywhere near it.

It might be " simple- minded," but that’s about it. :: ba- dum- ching!::