OT canon version: does not affect my faith says Protestant

[SonCatcher]

How about for the sake of your departed loved ones?

Publisher described his understanding on purgation in post #12. When he wrote “it is the cleansing power of the Holy Spirit through the work of Christ that makes us fit and holy to enter into His Presence” we should keep in mind that this is what we believe happens when a soul goes through Purgatory.

 

[po18guy]

My departed loved ones are in the Hands of God, the best Place to be…He does all things well…He and He alone is Judge. God thru Christ cleanses us and makes us righteous…it is by His astounding grace that we enter into the Presence…I need no “belief” in purgatory to find hope for my departed loved ones…they are in Good Hands.

Quakers no longer believe in hell? Did they ever?

 

[po18guy]

Publisher described his understanding on purgation in post #12. When he wrote “it is the cleansing power of the Holy Spirit through the work of Christ that makes us fit and holy to enter into His Presence” we should keep in mind that this is what we believe happens when a soul goes through Purgatory.

I suppose the humor in this has been lost…

 

[Publisher]

Publisher described his understanding on purgation in post #12. When he wrote “it is the cleansing power of the Holy Spirit through the work of Christ that makes us fit and holy to enter into His Presence” we should keep in mind that this is what we believe happens when a soul goes through Purgatory.

The difference, I do not believe in a “place of purgation”. When God cleanses us by the work of the Holy Spirit…we are cleansed.

 

[po18guy]

The difference, I do not believe in a “place of purgation”. When God cleanses us by the work of the Holy Spirit…we are cleansed.

So, would the term “Cleansatory” be acceptable to you?

My questions are: when, where and how is this accomplished? Is it even necessary? Can it be done after bodily death? Is it being done now? Was it done, for all time, on the cross? You certainly must have a teaching on this, since Christ did not leave us orphans.

 

[SonCatcher]

The difference, I do not believe in a “place of purgation”. When God cleanses us by the work of the Holy Spirit…we are cleansed.

You had already written that.

There is room within Catholic theology to believe that Purgatory is an instantaneous condition or state. Essentially, this means a Catholic may believe it to neither require any additional time between death and entering God’s presence. Therefore it would not logically entail any degree of separation from God.

 

[Publisher]

Since we’re discussing mysteries…I guess we are not too far apart after all.

 

[po18guy]

Since we’re discussing mysteries…I guess we are not too far apart after all.

How about this: You believe in cleansing and we’ll believe in purgatory. Either way, we hope to be saved as one escaping through fire, as Paul so mysteriously put it.

 

[LilyM]

“Man shall not live on bread alone, but on EVERY word that comes from the mouth of God”

Yes, it is all important. Every word.

Would you say ‘I don’t care whether this letter written to me by my wife/my doctors/a judge has some words or some pages missing.’?

Would you say ‘there are chunks of this letter from my wife/my doctors/a judge that cane be safely ignored and not read because they don’t matter’?

It would be foolish to think so. How much more important to have the complete word of God!

 

[stewstew03]

They would make that decision on historical ignorance. Each apostolic church looks at its history and cannot determine a time when it did not have its current canon and none have modified their canon*****. The founders of Protestantism intentionally removed books from the canon that they had received. Fortunately, they at least haven’t added any books.

*****I don’t know how the Ethiopian Church came to a longer and shorter canon so this statement may be only partially true for them. None of the books I listed previously is absent from either of them, however.

Sweet! A footnote on CAF! Don’t see many of those on here…

 

[fisherman_carl]

Please provide an example of a teaching in the Deut. that imparts “salvic knowledge” that is not found in other passages.

This question could be asked of any OT book. For example, Ecclesiastes is in your canon. How do you know it is inspired? Does it give you goose bumps when you read it? Probably not. It is not quoted in the NT either.

’ All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that the one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.’ (2 Tim 3:16).

The bible says that all scripture is useful and profitable for… When Paul wrote that he was speaking of the OT scripture. All of it is useful. If not for us then for someone else. Paul argued with the Jews in the Synagogues using the OT scriptures.

The book of Wisdom is a great read. It even has a prophecy of Jesus in chapter 2. This chapter is alluded to in the gospel descriptions of the crowd against Jesus at his Passion. I could see Paul using that chapter to convince Jews that it was speaking of Jesus.

In the deuterocanonicals we see a clear belief in life after death and the resurrection whereas it is not as clear elsewhere.

The Jewish tradition of Hannukah is only found in the book of Maccabees. In addition Maccabeee describes the recapturing of the temple and a 400 year period up to Christ that is not mentioned in the Protestant bible.

It is from the understanding from hannukah, the dedication of the temple found in Maccabees, that we understand more deeply the significance of when Jesus was walking in Solomon’s Portico since it was during this feast when he was in the temple declaring himself to be God. The glory of God’s presence was once again in the temple through Jesus.

 

[po18guy]

In the deuterocanonicals we see a clear belief in life after death and the resurrection whereas it is not as clear elsewhere.

The Jewish tradition of Hannukah is only found in the book of Maccabees. In addition Maccabeee describes the recapturing of the temple and a 400 year period up to Christ that is not mentioned in the Protestant bible.

It is from the understanding from hannukah, the dedication of the temple found in Maccabees, that we understand more deeply the significance of when Jesus was walking in Solomon’s Portico since it was during this feast when he was in the temple declaring himself to be God. The glory of God’s presence was once again in the temple through Jesus.

Israel was subjected to the pagan kings of the Seleucid empire in the centuries preceding the birth of Christ. Normally, that would not make much difference - except that Antiochus Epiphanes enforced a ban on all Jewish religious observances, from circumcision onward. Judas Maccabeus and his revolt restored the practice of the Mosaic law to Israel in time for the birth of our Lord. They cleansed and re-dedicated the temple. And, as we know, Jesus had to be born under, and live under the Mosaic law in order to fulfill it. From a merely historical standpoint, the books of Maccabees are very important.

Yet, prayer for the dead is affirmed in 2 Maccabees 12. Eternal life is mentioned for the first time in all of scripture in 2 Maccabees (7:9, 7:36). The resurrection is mentioned for the first time in all of scripture in 2 Maccabees (7:9, 7:14, 12:43). Look at this protestant bible time line. There is a 200 year gap in scripture leading up to the birth of Christ. Really? Those who reject the deuterocanon have, in recent times, named this the “intertestamental period” in which God was “inexplicably silent”. Well, it tirns out that God was not silent, if you listen to what our Lord said: “the law and the prophets prophesied until John” (Matthew 11:13, Luke 16:16). Call me crazy, but I side with Jesus and against the reformers on this one.

Those who do not have, or reject the deuterocanon do not know what they are missing, frankly.

 

[Publisher]

This question could be asked of any OT book. For example, Ecclesiastes is in your canon. How do you know it is inspired? Does it give you goose bumps when you read it? Probably not. It is not quoted in the NT either.

’ All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that the one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.’ (2 Tim 3:16).

The bible says that all scripture is useful and profitable for… When Paul wrote that he was speaking of the OT scripture. All of it is useful. If not for us then for someone else. Paul argued with the Jews in the Synagogues using the OT scriptures.

The book of Wisdom is a great read. It even has a prophecy of Jesus in chapter 2. This chapter is alluded to in the gospel descriptions of the crowd against Jesus at his Passion. I could see Paul using that chapter to convince Jews that it was speaking of Jesus.

In the deuterocanonicals we see a clear belief in life after death and the resurrection whereas it is not as clear elsewhere.

The Jewish tradition of Hannukah is only found in the book of Maccabees. In addition Maccabeee describes the recapturing of the temple and a 400 year period up to Christ that is not mentioned in the Protestant bible.

It is from the understanding from hannukah, the dedication of the temple found in Maccabees, that we understand more deeply the significance of when Jesus was walking in Solomon’s Portico since it was during this feast when he was in the temple declaring himself to be God. The glory of God’s presence was once again in the temple through Jesus.

An example of “salvic knowledge” is what I’m looking for…it was asserted previously that to reject the Deut/Apoc somehow was a “danger” to one’s salvation.

 

[fisherman_carl]

An example of “salvic knowledge” is what I’m looking for…it was asserted previously that to reject the Deut/Apoc somehow was a “danger” to one’s salvation.

The entire OT has salvific knowledge. Without its context the NT makes no sense.

In addition there are 3 senses of salvation in the bible, not just one. The bible speaks of eternal salvation, but most of the OT salvation is about temporal salvation like about God saving us from our enemies. And the third type we can call middle salvation where a temporal saving action helps us towards our eternal salvation. For instance someone praying on our behalf. We see this in Maccabees where prayers are offered for dead soldiers who had sinned.

Just as the Exodus was a temporal saving action it also points to an eternal saving action of Jesus Christ. Many actions in the OT are types of God’s saving action through Jesus in the NT. Again the rededication of the temple was meant to restablish God’s presence in the Temple. Yet God’s presence did not reenter the Temple until Jesus. The sign is in the OT and Jesus fulfills this sign in the NT. Jesus becomes the new Temple. When Jesus departed the Temple so did God’s presence. This is significant as the Temple was considered the holy of holies. Finally, it was destroyed in 70 AD by purpose or accident by Roman soldiers. It was slated to be converted to a pagan temple but a soldier lit it on fire. The inner walls were made out of wood and the outer was made out of limestone which burns once a certain temperature is reached. This is why not one stone was left on another.

Paul goes onto speak in Romans of how the Jews were cut off so that the full measure of gentiles can be grafted in. And that Christians can also be cut off if we do not obey God’s commandments. One must perservere in faith and love until the very end in order to be saved.

Is not rejecting any part of the word of God a danger to one’s salvation? If you only accept part of the word of God but reject others you only have partial truth. For example if you accept Jesus as savior but reject the Eucharist can you be saved when Jesus said in Jn 6:53 unless you eat his flesh and drink his blood you have no life in you?

And, are you saying its okay to throw out Ecclesiastes from your bible if you feel nothing from it?

 

[Publisher]

The entire OT has salvific knowledge. Without its context the NT makes no sense.

In addition there are 3 senses of salvation in the bible, not just one. The bible speaks of eternal salvation, but most of the OT salvation is about temporal salvation like about God saving us from our enemies. And the third type we can call middle salvation where a temporal saving action helps us towards our eternal salvation. For instance someone praying on our behalf.

Just as the Exodus was a temporal saving action it also points to an eternal saving action of Jesus Christ. Many actions in the OT are types of God’s saving action through Jesus in the NT. Again the rededication of the temple was meant to restablish God’s presence in the Temple. Yet God’s presence did not reenter the Temple until Jesus. The sign is in the OT and Jesus fulfills this sign in the NT. Jesus becomes the new Temple. When Jesus departed the Temple so did God’s presence. This is significant as the Temple was considered the holy of holies. Finally, it was destroyed in 70 AD by purpose or accident by Roman soldiers. It was slated to be converted to a pagan temple but a soldier lit it on fire. The inner walls were made out of wood and the outer was made out of limestone which burns once a certain temperature is reached. This is why not one stone was left on another.

Paul goes onto speak in Romans of how the Jews were cut off so that the full measure of gentiles can be grafted in. And that Christians can also be cut off if we do not obey God’s commandments. One must perservere in faith and love until the very end in order to be saved.

Is not rejecting any part of the word of God a danger to one’s salvation? If you only accept part of the word of God but reject others you only have partial truth. For example if you accept Jesus as savior but reject the Eucharist can you be saved when Jesus said in Jn 6:53 unless you eat his flesh and drink his blood you have no life in you?

And, are you saying its okay to throw out Ecclesiastes from your bible if you feel nothing from it?

Again…it appeared to me what what asserted was that rejection of an OT book somehow caused a “deficiency” in one’s “salvation”…what I understood to be stated was that one’'s soul was in peril by simply rejecting the DC’s because they contained “something” not found else where that was “indepsensible” to one’s salvation…an example please.

 

[fisherman_carl]

Again…it appeared to me what what asserted was that rejection of an OT book somehow caused a “deficiency” in one’s “salvation”…what I understood to be stated was that one’'s soul was in peril by simply rejecting the DC’s because they contained “something” not found else where that was “indepsensible” to one’s salvation…an example please.

I am not going to defend a position that says it is not possible to be saved without the Deuterocanon. It is possible to be saved without the entire bible. Look at the theif on the cross. He didn’t have a NT yet Jesus saved him.Nor am i defending what someone else said. The question isn’t whether or not one needs to believe in scripture to be saved. I am looking at scripture as a whole, not unlike Paul’s description of the body of Christ, with each of its members performing a different task but each for the good of the whole. Each book in the bible may illuminate a different area but adds to a more complete understanding of salvation history.

You want to separate the deutero from the rest of scripture. You are following the tradition of the Jewish Pharisees in the 2nd century AD who determined the Jewish canon. Catholics follow Apostolic Tradition and the Apostles used the Septuagint. That is why they use the Greek Septuagint which includes the deuterocanon. Most of the quotes of the OT in the NT are from the Greek Septuagint.

For example the idea of intercession for the dead is seen in Maccabees and many Jews to this day pray for their dead. This practice we believe helps to ‘save’ them from temporal punishments that still remain even after being forgiven.

 

[stewstew03]

Israel was subjected to the pagan kings of the Seleucid empire in the centuries preceding the birth of Christ. Normally, that would not make much difference - except that Antiochus Epiphanes enforced a ban on all Jewish religious observances, from circumcision onward. Judas Maccabeus and his revolt restored the practice of the Mosaic law to Israel in time for the birth of our Lord. They cleansed and re-dedicated the temple. And, as we know, Jesus had to be born under, and live under the Mosaic law in order to fulfill it. From a merely historical standpoint, the books of Maccabees are very important.

Yet, prayer for the dead is affirmed in 2 Maccabees 12. Eternal life is mentioned for the first time in all of scripture in 2 Maccabees (7:9, 7:36). The resurrection is mentioned for the first time in all of scripture in 2 Maccabees (7:9, 7:14, 12:43). Look at this protestant bible time line. There is a 200 year gap in scripture leading up to the birth of Christ. Really? Those who reject the deuterocanon have, in recent times, named this the “intertestamental period” in which God was “inexplicably silent”. Well, it tirns out that God was not silent, if you listen to what our Lord said: “the law and the prophets prophesied until John” (Matthew 11:13, Luke 16:16). Call me crazy, but I side with Jesus and against the reformers on this one.

Those who do not have, or reject the deuterocanon do not know what they are missing, frankly.

Nice timeline. Bookmarked for future reference…

 

[Publisher]

I am not going to defend a position that says it is not possible to be saved without the Deuterocanon. It is possible to be saved without the entire bible. Look at the theif on the cross. He didn’t have a NT yet Jesus saved him.Nor am i defending what someone else said. The question isn’t whether or not one needs to believe in scripture to be saved. I am looking at scripture as a whole, not unlike Paul’s description of the body of Christ, with each of its members performing a different task but each for the good of the whole. Each book in the bible may illuminate a different area but adds to a more complete understanding of salvation history.

You want to separate the deutero from the rest of scripture. You are following the tradition of the Jewish Pharisees in the 2nd century AD who determined the Jewish canon. Catholics follow Apostolic Tradition and the Apostles used the Septuagint. That is why they use the Greek Septuagint which includes the deuterocanon. Most of the quotes of the OT in the NT are from the Greek Septuagint.

For example the idea of intercession for the dead is seen in Maccabees and many Jews to this day pray for their dead. This practice we believe helps to ‘save’ them from temporal punishments that still remain even after being forgiven.

I don’t separate the DC’s…I use the Oxford Study Bible Expanded Edition, which contains not only the books in the Catholic canon, but the Orthodox as well…

Your assertion that I am following “Jewish Pharisees” of the 2nd century is undounded.

 

[fisherman_carl]

I don’t separate the DC’s…I use the Oxford Study Bible Expanded Edition, which contains not only the books in the Catholic canon, but the Orthodox as well…

Your assertion that I am following “Jewish Pharisees” of the 2nd century is undounded.

Ok, that is unusual for a Quaker. Do you accept the Deutero as scripture?

 

[Publisher]

Ok, that is unusual for a Quaker. Do you accept the Deutero as scripture?

Some do…some don’t…Friends don’t worry too much about a “fixed” canon…“All scripture is profitable…”…not unusual at all…a great many in the Meeting I attend use the Oxford Study Bible.

Friends for the most part hold scripture as a record of our very human understanding of God and our human experience with God…we believe in a living faith…God still speaks and is not restricted to speaking to us thru scripture…“Christ is present among to teach His People Himself.”