B
blueriver
Guest
Hi, does anyone know why the Bible used by Born Again Christians is missing the chapter of Judith and I think one more chapter ?
- Status
I
Innocent3
Guest
I’m sure they are missing the entire book of Judith, both Macabees, Sirach, some Pslams and a few other books.
C
centurionguard
Guest
Born Again Christians often refers in modern times to those in the Spiritual Renewal.
You are Born once through the waters of Baptism and Again for a Catholic through the Spiritual regeneration from the Sacrament of Confirmation. This is what Jesus implies about being Born Again
John 3: verse 5
haydock1859.tripod.com/id94.html
Ver. 5. Unless a man be born again of water, and the Holy Ghost. Though the word Holy be now wanting in all Greek copies, it is certainly the sense. The ancient Fathers, and particularly St. Augustine in divers places, from these words, prove the necessity of giving baptism to infants: and by Christ’s adding water, is excluded a metaphorical baptism. See also Acts viii. 36. and x. 47. and Titus iii. 5. (Witham) — Except a man be born again. That is, unless you are born again by a spiritual regeneration in God, all the knowledge which you learn from me, will not be spiritual but carnal. But I say to you, that neither you nor any other person, unless you be born again in God, can understand or conceive the glory which is in me. (St. Chrysostom)
You are Born once through the waters of Baptism and Again for a Catholic through the Spiritual regeneration from the Sacrament of Confirmation. This is what Jesus implies about being Born Again
John 3: verse 5
haydock1859.tripod.com/id94.html
Ver. 5. Unless a man be born again of water, and the Holy Ghost. Though the word Holy be now wanting in all Greek copies, it is certainly the sense. The ancient Fathers, and particularly St. Augustine in divers places, from these words, prove the necessity of giving baptism to infants: and by Christ’s adding water, is excluded a metaphorical baptism. See also Acts viii. 36. and x. 47. and Titus iii. 5. (Witham) — Except a man be born again. That is, unless you are born again by a spiritual regeneration in God, all the knowledge which you learn from me, will not be spiritual but carnal. But I say to you, that neither you nor any other person, unless you be born again in God, can understand or conceive the glory which is in me. (St. Chrysostom)
J
Jon_Hus
Guest
F
FabiusMaximus
Guest
Because it is not considered scripture among Protestants. None of the deuterocanonicals are.
J
JRKH
Guest
The Protestant Bible is missing 7 entire books(Baruch, Judith, 1st and 2nd Maccabees, Sirach, Tobit, and Wisdom) plus portions of 2 other books (Ruth and Daniel) all in the OT. We refer to the missing books as the Deuterocanonicals. Protestants refer to them as the Apochrypha.
This occurred when the Protestant reformers determined to use the “Hebrew” OT instead of the OT as determined by previous Councils of the Catholic Church which derived from the Greek language septuigent. It should be noted at this point that the “Hebrew” OT was not finally established until after the time of Christ and that the most widely used and ccepted OT scriptures outside of palestine, were those of the Septuigent. In addition it is clear that the authors of NT Scripture were not only familiar with but accepted these books as Scriptural by references to them in the NT.
You may hear from protestant that Catholics “added books” at the council of Trent, but this is untrue. The canon of Scripture in it’s current OT and NT forms was set byt Catholic church council between about 380-410 AD. This same canon of 73 books was reaffirmed several times by Church council all prior to the Council of Trent which only confirmed the previous canon and then “officially closed” the canon.
Peace
James
J
JRKH
Guest
The purpose of the question seems simple enough.
The Poster has asked a simple, and clear question.
To which he/she is receiving (hopefuly) simple clear answers.
Peace
James
B
blueriver
Guest
**What would I be trying to prove? Is there something to show or prove, your suspicion tells me there is, if so what is it.
The purpose is I tried Born Again before Catholicism and noticed the difference in our Bibles and was curious as to why…thats all…now you have made it sound like there is something in it and sparked my curiosity even more.**
B
BrianH
Guest
JRKH
Did you check the references you cited? I would completely agree with your post except you brought up a list that has been really trashed by Catholics and Protestants alike…
Did you check the references you cited? I would completely agree with your post except you brought up a list that has been really trashed by Catholics and Protestants alike…
B
BrianH
Guest
I even started a thread on it. Did not get many defenders of “the list”
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=415599
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=415599
A
AmateurPianist
Guest
Since I am Assemblies of God, I do have to answer this.
You do realize the Orthodox might ask:
It is just a matter of perspective.
The short answer is that there is a three-way disagreement on what belongs in the Bible and what does not. And no, I am not going to argue any side, because I don’t know how you can end up proving anything anyway.
B
BrianH
Guest
I have come to the point where I believe that a Bible without the Deuterocanonicals in SOME form cannot be defended historically.
However, when I see scripturecatholic trying to pass this “list” off…it actually makes me angry. The person who did this list either knew what they were doing and intentionally deceived or is completely off base in understanding basic biblical concepts. I have read enough books on the Deuterocanonical Books by real Catholic authors to know they make an argument for around 3 solid references to maybe ten or so. This “list” relies on the assumption that people will not check it out. It assumes that when a phrase appears in the DC and in the NT that people will not actually look and find out the DC and the NT are quoting MUCH earlier works in the OT. Or just random streams of phrases.
See I do not know why a Catholic who made the list would have to stoop to that.
Well the answer is they do not.
Can you tell the list gets on my last nerve??
And I have come around on the DC because of this site and this forum but not garbage like that…
However, when I see scripturecatholic trying to pass this “list” off…it actually makes me angry. The person who did this list either knew what they were doing and intentionally deceived or is completely off base in understanding basic biblical concepts. I have read enough books on the Deuterocanonical Books by real Catholic authors to know they make an argument for around 3 solid references to maybe ten or so. This “list” relies on the assumption that people will not check it out. It assumes that when a phrase appears in the DC and in the NT that people will not actually look and find out the DC and the NT are quoting MUCH earlier works in the OT. Or just random streams of phrases.
See I do not know why a Catholic who made the list would have to stoop to that.
Well the answer is they do not.
Can you tell the list gets on my last nerve??
And I have come around on the DC because of this site and this forum but not garbage like that…
B
blueriver
Guest
Ok thanks I understand, it’s just different perspectives of what is accepted as traditional scripture.
You’re right it’s hard to say which is right since none of us were there.
But what do you mean about being angry about ‘the list’ ?
You’re right it’s hard to say which is right since none of us were there.
But what do you mean about being angry about ‘the list’ ?
J
JRKH
Guest
Lets see - you started a thread which you limited discussion to two references on the list. Does not seem to be a praticularly strong argument against the list.
I am also aware that others have problems with the list. Mostly because the quotes in the NT are not precisely the same as in the OT books. Which is why I I said they were “referenced” and not “quoted”.
If others wish to disregard this list, that is perfectly fine with me. I offer it only as an example that the books were known and acceptable to the NT authors only.
There is plenty of other evidence in favor of the 73 book canon. Like the fact that every Bible in every western Christian (Catholic) Church for a millenia before 1500 contained 73 books.
Peace
James
J
JRKH
Guest
B
BrianH
Guest
I started the thread to limit the focus. I am more than happy to go through every one of the quotes on the list. You are wrong. Flat wrong about the list. The NT passages in the list cannot be proven for the most part to be references either.Lets see - you started a thread which you limited discussion to two references on the list. Does not seem to be a praticularly strong argument against the list.
I am also aware that others have problems with the list. Mostly because the quotes in the NT are not precisely the same as in the OT books. Which is why I I said they were “referenced” and not “quoted”.
If others wish to disregard this list, that is perfectly fine with me. I offer it only as an example that the books were known and acceptable to the NT authors only.
Peace
James
But let me tell you why I choose those two. Those two quotes say that a EARLIER BOOK uses a later one.
In other words, Jefferson quotes or references Obama.
Washington quotes or references Clinton. In this particular speech, on 1791 the first President quotes President Obama when he said…
Do you see how absurd that is? Do you see that anyone who made such an argument would be laughed out of anyplace? But for some reason, Catholics take the strong arguments that exist for the DC and choose, and yeah you choose, to use something that is a lie or completely incompetent.
So I am going to call you on your use of this list and I would love to go through each one and attempt to remove a lie. A lie is a lie if Jack Chick uses it or scripturecatholic.
J
JRKH
Guest
I personally do not have the time to go through each one. I have used this list in the past in confidence that the source was trustworthy. If it is not I will gladly delete it from my list of apologetic source material.I started the thread to limit the focus. I am more than happy to go through every one of the quotes on the list. You are wrong. Flat wrong about the list. The NT passages in the list cannot be proven for the most part to be references either.
But let me tell you why I choose those two. Those two quotes say that a EARLIER BOOK uses a later one.
In other words, Jefferson quotes or references Obama.
Washington quotes or references Clinton. In this particular speech, on 1791 the first President quotes President Obama when he said…
Do you see how absurd that is? Do you see that anyone who made such an argument would be laughed out of anyplace? But for some reason, Catholics take the strong arguments that exist for the DC and choose, and yeah you choose, to use something that is a lie or completely incompetent.
So I am going to call you on your use of this list and I would love to go through each one and attempt to remove a lie. A lie is a lie if Jack Chick uses it or scripturecatholic.
In regards to this, I have written an e-mail to John Salza who runs the website scripturecatholic and included a link to this thread. Perhaps you could do the same. There is an email link at the bottom of the scripturecatholic page. Perhaps he will respond here which would be wonderful. That way we can get our answers “straight from the source”.
Of course I don’t know how soon I might get a response so…
Peace
James
A
alitaptap
Guest
Why there are so many different types of Born Again Christians?I have heard hat there is a so-called “Oneness”, there is a so-called “Trinitarian”, denominations, etc. All of them claimed that they will be saved and those who will not go with them will not be saved? Now, who among the Born Again Christians is not the lie? I mean… why divided?A lie is a lie if Jack Chick uses it or scripturecatholic.
J
JRKH
Guest
You ask “Why divided” and the answer is simple. They reject the authority of a single, visible Church to resolve doctrinal issues. Thus when issues come up where there is disagreement and both sides of the argument are sure they are Bible based and Spirit Guided and the other guy is not, they have no Court of appeal. Thus they wind up splitting apart.
Yet Jesus clearly taught that The Church he was establishing was to have authority (see Mt 18:15-18) and the early Church clearly demonstrated that authority in Acts 15 where they settled, in council, a dispute between the Gentile converts and the Judaizers.
Peace
James
I
Innocent3
Guest
I must disagree with BrianH. “The Feast of the Dedication,” which is meantioned in the NT, is ONLY described in Mac. Also there are a few prophecies that are fulfilled in the Gospels which are only stated in those books. For instance, the Book of Wisdom, imho, gives the biggest peek into the Passion of Our Lord then any other OT book. AS I read those books I was shocked at how much of the NT is contained in them. For me, the Book of Sirach sums up the entire Bible, at least in the way one should act.
- Status