Which do you think are?
- Status
A
AugustTherese
Guest
Um, I asked you!
I believe they are certainly learned and faithful men.
I favor all of them. EO think there’s more.AugustTherese:
Which do you think are?
A
AugustTherese
Guest
I didn’t ask which ones you favor or what the EO thinks. Can you not answer the question: which of those 74 books were included in the canon of inspired books?
Last edited:
G
guanophore
Guest
If she will not believe what a person reports who owns a Lutheran Bible (same as the original) that contains those books, I don’t think any persuasion is going to work.I’ll bet you one American dollar that @guanophore already has some experience and familiarity with the topic.
But I will give you a dollar just for reading my posts.
A
AugustTherese
Guest
It was a rhetorical question. He removed, excuse me, ‘uprooted such cornflowers’ and put them into a ‘kind of special little spice garden or flower bed’, i.e. non-inspired section. That is tampering with and removing Scripture.
Last edited:
Did he remove them? No.JonNC:
It was a rhetorical question. He removed, excuse me, ‘uprooted such cornflowers’ and put them into a ‘kind of special little spice garden or flower bed’, i.e. non-inspired section. That is tampering with and removing Scripture.
A
AugustTherese
Guest
Putting them into a non-inspired section is removing them from inspired Scripture. So, if I translated the Holy Bible and uprooted some New Testament books, say James, Jude, Hebrews, and Revelation and put them into a non-inspired ‘spice garden’, we’d be okay?
Last edited:
G
guanophore
Guest
Great! Would you like to provide me with a copy of his Bible in which they are not present? OR perhaps, a writing of his that states he did remove them (with or without an explanation)?
Perhaps @AugustTherese means to say that they were put under a different heading than they were in Catholic bibles? Or that he referred to them as Apocrypha rather than Deuterocanon? I think maybe Dr. Martin had more in common with St. Jerome that he is given credit sometimes.
Luther included the same ones St. Jerome did.
G
guanophore
Guest
I will add my personal testimony to that.
G
guanophore
Guest
This is an odd response to JonNC, I thought. He asked you for clarification about your assertion that Lutherans had a false view of justification and sanctification. Are you expecting us to rely on YOUR “individual opinion” on this thread?
L
lilypadrees
Guest
Which version of the Bible do you use, SnowRose? More Protestant Bibles are now including them either in the middle or in the back but not the way they are in our Catholic Bibles.
The books you refer to as the Apocrypha are properly called the Deuterocanon. If you had a Catholic Bible, you would see them in their correct order with the rest of the books of the Holy Bible.
The books you refer to as the Apocrypha are properly called the Deuterocanon. If you had a Catholic Bible, you would see them in their correct order with the rest of the books of the Holy Bible.
G
guanophore
Guest
No, I think not. I think that you know these books should not be removed, so for you, it would be a sin!
James 4:17 Whoever knows what is right to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin.
And those of us who accept these books as inspired scripture would not be “ok” because we might think you were guilty of heresy! And even if you were not, we cannot relinquish the faith that has been handed down to us from the Apostles.
However, I think spending time in a spice garden is very good for the soul, and recommend it highly, whether one takes their Bible, or not!
L
lilypadrees
Guest
Take it up with Fr Mitch Pacwa, Jon NC. He’ll set you straight.
G
guanophore
Guest
I totally love Fr. Mitch Pacwa! I wish I could hear more of him on the radio.
S
SnowRose
Guest
I’m using the Church of Sweden standard bible (2000 translation). You can probably read the headings in the picture. Ester comes in both versions. (Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
The rest of the apocrypha, like the stories of Mary’s childhood, are in a separate book last published in the early 70s, but which has been around since the 1500s.
I don’t see the point of using a Catholic bible, since I’m not Catholic and don’t intend to convert. But thanks for offering.
Edit: there’s a note that the last seven letters used to be known as the catholic letters, that’s James, both Peter, three John and Jude. I don’t know if other protestant denominations include them or not.
The letters are followed by Revelations.
The rest of the apocrypha, like the stories of Mary’s childhood, are in a separate book last published in the early 70s, but which has been around since the 1500s.
I don’t see the point of using a Catholic bible, since I’m not Catholic and don’t intend to convert. But thanks for offering.
Edit: there’s a note that the last seven letters used to be known as the catholic letters, that’s James, both Peter, three John and Jude. I don’t know if other protestant denominations include them or not.
The letters are followed by Revelations.
Last edited:
L
lilypadrees
Guest
I’ve never heard of the Church of Sweden Standard Bible.
By the stories of Mary’s childhood, are you perhaps referring to the Protoevangelium of James?
You would only be looking at the table of contents to see where the deuterocanonical books are properly placed. No one is asking you to convert from your chosen religion. Nor does anyone expect you to. Conversions are the Holy Spirit’s job.
By the stories of Mary’s childhood, are you perhaps referring to the Protoevangelium of James?
You would only be looking at the table of contents to see where the deuterocanonical books are properly placed. No one is asking you to convert from your chosen religion. Nor does anyone expect you to. Conversions are the Holy Spirit’s job.
Last edited:
- Status