ss again

[edkw55]

Ed,

Think this as you do your research:

• The same Church that decided that the 7 books were scripture
• Is the same Church that decided the 27 books of the New Testament were scripture out of a couple of hundred writings

I would argue based on reason: If you can not trust this Church on the former, then neither can you trust it on the latter.

The great news is that this Church decided what was scripture based on the apostolic faith and teachings handed down through time. This is all due to Christ promising to be with his Church until the end of time, and promising to guide it to all Truth.

You do understand that the canon of scripture was put together by The Church for education in the faith but also to have a universal set of readings at Mass. And those that decided what was scripture were Catholic Bishops (at Rome, Hippo, Carthage, Florence, and Trent). That’s why Catholics refer to the bible as a Catholic book, written by, for and about Catholics and the Catholic faith.

Catholics are the original bible Christians.

I understand what you are saying.

Ed

 

[Jon_S_1]

From The New Catholic Encyclopedia…

“St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries…For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent.".

I could go on and on but won’t.

Ed

I would respect this argument if Protestants treated the deuterocanonicals like Jerome did.

He preached from them, shared them, encouraged their reading, distributed them, and you can read him quote them in tons of sermons.

If Protestants did that but treated them as a supplemental Christian book I’d be ok with it. Instead they act like they don’t exist and basically condemn them as worthless.

 

[steido01]

I would respect this argument if Protestants treated the deuterocanonicals like Jerome did.

He preached from them, shared them, encouraged their reading, distributed them, and you can read him quote them in tons of sermons.

If Protestants did that but treated them as a supplemental Christian book I’d be ok with it. Instead they act like they don’t exist and basically condemn them as worthless.

Not all of us!

My little Lutheran Synod just printed a brand-new version of the apocrypha to supplement our Bibles.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Not all of us!

My little Lutheran Synod just printed a brand-new version of the apocrypha to supplement our Bibles.

Yes I think that is wonderful. I very much appreciate that about Lutherans and the couple other denominations that do.

 

[benjohnson]

If Protestants did that but treated them as a supplemental Christian book I’d be ok with it. Instead they act like they don’t exist and basically condemn them as worthless.

Not all of us treat them so poorly:

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

 

[adf417]

Not all of us!

My little Lutheran Synod just printed a brand-new version of the apocrypha to supplement our Bibles.

Can we get an AMEN on that! How about a few CCC’s to go along with them eh Don?

Does this mean you will have to stop using the term “apocrypha”?

Peace Don!!!

 

[benhur]

The Catholic Church holds 100% of the Septuagint.

Not easy to research but I think LXX has Maccabess 3 and 4, Psalm 151, Prayer of Manasseh and different “versions” of 1 and 2 Esdras than CC Ezra an Nehemiah. CC canon does not have these but are in LXX I think.
My point, if this is true, is that the CC canon was judicious in filtering out LXX books, chapters , verses as have other canon formations.

If I wrote about you; “The day of Christmas came and Ben Hur was in the church speaking with the pastors and people…”

Ok. Just that the temple had many “courts”. The best apples to apples would be that a parish had a church, school, bingo hall, social gathering area. Jesus went to the school/social are (Court of the Gentiles), where people dialogued, even taught, debated . It is not like He went into the sanctuary where mass was held or to worship and pray-hence celebrate hannukah (Gentiles could not do that in “their court” or were not allowed in those Jewish worshipping courts )…Anyways we are both taking educated, even biased guesses (I speak for myself on the bias).

 

[Jon_S_1]

Not easy to research but I think LXX has Maccabess 3 and 4, Psalm 151, Prayer of Manasseh and different “versions” of 1 and 2 Esdras than CC Ezra an Nehemiah. CC canon does not have these but are in LXX I think.
My point, if this is true, is that the CC canon was judicious in filtering out LXX books, chapters , verses as have other canon formations.

Ok. Just that the temple had many “courts”. The best apples to apples would be that a parish had a church, school, bingo hall, social gathering area. Jesus went to the school/social are (Court of the Gentiles), where people dialogued, even taught, debated . It is not like He went into the sanctuary where mass was held or to worship and pray-hence celebrate hannukah (Gentiles could not do that in “their court” or were not allowed in those Jewish worshipping courts courts)…Anyways we are both taking educated, even biased guesses (I speak for myself on the bias).

Is it your belief Jesus was not a practicing Jew?

I think you are right about the Septuagint. It contained the books of Esdras and the prayer of Mannaseh that we do not include.

It doesn’t really solve anything though because it is not arbitrary to each individual to choose what he wants. The church chose. The church listed the OT books that were scripture in the same paragraph as the New Testament books they chose.

You either need to say, yes God worked through the church and I should have those 73 books

Or

I determine my own canon

 

[benhur]

I would respect this argument if Protestants treated the deuterocanonicals like Jerome did.

He preached from them, shared them, encouraged their reading, distributed them, and you can read him quote them in tons of sermons.

If Protestants did that but treated them as a supplemental Christian book I’d be ok with it. Instead they act like they don’t exist and basically condemn them as worthless.

Actually i have never read anyone condemn them, and even say there is some good to them, even if they say there are a few errors in their opinion, like still worthwhile, just not as inspired as others. I don’t think they call them "spurious’ which is the worst fate given other non-LXX books…Are they encouraged reading,not really don’t recall anyone calling it for that ,unless the discussion is about them. Hey, we ( me ) have trouble being judicious in reading what we all agree is inspired…That is not to say we can’t read other stuff. For a century or two the second most English printed book, next to the bible, was The Pilgrim’s Progress by John Bunyan I think. That I devoured being led by the Spirit.

 

[benhur]

Is it your belief Jesus was not a practicing Jew?

 

[SteveVH]

Jon S;12076300:

if you ask someone today if they are a practicing Jew, a yes or no does not tell the whole story of whether they are Orthodox or hasidic or a bunch of other variations of Judaism, as you had in Jesus day. What we know of our Lord is what is written. We know He did much that was Jewish, cause it says in specific what He did. I can’t be sure He celebrated the Lights festival as sure as He celebrated Passover.

OK.

yes and no. Lists were given by individuals before the corporate decision. As to other canons, was it individuals or groups of them ? The KJV was not individual( they even included the extra books in first few editions, though in separate section, I think. I know I didn’t make my own bible, and it looks like we have different traditions.

 

[edkw55]

I would respect this argument if Protestants treated the deuterocanonicals like Jerome did.

He preached from them, shared them, encouraged their reading, distributed them, and you can read him quote them in tons of sermons.

If Protestants did that but treated them as a supplemental Christian book I’d be ok with it. Instead they act like they don’t exist and basically condemn them as worthless.

As a Protestant I have read the deuterocanonical books and I definitely don’t consider them worthless. Are you aware of any of the mainline Protestant denominations having the deuterocanonical books in their Bibles as supplemental material?

Ed

 

[Jon_S_1]

As a Protestant I have read the deuterocanonical books and I definitely don’t consider them worthless. Are you aware of any of the mainline Protestant denominations having the deuterocanonical books in their Bibles as supplemental material?

Ed

It seems Lutherans and Anglicans have these.

Most of the others don’t.

When I was Protestant (30 yrs)I knew nothing of them.

1. Never once heard them mentioned in church
2. in a couple theological circles heard “the Apochrypha” mentioned but only as existing not as something valuable.
3. never saw a Protestant bible with them included.
   4)never heard them taught from or used as examples.

I am from a baptist/evangelical/non denominational church background.

 

[steido01]

Can we get an AMEN on that! How about a few CCC’s to go along with them eh Don?

Whoa, now. Let’s not push it.

Does this mean you will have to stop using the term “apocrypha”?

You know, in seriousness, I waffle back and forth between deuterocannon and apocrypha. Both ‘Secondary Books’ and ‘Hidden’ (in reference to the Gospel being there, just not as clear as in say, the four canonical Gospels) are both accurate, IMO.

Peace Don!!!

And also with you!

 

[edkw55]

It seems Lutherans and Anglicans have these.

Most of the others don’t.

When I was Protestant (30 yrs)I knew nothing of them.

1. Never once heard them mentioned in church
2. in a couple theological circles heard “the Apochrypha” mentioned but only as existing not as something valuable.
3. never saw a Protestant bible with them included.
   4)never heard them taught from or used as examples.

I am from a baptist/evangelical/non denominational church background.

I am from a similar background as you. Same here as far as the deuterocanonical books. If I were to choose a Protestant denomination to belong to today it would probably be the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. My wife, a cradle Catholic, wouldn’t take too kindly to the idea. We go to Mass together and to tell you the truth I have kinda fallen in love with the whole thing even though I don’t believe all that the Catholic Church teaches about it. Even though at this point in time I remain Protestant, reading history, researching Catholicism, and especially the CCC have definately rocked my world.

Ed

 

[adf417]

I am from a similar background as you. Same here as far as the deuterocanonical books. If I were to choose a Protestant denomination to belong to today it would probably be the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. My wife, a cradle Catholic, wouldn’t take too kindly to the idea. We go to Mass together and to tell you the truth I have kinda fallen in love with the whole thing even though I don’t believe all that the Catholic Church teaches about it. Even though at this point in time I remain Protestant, reading history, researching Catholicism, and especially the CCC have definately rocked my world.

Ed

Yea, wait till you “shout, summertime blues, & Jump up and down in your blue suede shoes” - youtube.com/watch?v=J–h-DtJEz8


Rock on Ed,

 

[edkw55]

I think you are right about the Septuagint. It contained the books of Esdras and the prayer of Mannaseh that we do not include.

The information below is a copy and paste from the internet and not my words. Does it sound accurate?

1 and 2 Esdras

The Roman Catholic Church calls these books Ezra and Nehemiah and they are part of canon, appearing after 2 Chronicles and before Tobit. As far as I understand, the principle differences between the two are that 1 and 2 Esdras contain a fair amount of restructuring and reordering from the original work (the Jewish single volume Ezra) and are from the Septuagint, whereas Ezra and Nehemiah are from the Hebrew translation.

Prayer of Manasseh

For the Prayer of Manasseh, it was relegated to the Appendix of the Roman Catholic Bible (until recently, the Clementine Vulgate) in 1592 by Pope Clement VIII after appearing in the original Vulgate. Originally, it appeared at the end of 2 Chronicles. However, at the time, most people, Protestant and Roman Catholic alike, viewed the Prayer as apocryphal, namely because there were no reliable Greek or Hebrew translations (a fact overlooked in 405, where an Old Latin translation was added). However, because it’s appeared in the Bible for so long, it was relegated to the appendix as a means to preserve it without having it disappear entirely.

 

[edkw55]

Yea, wait till you “shout, summertime blues, & Jump up and down in your blue suede shoes” - youtube.com/watch?v=J–h-DtJEz8


Rock on Ed,

 

[Jon_S_1]

The information below is a copy and paste from the internet and not my words. Does it sound accurate?

1 and 2 Esdras

The Roman Catholic Church calls these books Ezra and Nehemiah and they are part of canon, appearing after 2 Chronicles and before Tobit. As far as I understand, the principle differences between the two are that 1 and 2 Esdras contain a fair amount of restructuring and reordering from the original work (the Jewish single volume Ezra) and are from the Septuagint, whereas Ezra and Nehemiah are from the Hebrew translation.

Prayer of Manasseh

For the Prayer of Manasseh, it was relegated to the Appendix of the Roman Catholic Bible (until recently, the Clementine Vulgate) in 1592 by Pope Clement VIII after appearing in the original Vulgate. Originally, it appeared at the end of 2 Chronicles. However, at the time, most people, Protestant and Roman Catholic alike, viewed the Prayer as apocryphal, namely because there were no reliable Greek or Hebrew translations (a fact overlooked in 405, where an Old Latin translation was added). However, because it’s appeared in the Bible for so long, it was relegated to the appendix as a means to preserve it without having it disappear entirely.

Awesome! Thank you!

 

[edkw55]

Not all of us!

My little Lutheran Synod just printed a brand-new version of the apocrypha to supplement our Bibles.

I just read your profile and see that you are Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. About 25 years ago I read the “Book of Concord” and “Law and Gospel” by C. F. W. Walther. Walther was the founder of the Missouri Synod right? I would probably go to LCMS but my wife is a cradle Catholic so I go to Mass with her.

Ed