K
- Status
U
ufamtobie
Guest
JonNC,
With all due respect, there should not be a Lutheran perspective, Why? Because there is only One Church, and it, only holds the keys to bind or loose anything in heaven or on earth. JonNC, one can not make up ones own mind, One either accept the Church, or one don’t.
I, nor you nor the Baptist, Evangelicals,or the Lutheran leaders, but only the Leaders/successors of the Apostles have that Right have that commission these are the ones that guide us through the Church and the Church has been doing as you very well know for over 2000 years.
Imagine everyone having a perspective, the Lutherans having their perspective, the Baptist having thier perspective, so on and so forth, if this were true there would of been no reason for Jesus Christ to give Peter/ successors the Keys, the door would be open for all to put their two cents in, and Jesus is not a God of Chaos but of Order in the Church, I am sure you have heard this saying “Order in the Court” “Order in the Church” is of more importance.
JonNC, with your qoute above, I see in your heart, you are not far from being Catholic.
I hope and pray that the Lutheran Leaders will come to an understanding that there is only One perspective, One Church with One set of Keys.
Ufamtobie
O
O.S.Luke
Guest
An excellent article Kalt. Now, I suggest you read it yourself, compare it to my posts, and then get back to me.
Good grief.
K
kalt
Guest
“They’re in there.” isn’t the same as they’re in the canon. Why do you act like you don’t understand what that means?
O
O.S.Luke
Guest
I do know what it means. Never said I didn’t. I give up. You win.
K
kalt
Guest
Now read that article and find out when the canon was “really spelled out”.From your earlier post.
"Originally Posted by O.S. Luke
I have an Oxford Annotated NRSV. It has all those books in there. And I too think you’re giving Luther too much credit. The first Geneva Bible, as did the first King James Bible, had all those books too.
Sister Mary Francis may have been a little mistaken in catechumen classes. Unless I am mistaken, the Catholic Canon wasn’t really spelled out in dogma until the Council of Trent, and the first non-Catholic entity to officially list canonical books was the Articles of Religion of the Anglican Church. I don’t know about other non-Catholic entities (I’m sure it’s in the Westminster Confession, but I didn’t look it up).
O+"
I do know what it means. Never said I didn’t. I give up. You win.
C
Chellow
Guest
It’ ok kay (O.S. Luke) only respond on his point of view and blinds himself to others. Notice he never gives a response to my post that are directed to him.
S
SyCarl
Guest
You can only remove books from the Bible if they had been established as canonical. Otherwise, although they may have been contained within the Bible, they were not inspired Scripture as is the rest of the Bible.
For the Catholic Church the Apocrypha were not finally determined to be canonical until the Council of Trent. The New Catholic Encyclopedia states:
Links to articles by Catholic authors have been provided. In return I will provide one from a Protestant source.
christiantruth.com/apocryphaintroduction.html
Whether you care to acknowledge it the status of the Apocrypha was far from clear, even within the Catholic Church. At best there were two contrary positions prior to Trent. Protestants followed one of these positions and in reaction, Trent adopted the other. Protestants did not remove books; they followed one historical view of the canon as opposed to another view.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
True JonNC “deutero” does define second. But that is not the meaning the ECF fathers used when the books were refuted time and time again. The definition the Early Church Fathers used from the term “deutero” gave the definition of not a second canon but how these books were again refuted by the Early Church Fathers, thus labeled them to the learned that the Deutero Canonical books are the books the ECF’s repeated questioning these books, not that they were canonized seperately from the orginal canon list of approved books by the Catholic church, but only that these books were the last to be canonized because of the ECF questioned them, but then again never could remove these already canonized “Deutero” canonical books. Many of the books went uncontested, many of them got removed from circulation and being used in the “Mass”, and the “Deutero” were the ones questioned, but never removed from bible.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
SyCarl; you have a puzzling post here; Catholics dont look to any Apochrypha books as canon, and never canonized any books of the Apochrypha.
As for clarification, the Protestants included the “Deutero-canon” of books but it was the PROTESTANTS that labeled the already Canon Deutero books as APOCRYPHAL meaning that protestants did not accept the already Deutero books as authentic books inspired of God.
One of the main reasons the early Jews, and protestants refused to recognize these deutero books as canon was due partly they could not find no Hebrew counterparts to them, This is one of the main reasons St. Jerome argued along with other Saints and Religious, But the Catholic church remained steadfast to these deutero books because Jesus and the apostles taught from these books. And their Hebrew counterparts were discovered in 1947 in the dead sea scrolls, putting to death Jewish and protestant arguments from antiquity that these deutero books did not contain Hebrew counterparts.
I hope to reveal here the difference between a Deutero canonical books (Aunthentic inspired word of God) from Apocryphal books believed by protestants to be (un authentic inspired word of God). IMHO if I refused to accept these deutero canonoical books as authentic books of the Word of God, my bible would never contain them in my bible. I dont understand why protestants began to included them in their bibles but list them as Apochryphal? why would your bible contain anything not authenticating the Word of God? Either the deutero books are inspired of God and belong in the bible or not?
Can you give any reason why a protestant would include an unauthentic (Apocryphal) book of the bible in their bibles? The only reason I have heard thus far, is because they are good stories? I would not want any good stories in my bible, just the Word of God, how about you protestants?
O
OneTrueCathApos
Guest
My God people, give it up. Non-Catholics have no such claim when referring to the bible. It belongs to the Catholic church and her only has the right to it. Your beef is with Christ who chose the Catholic church to compile the bible. Your bible. Accept it and move on. If you can’t, then blame Christ.
O
OneTrueCathApos
Guest
Good grief…almost seems like you can’t debate intellectual statements…
S
SyCarl
Guest
It should be noted that Protestants were not the first to label the “deuterocanonical” books as Apocrphya. At the very latest they were referred to as such by Jerome.
Preface to the Books of Samuel and Kings
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.vii.iii.iv.html
While Jerome did include them in the Vulgate, he did so with his prefaces, such as the one above, which left no doubt as to his view of them.
While the Dead Sea Scrolls include some parts of the “deuterocanonical” books they also include the Book of Enoch and the Book of Jubilees, as well as many others that neither Christians or Jews regard as Scripture. This, therefore, is far from conclusive.
The “deuterocanonical” books contain many errors. For example, in the two books of Maccabees Antiochus Epiphanes’ death is described in three different ways.
The Haydock Commentary recognizes this problem and can only offer the feeble explanation that he must have escaped at least one his deaths mentioned in 2 Maccabees.
Sirach recommends that a man divorce his wife despite the fact that God hates divorce (Malachi 2:16) and the comments made by Jesus concerning divorce.
With the Haydock Commentary confirming that it is divorce that is being advised.
God would not have on Scripture contradict others as Sirach does. There are many other problems with the “deuterocanonical” books.
O
oneGODoneCHURCH
Guest
Here is the problem : the RCC has a set cannon for the Bible. The Orthodox have a Cannon. the Ethiopian Church has cannon. but who is this Protestant church that set a cannon for scripture.
As has been stated some books to varying degrees have been disputed for over 2000 years now since we are still discussing it.
The Question really should be why in the 1800’s did bibles start appearing without all the Old testament books as established up till that point? and why did all the protestant and reform church’s start using them? I mean really you can not say that the Protestant cannon does not include them as there is no Protestant church but many Reform and protestant churches that have nothing to do with one another one how and what is scripture.
for my friend JonNC I had to state reform church as well.
As has been stated some books to varying degrees have been disputed for over 2000 years now since we are still discussing it.
The Question really should be why in the 1800’s did bibles start appearing without all the Old testament books as established up till that point? and why did all the protestant and reform church’s start using them? I mean really you can not say that the Protestant cannon does not include them as there is no Protestant church but many Reform and protestant churches that have nothing to do with one another one how and what is scripture.
for my friend JonNC I had to state reform church as well.
Scott,Here is the problem : the RCC has a set cannon for the Bible. The Orthodox have a Cannon. the Ethiopian Church has cannon. but who is this Protestant church that set a cannon for scripture.
As has been stated some books to varying degrees have been disputed for over 2000 years now since we are still discussing it.
The Question really should be why in the 1800’s did bibles start appearing without all the Old testament books as established up till that point? and why did all the protestant and reform church’s start using them? I mean really you can not say that the Protestant cannon does not include them as there is no Protestant church but many Reform and protestant churches that have nothing to do with one another one how and what is scripture.
for my friend JonNC I had to state reform church as well.
I am not convinced that Luther, were he alive today, would own or approve of a Bible without the DC. As another Lutheran hear said earlier, perhaps Luther, as far as he went, went too far in even relegating the DC books to an appendix. I’ll leave that up to smarter people than me. I do know that, at least among some Lutherans, there is a return to bibles with the DC in it.
The concern, I think, for us is the use of these long-disputed books for doctrine.
Jon
O
oneGODoneCHURCH
Guest
Jon,
I agree in part as I do not believe if Luther were here today he would appove of the DC not being included. AS for being used for stetting doctrine I have to say that is for those smarter than I. I would also not like to set doctrine opposed to them either.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
It should be noted that Protestants were not the first to label the “deuterocanonical” books as Apocrphya. At the very latest they were referred to as such by Jerome.
Gabriel of 12;
You are absolutely correct SyCarl, St. Jerome did not want to include the Deutero’s in his Vulgate translation of the bible into Latin, because he agreed with the Jews they had no Hebrew counter parts just Greek. What is interesting to note here is that though St. Jerome was a heavy weight when it came to the scriptures, his opposing opinion as well as many other opposing Catholic theologians did not or cannot dictate or canonize the bible, only the Catholic church could and did canonize the books of the bible. Here during the canonization of the books of the bible one can hear the whispering affect of the infallibility of the Pope and the Catholic Church, even when the great Saint Jerome opposed the Pope, St. Jerome obeyed the authority of “Peter” in the Pope and included the deutero books in his Vulgate at the discretion of the Pope.
Although through out the centuries since the first Canon many councils heard these arguments over and over again about the deutero books, but in all their findings and conclusions no one possessed the authority to remove the already Catholic canonized deutero books of the bible. You mentioned the council of “Trent”, all the council of “Trent” did about the deutero canonical books was simply stated , there will be no more discussion, debate, or arguments again about these deutero books, or else be excommunicated to any Catholic Bishop who refuses to accept the deutero books as canon. The Council of Trent settled the many century questions about the deutero books once and for all, Trent did not define the books but only heard the opposing arguments of the books and settled the matter, never to doubt the authenticity of the deutero books again.
p.s on a side note about the deutero meaning used by the ECF’s of the books being repeatedely contested and coming down to us in the second language of Greek not the first language of Hebrew. The Deutero term used by the ECF’s did not define the books as a seperate canon.
Peace be with you
O
O.S.Luke
Guest
That the funniest post yet. And I didn’t think you had a sense of humorGood grief…almost seems like you can’t debate intellectual statements…
Carry on, OTCA. Good lord!!
Hmm, that’s an interesting thought, I’ll ponder. Do you think that Lutherans not practicing intercession of saints is opposed to them?
Jon
P
Peter_J
Guest
Hi kalt. Please clarify: Was Anti-Catholicism the motivation for the Jews’ decision to remove those books in the first place, or only for their decision not to put the books back in?
- Status