C
Cathdefender
Guest
How do you know he had nothing to do with the murder, were you there?
- Status
P
PaulDupre
Guest
I know.
M
mercygate
Guest
Cathdefender, do you know what you are dealing with when you challenge Contarini? If he wasn’t there, he undoubtedly knew on a first name basis somebody who was. Contarini has formidable knowledge of the history of that period.
R
rpp
Guest
Yes, mercygate, that is true. I may disagree with Contarini at times, but I have to tip my hat :tiphat: to his exceptionally knowledge English history in particular and history in general.
Cathdefender, if you are going to disagree with him or try to point out an error, I would encourage you to cite some very reliable sources. I know I have had to. Not all protestants were evil villains.
R
rpp
Guest
A bit off topic, but I think it is worth saying that tobinatorstark’s assertion about King James killing his mother is incorrect. Here is a brief sequence of events. (I am doing this from memory, so I may have a few dates off. If I am wrong, please let me know.)
1567 - Mary forced to abdicate the Throne of Scotland and she flees to France.
1567 - A few days later, King James, only a child if I recall correctly, assumes the throne.
1586 - Mary returns to France and attempts to reclaim the Throne of England. She is captured by her half sister, Queen Elizabeth.
1587 - Mary is tried and found guilty of treason and is executed on the orders of Queen Elizabeth.
1603 Queen Elizabeth dies and King James assumes the thrones of both Scotland (which he already had) and England.
1604 King James orders a new Bible translation based on the canon of scripture approved Luther and other reformers. A decision later to translate as apocrypha 7 books of the Old Testament was made, but these books would be placed in a separate section.
1611 King James authorizes the new version.
1625 - King James I dies of natural causes in his bed.
1638 - The First major revision to the King James Version is released.
Contarini is right.
Now back to the topic of the Origin of the King
1567 - Mary forced to abdicate the Throne of Scotland and she flees to France.
1567 - A few days later, King James, only a child if I recall correctly, assumes the throne.
1586 - Mary returns to France and attempts to reclaim the Throne of England. She is captured by her half sister, Queen Elizabeth.
1587 - Mary is tried and found guilty of treason and is executed on the orders of Queen Elizabeth.
1603 Queen Elizabeth dies and King James assumes the thrones of both Scotland (which he already had) and England.
1604 King James orders a new Bible translation based on the canon of scripture approved Luther and other reformers. A decision later to translate as apocrypha 7 books of the Old Testament was made, but these books would be placed in a separate section.
1611 King James authorizes the new version.
1625 - King James I dies of natural causes in his bed.
1638 - The First major revision to the King James Version is released.
Contarini is right.
Now back to the topic of the Origin of the King
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
Cathdefender
I want to know what you mean by untouched and preserved please
I want to know what you mean by untouched and preserved please
C
Cathdefender
Guest
And??
H
HashemEchad
Guest
Most Protestants leave out the extra books of the Jewish section of their Bible…they call it the Apocrypha.( I remember when I was younger, seeing some Protestant Bibles in libraries that would insert them between the OT and NT, however.)
I suspect the Protestants tend to leave those books out because they are not in the Jewish Bible, either. The reason why they are not in the Jewish Bible is because the rabbis decided a couple thousand years ago that those books were not truly inspired (although we do use them for study at times.) Though I have also read that the reason why those books were not included is because the events in them transpired after the Jewish canon of Scripture was already determined.
The Catholic church calls them they deutero-canonical books.
C
Cathdefender
Guest
Hello Rightlydivide,
What I meant was that the Catholic church, which people have painted her as the “monster of iniquity”, has in truth been the parent, the author and maker under God, of the bible, that she has guarded it and defended it all through the ages, and preserved it from error or destruction, that she has ever held it in highest veneration and esteem, and has grounded her doctrines upon it; that she alone has the right to call it her book; that she alone posesses the true bible and the whole bible, and that copies existing outside her are pale, are partly incorrect, and partly defective, and whatever truth is in them is true, is true because derived from her who alone posesses the book in its fullness and truth.
If you were Catholic, you’d love God’s holy word more and more; you may understand it better, you would adore the Divine Providence that took such a wise and sure means of preserving and perpetuating it; and you would admire the Catholic church for her ceaseless vigilance, untiring zeal, and unswerving fidelity to the commission entrusted to her by Almighty God.
The Catholic church is the only body in these days which teaches infallibly that the bible, and the whole of it, is the Word of God, and defends it’s inspiration, and denounces and excommunicates anyone who would dare to impugn its Divine origin and authority.
C
Cathdefender
Guest
The Protestants don’t have them in their bibles because Luther was threatened by them, when they didn’t agree with him he just tossed them overboard. Luther is responsible for not having these books in the bible, no one else.
A
Adam14
Guest
If I may, I’d like to comment…Hello Rightlydivide,
What I meant was that the Catholic church, which people have painted her as the “monster of iniquity”, has in truth been the parent, the author and maker under God, of the bible, that she has guarded it and defended it all through the ages, and preserved it from error or destruction, that she has ever held it in highest veneration and esteem, and has grounded her doctrines upon it; that she alone has the right to call it her book; that she alone posesses the true bible and the whole bible, and that copies existing outside her are pale, are partly incorrect, and partly defective, and whatever truth is in them is true, is true because derived from her who alone posesses the book in its fullness and truth.
If you were Catholic, you’d love God’s holy word more and more; you may understand it better, you would adore the Divine Providence that took such a wise and sure means of preserving and perpetuating it; and you would admire the Catholic church for her ceaseless vigilance, untiring zeal, and unswerving fidelity to the commission entrusted to her by Almighty God.
The Catholic church is the only body in these days which teaches infallibly that the bible, and the whole of it, is the Word of God, and defends it’s inspiration, and denounces and excommunicates anyone who would dare to impugn its Divine origin and authority.
I understand what you’re saying, and I agree that the Catholic church has kept the bible consistant for a very long time(based off the little bit of research I’ve done). Maybe those 7 books should be in all bibles? Honestly, I don’t know and I need to learn more about those books before I can really comment on them specifically.
But, the original bible that the Catholic church has preserved so well, was still put together or compiled by people. Jesus didn’t come and say…“Here’s the bible, and here’s the books that go in it, in this order…”
So my point is, how do we know which group of people compiled it correctly? My assumption is that when the original Catholic church folks who compiled the Catholic bible (excuse my ignorance, I’m not exactly sure how to refer to everyone
), they looked at several writings and decided what should and shouldn’t be included. I think the protestant folks did the same, they took the Catholic bible, and decided what should be excluded. So I’m not sure how we are to tell who was/is 100% correct. Maybe the Protestant versions should include the other 7 books? Maybe the Catholics are leaving out other writings that should be in there?..and in this case, I guess both Protestant AND Catholic would be missing writings?Again, although I’m not Catholic, I’m not really “choosing sides” on this issue, because honestly I don’t know enough about it to argue one way or the other(and I probably shouldn’t even be commenting on it). I just think it’s hard to tell, in my opinion.
I want to do the right thing, I just can’t really determine which way is correct!
R
ralphinal
Guest
Yes and no. Luther would not have removed these books without strong reason. Theology alone was not enough for these, as they are limited in scope of theology (Purgatory in one). He found it in the Jewish texts that also had removed them. What he did not see is that this list was formulted AFTER Jesus had lived, meaning that it was very likely that He was familier with and studied them himself.
The books that ML wanted gone only because they made him mad by showing he was wrong was James. “The Epistle of Straw” that he wanted to "Throw in the fire.’ He also wanted to rid the bible of Revelations as the “Common man cannot understand it.”
M
mercygate
Guest
The canon was determined in the 4th Century according to simple principles:If I may, I’d like to comment…
I understand what you’re saying, and I agree that the Catholic church has kept the bible consistant for a very long time(based off the little bit of research I’ve done). Maybe those 7 books should be in all bibles? Honestly, I don’t know and I need to learn more about those books before I can really comment on them specifically.
But, the original bible that the Catholic church has preserved so well, was still put together or compiled by people. Jesus didn’t come and say…“Here’s the bible, and here’s the books that go in it, in this order…”
So my point is, how do we know which group of people compiled it correctly? My assumption is that when the original Catholic church folks who compiled the Catholic bible (excuse my ignorance, I’m not exactly sure how to refer to everyone
Again, although I’m not Catholic, I’m not really “choosing sides” on this issue, because honestly I don’t know enough about it to argue one way or the other(and I probably shouldn’t even be commenting on it). I just think it’s hard to tell, in my opinion.
I want to do the right thing, I just can’t really determine which way is correct!
Is this writing attributed to an Apostle or to someone closely associated with an Apostle?
Is it consistent with the TEACHING OF THE CHURCH?
Is it being used in the worship of the Church – i.e., is it read in our liturgy?
In order to challenge the canon, you must presume that the Holy Spirit was out to lunch that day and that Our Lord failed in His promise to guide His Church “into all the truth”.
A good book on the canon of Scripture is *Where We Got the Bible. *This is not even a Catholic v. Protestant question. It’s just history.
A
Adam14
Guest
Thanks, I’ll have to check that book out.
I don’t agree that one must presume Our Lord failed if questioning the canon…Our Lord doesn’t fail, but WE do obviously. And the original canon was compiled by people. Granted, they did it based off the principles you mentioned above, and what they believed Our Lord was guiding them to do. But that doesn’t mean they were flawless in this process. And of course, what I say doesn’t mean they were wrong either.
I’ll certainly have to do more research on it and thanks again for the book reference…looks like a good place to start.
H
HashemEchad
Guest
So…why are they not in the Jewish Bible either? The canon of the Jewish Scriptures was determined by the rabbis long before Luther.
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
Okay.Hello Rightlydivide,
What I meant was that the Catholic church, which people have painted her as the “monster of iniquity”, has in truth been the parent, the author and maker under God, of the bible, that she has guarded it and defended it all through the ages, and preserved it from error or destruction, that she has ever held it in highest veneration and esteem, and has grounded her doctrines upon it; that she alone has the right to call it her book; that she alone posesses the true bible and the whole bible, and that copies existing outside her are pale, are partly incorrect, and partly defective, and whatever truth is in them is true, is true because derived from her who alone posesses the book in its fullness and truth.
If you were Catholic, you’d love God’s holy word more and more; you may understand it better, you would adore the Divine Providence that took such a wise and sure means of preserving and perpetuating it; and you would admire the Catholic church for her ceaseless vigilance, untiring zeal, and unswerving fidelity to the commission entrusted to her by Almighty God.
The Catholic church is the only body in these days which teaches infallibly that the bible, and the whole of it, is the Word of God, and defends it’s inspiration, and denounces and excommunicates anyone who would dare to impugn its Divine origin and authority.
You should cite your source though if you are going to do a long cut and paste though cathdefender
D
dosdog
Guest
Jews of Ethiopia are generally known. The Bible, translated from the Septuagint Greek version, is read in Ge’ez, and most ancient religious texts of Beta Israel are written in Ge’ez
bh.org.il/names/ethiopianames.asp
H
HashemEchad
Guest
Yes. To do otherwise can be seen as plagiarism…not properly attributing words actually originating with someone else.
M
mercygate
Guest
In the first century, the Jewish canon was still not closed.
The Jews of the diaspora used the Septuagint – containing the Deuterocanonical books. This was the Bible the first Christians used.
The Sadducees acknowledged ONLY the Torah as Scripture.
It is my understanding that the Jewish canon was not finally closed, locking out the Deuterocanonical books, until the 4th Century.
I have a pet theory that while “Scripture” was revered by everyone, the concept of a closed canon had not even been suggested. After all, at some point “new” Scripture was being written and accepted as “Scripture.” The hard-and-fast rule follows some specific historic event. The destruction of the Temple? Challenges arising from the upstart Christians who claim the Scripture as their own?
C
Contarini
Guest
It is customary to cite evidence when making a claim. If you have no evidence, I am free to deny that the thing happened. Contrary to mercygate’s kind words, I don’t claim to know the details of Queen Mary’s misfortunes. But the decision to execute her was made by the English government. James had not so much as seen her since he was a year old. He had no control over her fate. One can certainly argue that he could have done more to stop the execution. He could for instance have declared war on England. That would have been dumb but noble. But saying that he should have done more to stop it is very different from saying that he actually had a hand in it.
I repeat: bring on your evidence. You made the claim, you have to back it up or drop it. If we had to prove that every possible thing did not happen, we couldn’t do history at all.
Edwin
- Status