H
HopkinsReb
Guest
Evergreen.
Also evergreen.
A point that you, I, and others sometimes have to hammer home on these very forums.
Why did Protestants remove the Apocrypha from the King James Bible?
- Status
R
ReaderT
Guest
I don’t know why God commanded it this way, but that’s what He did. Books are either Holy Scripture or not; this is the way it’s been since He told Moses to write the first Scriptures. (Joshua 1:7-8, Numbers 33:2).
To be safe, then, we should all adopt an Orthodox canon.
T
Thomasbradley312
Guest
Before the Council of Trent, the Prayer of Manasseh was appended to the end of 2 Chronicles( as is the case in Orthodox Bibles who just call it an extra chapter, 37).
3 and 4 Esdras followed 1 and 2( Ezra and Nehemiah) at the time. Thus they were integrated into the Vulgate just as the other deuterocanonical books were with no distinction that they were not canonical.
T
Thomasbradley312
Guest
I’ve kind of thought this opinion for a while. If we use the Septuagint to base our Old Testament, we should use all of the books of the Septuagint, otherwise it seems like we are cherry picking.
R
ReaderT
Guest
Sounds good to me!
B
BartholomewB
Guest
But none of these three titles appears in the list of the books approved by the Council of Rome. Surely 3 & 4 Esdras must always have been regarded as separate books, even though the Prayer of Manasseh may have been in circulation in camouflaged form, as a chapter in 2 Chron?
http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage_print.asp?number=333855&language=en
Last edited:
B
BartholomewB
Guest
Okay, so God gave his command. But different men, at different times, have placed different interpretations upon that command. There is nothing ungodly or irreligious in accepting that there is a middle ground, in the shape of a dozen or more books that the churches disagree about. You can argue that there ought not to be a middle ground, which is a question of ethics. The fact remains that there is a middle ground.
po18guy
Well-known member
Is everything which opposes your opinion nonsense? I have no idea what you are doing in a Catholic forum. We have beliefs and history. FYI, the Orthodox also flatly rejected the reformers - at the time. A delegation of reformers went to the Orthodox seeking an alliance against Rome and after considerable interchange, were rebuffed - on doctrinal reasons!
Why not go to Orthodox sites and call their doctrine and history “nonsense”?
Why not go to Orthodox sites and call their doctrine and history “nonsense”?
T
Thomasbradley312
Guest
Sure.
But the Council of Rome was a local Council.
There were Councils that differed with this Canon before and after it.
You repeat these same things over and over. You’ve been corrected about them. So, yes.
Maybe I’m here to correct stuff like this.
Show me where I’ve referred to Catholic doctrine in any discussion as nonsense. I said your misrepresentation of non-Catholic communions is nonsense.
A
adf417
Guest
And he, as well as many others, will continue being wrong because he/they thinks they are right and there is no authority he/they recognizes that can correct them.
I wonder what method God is trying to use to correct him/them???
Peace!!!
H
HopkinsReb
Guest
There are loads of pro-choice Catholics. There are loads of pro-gay-marriage Catholics. There are plenty of Catholics who want priestesses.JonNC:
And he, as well as many others, will continue being wrong because he/they thinks they are right and there is no authority he/they recognizes that can correct them.
I wonder what method God is trying to use to correct him/them???
Peace!!!
All that despite having an authority they recognize which teaches those things are wrong.
It’s almost as if we infallible humans are simply often wrong about things.
Last edited:
As I said, I just love the Prayer of Manasseh. Now, that doesn’t make it canon because I love it. It just means I understand why some communions consider it canon.
A
adf417
Guest
There are loads of bad practices and there are loads of bad teachings. We are talking about the bad teachings.adf417:
There are loads of pro-choice Catholics. There are loads of pro-gay-marriage Catholics. There are plenty of Catholics who want priestesses.JonNC:
And he, as well as many others, will continue being wrong because he/they thinks they are right and there is no authority he/they recognizes that can correct them.
I wonder what method God is trying to use to correct him/them???
Peace!!!
All that despite having an authority they recognize which teaches those things are wrong.
It’s almost as if we infallible humans are simply often wrong about things.
Peace!!!
No wonder there is division.adf417:
There are loads of pro-choice Catholics. There are loads of pro-gay-marriage Catholics. There are plenty of Catholics who want priestesses.JonNC:
And he, as well as many others, will continue being wrong because he/they thinks they are right and there is no authority he/they recognizes that can correct them.
I wonder what method God is trying to use to correct him/them???
Peace!!!
All that despite having an authority they recognize which teaches those things are wrong.
It’s almost as if we infallible humans are simply often wrong about things.
Prayer for His Church Militant.
H
HopkinsReb
Guest
Bet you cash money I can find Catholic priests teaching false doctrine despite the presence of an authority.
A
adf417
Guest
No need to other yourself too much, i can find it myself in just about in any parish. The question is how obstinate are they to correction like Slick is?adf417:
Bet you cash money I can find Catholic priests teaching false doctrine despite the presence of an authority.
Peace!!!
H
HopkinsReb
Guest
Considering how many times Rome has reaffirmed its teachings on these matters, seems like they’re pretty obstinate.
The argument that Matt Slick’s and other Protestants’ being wrong about things proves that there needs to be a visible authority only holds water if you can demonstrate that within the church which has a visible authority such errors are successfully stamped out. You cannot demonstrate that because there are loads of Catholics who refuse to accept Catholic teaching in a number of areas despite having been told the Catholic teaching repeatedly. It’s just not a good argument.
B
BartholomewB
Guest
The significance of the Council of Rome, in this regard, is that the man in charge, acting on behalf of Pope Damasus, was Jerome, the very same Jerome who gave us the Vulgate. The canon approved at that council clearly states, “Esdras, two books.” This leads to a series of questions:
- What is the earliest evidence we have that 3 & 4 Esdras were held to be fully canonical books of the Old Testament?
- Is that evidence derived from the Western church over which the popes exercised full control, or from some other church?
- What is the date of that evidence?
- If it was earlier than 382, does that mean that Pope Damasus’ decree cut out from the Old Testament these two books that had formerly been part of it?
- If it was later than 382, on whose authority were the two books added to the canon that had been approved by Pope Damasus?
- Status