Who Has The Truth?greenspun.com : LUSENET : Ask Jesus : One Thread |
http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.htmlWho has the truth?
.............
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 22, 2004
http://www.bu.edu/sth/library/guides/denominations.htmlWhose denomin ation has the truth?
....................
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 22, 2004.
Don't forget me, Rod.The Way-The Church of Yahweh in Christ Jesus
and
The Christian Yahwist
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), September 22, 2004.
Whoever has the power to bind and loose.
-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), September 22, 2004.
That would be the disciples of Christ. All believers are His disciples...as jesus instructed the original twelve to pass on everything He has taught and revealed to other believers---baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
-- ('faith01@myway.com"), September 22, 2004.
Of course, Elpidio.Well, that is my ultimate point in this thread, James.
I forgot to post Faith's faith, too.
...............
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 22, 2004.
Egads! rod--Certainly that first link you posted doesn't have the truth!
Did you notice who it bunches in as Christians?
Yet it didn't see fit to group the Bahai's into the same category as Islam! Go figure....
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 22, 2004.
And my point continues..................
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 22, 2004.
And that would be?
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 22, 2004.
Many people believe they have the truth even in the light of conflicting doctrines and theologies...................
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 22, 2004.
To be from the disciples you sound too dogmatic, faith.You sound more baptist to me.
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval!@yahoo.com), September 22, 2004.
ElpidioA baptist is a Christian who really knows the Bible.., and they understand that they are disciples of Christ.I don't understand your point?
Did I ever say I wasn't Baptist?
My church--though with a modernized non-denominational feel to it-- definately has Baptist roots--as I once explained.
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 22, 2004.
faith, I was thinking of the disciples of Christ.http://www.disciples.org/discover/
Or Am I mistaken.
The Christian Yahwist
-- Elpidio gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), September 22, 2004.
Bahai is not Islamic. That'd be like saying Islam is Jewish. They have similar roots, but are not the same religion.
-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), September 23, 2004.
i think there is a distinction to be made between cult and religion.Islam has all the makings of a cult. as i understand, it has contradictions - it preaches both religious tolerance and religious intolerance. the latter sections of the Koran came from further dreams of the so-called prophet as his cult grew and no longer had to live peacefully with other religions.
i have researched this and my conclusion is that this is not just a rumour designed to undermine Islam. scholars are able to date the various verses/ surahs and can, i believe, prove this.
have a look here: http://www.cdu.jesusanswers.com/islam.html#1
if this is true, do you see just how important it is?
if it is true, then why aren't we telling this to the Moslems?
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), September 23, 2004.
check it out yourself: http://www.hti.umich.edu/k/koran/browse.html
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), September 23, 2004.
I am not an advocate of religion Elpidio--And I certainly didn't mean any religion when I refered to the disciples of Christ.
Jesus hand picked twelve disciples and commissioned them to go and make disiples of all men. In other words--preach the gosel and baptise those who believe--and receive Jesus in the same way that they did.
A disciple/believer of Christ is handed down all the same authority that the original twelve were given.
So in response to James stinkcat--who thinks that only the original twelve have the power to bind and loose--I wanted to point out that all disciples have this power.
That won't sit well with the Catholic because it eliminates their claim of authority that they take for themselves.
Matt 28:16-20
Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."
Acts 11:23-26
When he arrived and saw the evidence of the grace of God, he was glad and encouraged them all to remain true to the Lord with all their hearts. He was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and faith, and a great number of people were brought to the Lord. Then Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul, and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 23, 2004.
Sorry Max--But that was my point!
The Jehovah Witnesses are no more Christian than the Bahai's are Muslim--just because they may have spawned from them.
-- ("faith01@myway.com), September 23, 2004.
Faith,Did all Christians have the same authority as Peter, Paul, James, and even Timothy? If not, at what point were all Christians given this same authority? What was the role of bishops and presbyters in the early Church then?
I know you have Scriptural references for this statement.
A disciple/believer of Christ is handed down all the same authority that the original twelve were given.
Was wondering if you would you list a couple of them so I can look them up? Thanks.
-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), September 23, 2004.
This is also not quite accurate:"Jesus hand picked twelve disciples and commissioned them to go and make disiples of all men. In other words--preach the gosel and baptise those who believe--and receive Jesus in the same way that they did. "-Faith.
I read that the disciples (Apostles) came to Jesus.
............
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 23, 2004.
What is the name of your church,faith?Ian, I know Suras are listed from largets to smallest. I have read the Koran. I have it in English, Spanish and Arabic.
The problem that I have is that some Suras seem to be from a period after Muhammad.
It wasn't until Muhammad's people overran Arabia that they became more and more intolerant.
Muhammad's religion was influenced by Christian Arrians and Nestorians.
Kind of weird they believe Jesus comes from a virgin woman, yet, he is just a prophet lower than Muhammad!!!
The Christian Yahwist
The Man of Yahweh
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), September 23, 2004.
You read wrong, rod--
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 23, 2004.
thanks Elpidiodo you agree, though, that the Koran contardicts itself; and do you accept that it is a remarkable coincidence that Islam (or, should i say, the Koran) became more intolerant as it became more powerful.
it seems to me that there is a serious question mark here.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), September 23, 2004.
Jesus did not go looking for them. They were there and some volunteered. Some heard of Jesus and wanted to join and listen to this Good News. Some were not exactly the model disciple, but then again, who is?If I read it wrong, Faith, it was because that is how it was written.
Why are you so quick to find one culpable instead of listening to what they have to say?
Who came to Jesus as volunteer disciples? Even today, we come to Him out of our free will.
.................
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 23, 2004.
The thing is rod--I truly do know what God has revealed to us through His Word....
John 15:15-16:
I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master's business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you. You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit--fruit that will last. Then the Father will give you whatever you ask in my name.
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 23, 2004.
Ah! but have a look. They believed they chose Jesus. Jesus clarified His plan and chose them for a greater calling. I think this is the same thing that happens to some of us. Some are called to be priest, evangelists, and so on. But, do you believe that Jesus calls everyone to Him? Perhaps in the offer of Salvation to all of us, yes. But, I do know that a person has a free will to accept. If we look at the story of the Apostles, we will see how they came to Jesus initially. "Hand picked" sounds like the "Commission" or like a second phase to that discipleship.If I'm wrong, of course, I'll eat my hat, Faith.
I've often wondered why Christ asked the Apostle's names when they first met. If Jesus had "hand picked" them, why didn't He reveal their names upon first meetings? I'm not saying Jesus did not know their names. I'm wondering why Jesus had to ask. What was the message their?
...................
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.co), September 23, 2004.
Ian, contradictions are the result of the revising of history.Muhammad first made people pray towards Jerusalem. When rejected by Jews and Christians, he turned towards Mecca.
He made Ishmael the one being sacrificed by Abraham and not Isaac.
He believed he was the Paraclete (Holy Spirit) mentioned by John.
He mixes up so many patriarchs, prophets,...hisorically that is not easy to see who is who.It makes sense sense Muhammad could not read. His wife could. But by that time women did not read the Bible.
(This reminds me of the time many stories crept into Catholicism like Mary born of a virgin too, the immaculate conception,....Veronica, Jesus goig to Hell,...found in other books not in the Bible)
and the list goes on....
As long as he was married to his Christian wife, he was the husband of 1 wife. The he had more, even a child, Aisha. So people later took 4 wives (or more).
The same happened with Christianity as it left its Jewish roots and entered the Hellenic and Roman worlds.
Roman and Greeks believe the Gods had sex with humans. Remeber Hercules? So no problem with God and a virgin named Mary.
Besides that, Roman Emperors were thought as divine. No problem with a divine Jesus.
That is why a person's culture is so important in understanding Biblical history.
The Christian Yahwist
-- Elpiodio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), September 23, 2004.
I would never make you eat your hat rod--But it would be nice if you'd open up a Bible every now and again:
Here we can clearly see who called who....
Matt 418-22:
As Jesus was walking beside the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, Simon called Peter and his brother Andrew. They were casting a net into the lake, for they were fishermen. "Come, follow me," Jesus said, "and I will make you fishers of men." At once they left their nets and followed him. Going on from there, he saw two other brothers, James son of Zebedee and his brother John. They were in a boat with their father Zebedee, preparing their nets. Jesus called them, and immediately they left the boat and their father and followed him.
The Appointing of the Twelve Apostles
Mark 3:13-19
Jesus went up on a mountainside and called to him those he wanted, and they came to him. He appointed twelve--designating them apostles - -that they might be with him and that he might send them out to preach and to have authority to drive out demons. These are the twelve he appointed: Simon (to whom he gave the name Peter); James son of Zebedee and his brother John (to them he gave the name Boanerges, which means Sons of Thunder); Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.
As I said in the begining rod--Jesus hand-picked His disciples...
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 23, 2004.
Did Jesus ever write a book, faith? Show me!!!!Can you prove to a 100% certitude that Matthew and John are the original writers of their respective Gospels?
Can you prove John, Peter,James, and Jude are the writers of their respective letters to a 100% certitude.
Only Luke and Acts are Luke's, and Paul's letters, except Hebrews can be shown are his.
..... The Christian Yahwist
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), September 23, 2004.
Elpidio,I guess we're trusting that the early church was guided by the Holy Spirit when it put the canon of Scripture together, and handed it on to us.
What makes you think it wasn't? I'm not sure anyone can prove with 100% historical accuracy that the authors of each letter and Gospel are, who they are attributed to be. Does it matter? Who the authors were may have been a part of how the canon was selected, but I thought the content of the books is also why they were considered to be inspired.
-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), September 23, 2004.
Yes, Jesus "hand picked" some, but did you do so with all of His disciples?I'll have to go and dig where I read that.............
......................
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 23, 2004.
Oops, Did He do so with all of his disciples?...........
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 23, 2004.
I see. "Summoned" means to call to one's presence. I'm under the impression that Jesus already had his disciples and merely called them. If I'm wrong I'll admit it.http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible? passage=Matt+10:1,+5;+Mark+3:13;+Luke+9:1&language=english&version=NAS B
..............
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 23, 2004.
ElpidioI trust in the Holy Spirit's guidance and Divine providence.If you have no way of knowing what books are true--then how do you determine that the few you accept are true?
I trust the God followed through with His inspiration until completion. God proves His Divine authorship through fulfilled prophecy...and miracles performed by His disciples. The accepted Scriptures were recognized immediately as they were being written-- and you can search the Scriptures themselves as approval for the other Scriptures. Jesus Himself defines the Old Testament.
Christian believers inspiried by the same Holy Spirit came to recognize their Scriptures almost right away. And the rejected books-- were rejected immediately and there never really was any question, except by some heretic who wanted to start a different movement.
I think the strength of Christianity and the strength of the Holy Bible--speaks volumes.
I trust that the Scriptures that convicted my soul and opened my eyes- -are the very Scriptures that God gave to us. How else can you explain their power?
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 23, 2004.
Sorry faith, i must have misread your post.
-- Max Darity (arrowtouch@yahoo.com), September 23, 2004.
Different communities used certain books before the end of the first century, faith. By the second century, the proliferation of Gnostic and Montanist groups forced them to accept and reject books.The Church (not yet called catholic) began making canons of scripture, most famous the Muratorian. This canon did include the Gospel of Peter.The word Catholic was a 4th century definition to distiguish Trinitarians from Arrrians.By the end of the 5th century most churches accepted the Canon of existence we use today for the New testament.
Paul and Luke were easy. The problem was the other ones, since to people who know Greek, these letters are in good style, which as we know, could not come from fishermen!!!!
The ones under the name Matthew and Luke plagiarized Mark. They added or deleted from Mark what they thought was best for their community. Matthew for the Ebionim community. Luke for the Gentile community.
Mark and John have similar structures though different sttings and characters which show the author is John Mark (Mark) for both of them.
God Yahweh or Jesus has nver told you personally faith which books are inspired.
The Christian Yahwist
PS: Now you understand why I include The Gospel of Thomas as scripture?
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), September 23, 2004.
Andy, I don't want to use the word Church, since this implies they all agreed on everything.Even when one Group adopted the name Catholic to distinguish it from the Arrian group, they were all churches.
Was the Church (churches) guided by the Spirit, Andy?
the early church was guided by the Holy Spirit when it put the canon of Scripture together
Good question!!!
The spirit dictated what books were inspired?
The spirit gave them dream to know the truth?
The Spirit in an ecstatic trance told them what to believe?
No record from history for that being true, Andy.
Rather, they were the result of power to the strongest.
The Christian Yahwist
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), September 23, 2004.
You are funny Elpidio--You cite your opinion as though it were fact. I have heard all these claims before--and have been satisfied with compelling rebutals every time.
I could not in all good conscience, continue to believe if I was convinced that the very source where we receive revelation--was a fraud of human error and deception.
It amazes me that you would cite anything from the Scriptures to support yourself--when you believe what you do about them. But this also explains your confusion. You have no measuring rod to confirm anything. This is why you are easy prey for any deceitful spirit to come and lie to you.
You have little faith in God's ability to follow through with seeing to it that we have His Word--exactly as He wanted for us to have it. It has stood the test of time, Elpidio. No one has been able to successfully disprove the Bible.
Though there are some allusions to the gnostic or apocryphal books in the New Testament--there are no direct quotes from them. Neither Christ nor any of the New Testament writers appeal to them to make a point or explain a doctrine. Books that are regarded as inspired are often refered to with a phrase like "It stands written," or "It is written," or "the Scripture says," or something to that effect.
Jesus surely did tell me some of the books that are inspired. He tells us in Matthew:
"Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city, that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. (Matthew 23:34-35) These two murders are *bookends* for the whole of the Hebrew canon.
That some books were accepted as Scripture soon after they were written in the new testament era, can be confirmed by the Words of Peter who possessed a collection of Paul's letters and regarded them as Scripture. Listen to his confirmation of Paul's authority:
2 Peter 3:15-16
Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
Jude quoted from Peter in Jude 1:17-19:
But, dear friends, remember what the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ foretold. They said to you, "In the last times there will be scoffers who will follow their own ungodly desires." These are the men who divide you, who follow mere natural instincts and do not have the Spirit.
2 Peter 3:2-4
I want you to recall the words spoken in the past by the holy prophets and the command given by our Lord and Savior through your apostles. First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation."
Paul cites Luke's gospel as Scripture:
1 Tim 5:18
For the Scripture says, "Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain," and "The worker deserves his wages."
Luke 10:7
Stay in that house, eating and drinking whatever they give you, for the worker deserves his wages. Do not move around from house to house.
Obviously the early believers recognized a growing body of their own literature as being inspired Scripture.
An important question for the acceptance of these books was this...
Was the book either written by an apostle or by someone who knew the apostles, and thus had apostolic authority? For example--Luke was not an apostle--but he was a confidant and traveling companion of Paul.
We should also note that by a generation following the end of the apostolic age--every book in the New Testament had been cited as authoritive by some church father.
The canon already implicitly present in the apostolic age, gradually became explicit through a number of providential factors forming and fixing it.
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 23, 2004.
Kind of funny, faith. By reasoning the Bible is the word of God the way you do, you sound Catholic.If it is the case that the Bible doesn't have contradictions, faith, then you are a Catholic.
By admitting the Church fathers were right, then you support the claims of the catholic Church. This makes you a catholic.
Papias says that Matthew was written first, but truly, inetrnally, one can see Mark came first.
One can also see the dependence that Luke has on Matthew.
Yet Matthew presents a view that your righteousness saves you (Matt. 5, and 25). While Luke shows that God is open to everyone.
So if you admit Matthew has no error then you believe in works of righteousness.
This makes you a Catholic too.
Paul stresses more of salvation by faith, which is counted as righteousness.
So you are more of a contradiction than me.
Either you reject works and accept Paul, or you reject Paul and Accept works and Matthew and James (ch. 2).
But you are just like many Protestants, you choose what seems more convenient to "your Gospel" and claim we don't know what the Gospel is.
The Christian Yahwist
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), September 24, 2004.
The New Testament books were indeed handed down, rifled through, argued over and hotly debated before finally receiving "canonicity" at the council of Carthage, 397 A.D. along WITH the deuterocanicals (a.k.a. apochrypha).So the Protestant Bible is now missing 7 books that were canonized at that council in Carthage, when the N.T. was finally ratified for the first time!
I just recently heard a "history" expert (Protestant) state that the deuteros were not canonized until the Council of Trent, and that the N.T. was canonized at Carthage. That statement is a blatant lie. (I am truly surprised that Hank Hanegraf, the "Bible Answer Man," noted bible scholar, and President of CRI would allow such a falsehood to be disseminated from his radio program.)
Elpidio is correct in that there were many pressures from many differing groups who all "vied for position" in that first N.T. canonization. There were heresies galore trying to worm their way in from every direction. The Arian heresy NEARLY took over the Church, at that same time, but God intervened through one lone soldier . . . a CATHOLIC Bishop, named Athanasius!
Gail
-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), September 24, 2004.
The Roman Catholic Church along with all it's pagan elements didn't evolve until the time of Constatine.The church fathers I am talking about were hardly Roman Catholics.
Elpidio--maybe you should try and hear what I am saying--rather than seeking all your anti-Christian theologies to list for me.
I clearly showed that the canon was determined by God's Divine Providence--in spite of us--and that the early church--meaning the apostles themselves recognized their own body of literature as inspired Scripture. You can read this in their letters.
So how can you think that I believe that the Catholic Church determined the canon? They only ratified what was already intrinsically understood centuries before....
And to Gail--it is my understanding also--that the Council of Trent is where the Apocryphal books were canonized officially.
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 24, 2004.
Uh......pre-Judaism was pagan, henotheistic, and idolistic. Its roots were a mish-mash of diverse theologies and doctrines. Ask Moses if you don't believe me. Moses made the attempts to bring unification to Judaism. It is still a multi-faceted religion. St. Paul also made the inspired efforts to bring order and unity. Hello, Catholic Church....................
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 24, 2004.
What has the Reformation done? It has turned Christianity into a multi-faceted faith system. Think of it as pieces of broken glass scattered on the floor. The pieces were placed back together only to be once again shattered into hundreds upon hundreds of broken pieces..............................
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 24, 2004.
No rod...are you kidding/The Catholic Church feels almost home-like to the Jew. Why? Because you are not all that different!
You are still offering up sacrifices for sins every day. Even your garb is like the Jewish garb. All studded in gold, priests wearing pompous crowns on their heads---etc. The burning of incense...you name it--you are not all that different.
The Jews who favored their captive's pagan gods--worshiped a *queen of heaven*. Hello yourself. Guess what? God condemned that!
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 24, 2004.
So, what is the difference between those "pompous garbs" and those neatly tailored 3-piece suites and recruiting handshakes some Protestants ritualize in their churches. If it exists, it can apply in any organization.I've told my wife...
"If I could only find a small out-of-the-way Catholic Church, we could go to it and enjoy the holiness of worship in the humble ways Jesus showed." I'm living in a fantasy. Why? because people are people and they tend to muddle everything.
.................
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 24, 2004.
That old Jewish "Queen of Heaven" is a fertility goddess. It isn't the same title used by the Catholic. I'll have to go back to my books to find the name. Uh....that's why we read other materials, in order to understand what we believe....................
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 24, 2004.
You can hardly compare a man in a great suit--with the Catholic priest-- who in gold encrusted--pearl infested, gaudy King's costumes parades around in Mass. My pastors wear dress pants with sweaters...Well here., see what God thinks about the gold and garb:
Give back to her as she has given; pay her back double for what she has done. Mix her a double portion from her own cup. Give her as much torture and grief as the glory and luxury she gave herself. In her heart she boasts, 'I sit as queen; I am not a widow, and I will never mourn.'
" 'Woe! Woe, O great city, dressed in fine linen, purple and scarlet, and glittering with gold, precious stones and pearls! In one hour such great wealth has been brought to ruin!'
In her was found the blood of prophets and of the saints, and of all who have been killed on the earth."
Revelation 18 [snippets]
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 24, 2004.
Asherah is that goddess of fertility who is Yahweh's consort.You can hardly compare a man in a great suit--with the Catholic priest-- who in gold encrusted--pearl infested, gaudy King's costumes parades around in Mass. My pastors wear dress pants with sweaters...
-----Yes you can. It all depends on the reasons for such attire. I met way too many pastors with sparkling gold rings, chains, and watches. Expensive suits and possessions. It happens too much. He parades, not only in the streets, in the "church". I'm not saying that they are all the same. Some are humble and true to their motives of spreading the Gospel. The priests do not parade for boastful reasons in vain. They celebrate Mass.------
There are modern-day Pharisees. Hey, I sometimes watch evangelistic t.v. "sit-coms"..uh, I mean ministries.
.......
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 24, 2004.
To Faith, here is the canon from the Council of Carthage relating to canonization of the N.T. books as well. Please note the inclusion of the deuteros.Third Council of Carthage (A.D. 397).
Canon 24. Besides the canonical Scriptures (listed below), nothing shall be read in church under the name of divine Scriptures. Moreover, the canonical Scriptures are these: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the four books of the Kings,(a) the two books of Chronicles, Job, the Psalms of David, five books of Solomon,(b) the book of the Twelve [minor] Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, the two books of Ezra,(c) and the two books of the Maccabees. The books of the New Testament: the Gospels, four books; the Acts of the Apostles, one book; the epistles of the apostle Paul, thirteen; of the same to the Hebrews, one epistle; of Peter, two; of John the apostle, three; of James, one; of Jude, one; the Revelation of John. CONCERNING THE CONFIRMATION OF THIS CANON, THE CHURCH ACROSS THE SEA SHALL BE CONSULTED.
**********
Faith, did you make reference to particular Church Fathers somewhere? If you did, I can't find it. I take it that you consider Anthanius to be pagan by your above response ...? Do you consider Augustine pagan as well?
Gail
P.S. The above "Carthage" text can be viewed at the web site of Bruce Metzger (noted Protestant theologian).
-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), September 25, 2004.
Faith says:"Even your garb is like the Jewish garb. All studded in gold, priests wearing pompous crowns on their heads---etc."
What my priest wears at mass is not studded in gold, he doesn't wear a pompous crown, or any thing on his head for that matter, there are no pearls. The vestments typically cost about what the same as one of those tailored three piece suits, although they do last a lot longer.
-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), September 26, 2004.
In 314 A.D., Pope Silvester was crowned by Emperor Constantine. The Roman Emperor had converted to Christianity and he wanted to promote it. The Pope wanted to have the favor of the Roman Emperor instead of being persecuted.Constantine gave Pope Silvester a beautiful palace with the finest furniture and art. Silvester wore silk brocade robes and he had servants to wait on him. Near his palace was a cathedral which had seven altars made of gold, a canopy of solid silver above the main altar, and 50 chandeliers. Silvester was given the use of the imperial mail system and transportation system.
Churchmen wore purple robes, reflecting the purple of Constantine's court. That was an external change. The most important change was an internal one. Under Pope Silvester, the internal structure of the Church took on the form and practice and pomp of the Roman Empire.
Popes dressed and acted like Roman emperors and they had the same imperial attitude. They lived in luxury and they wanted to rule over both church and state.
Imperial papacy reached its peak during the Middle Ages. Popes were rich and powerful, and they ruled over kings and emperors.
Pope Gregory VII reigned from 1073 to 1085. He excommunicated the Holy Roman Emperor, Henry IV. In order to receive forgiveness from the Pope and to have the excommunication removed, Emperor Henry had to spend three days repenting in front of the castle where the Pope was staying. It was bitter cold (January 1077). Henry spent most of his time kneeling in the ice and snow, weeping and pleading for forgiveness. When Gregory finally allowed Henry to come into the castle, the Pope publicly humiliated the Emperor.
Pope Gregory VII declared that the Pope has the right to depose kings and emperors, to make laws, and to require secular rulers to kiss his feet. He said that nobody has the right to judge the Pope. Gregory also declared that because of the merits of Saint Peter, every duly elected Pope is a saint.
Pope Innocent III reigned from 1198 to 1216. He wore a gold crown covered with jewels. He sat upon a purple throne. His clothes sparkled with gold and jewels. His horse was covered with scarlet. Kings and churchmen kissed his foot. The Inquisition persecuted people who disagreed with him. Innocent became the most powerful man in the world.
Pope Boniface VIII reigned from 1294 to 1303. He said that he was Caesar, the Roman Emperor. He wore a crown which was covered with more than 200 costly jewels, including rubies, emeralds, sapphires, and large pearls.
Boniface sought to further increase the Pope's power and authority. In his encyclical "Unam Sanctam" he said that no person can be saved unless he or she is subject to the Pope. (You can read this online.)
Purple dye used to be extremely expensive. The color was a symbol of wealth and power. Purple was worn by Roman emperors and popes. During the middle ages, wealthy popes used gems and purple stones in papal architecture. The purple came from porphyry (a stone which has crystals embedded in a purple groundmass).
Pope Paul II reigned from 1464 to 1471. In 1464 he introduced the use of scarlet as another symbol of wealth and power. He called it "Cardinal's Purple" because it was worn by his cardinals. Scarlet became a luxury dye during the Middle Ages. Catholic cardinals still wear scarlet.
Pope Paul VI reigned from 1963 to 1978. He was the last Pope to wear the papal tiara. This is a triple crown, made of gold and covered with jewels. You can see pictures of the tiara online.
The Pope is an absolute monarch in the Vatican. He sits on an ornate throne. You can see pictures of the throne online.
Cardinals are called "princes of the church". They are citizens of the Vatican in addition to being citizens of their homelands.
Popes, cardinals and bishops wear gold and jewels. They wear rings and crosses. The Pope has a special ring known as the "Ring of the Fisherman". He also has magnificent pontifical rings which he wears on special occasions. Cardinals have rings of sapphire and gold. They often have additional rings of their own choosing.
Catholics kiss the Pope's ring. (They also kiss the rings of cardinals and bishops.) You can see pictures of this online. It is traditional to kneel when kissing the Pope's ring, but evidently some people don't kneel. On August 2, 2002, the President of Mexico kissed the Pope's ring. He bowed instead of kneeling, but even that caused a political controversy.
On special occasions, the Pope, cardinals and bishops wear gold miters and gold vestments. This is real gold, made with gold thread. You can see pictures online.
Popes wear ermine (an expensive fur often worn by royalty). They have a special cape called a mozzetta which is trimmed with ermine.
For solemn occasions, popes use a portable throne called a "sedia gestatoria". It is a richly adorned chair which is covered with silk. Long rods go through gold-covered rings. The throne is carried by twelve uniformed footmen. When the Pope celebrates solemn pontifical Mass in Saint Peter's Basilica, he arrives in state, preceded by a procession of cardinals, bishops and prelates. The Pope is carried on the sedia gestatoria, with a canopy over him and special fans made of white feathers on either side of him.
Pope Pius XII reigned from 1939 to 1958. When Vatican officials came into his presence, they had to kneel while speaking with him, and leave the room walking backwards. When he telephoned Vatican officials, they had to drop to their knees with the phone in their hand and remain kneeling while they spoke to him. This was going on in 1958. That is less than 50 years ago.
The Pope has a huge, luxurious palace. The Pontifical Palace, the Sistine Chapel, and Saint Peter's Basilica are filled with priceless paintings and statues. The architecture is rich and ornate. The ceiling of the Sistine Chapel was painted by Michelangelo. In addition, there are 22 Vatican museums which are full of art treasures. Pictures of all of these things are available online.
Please look at them. Words are inadequate to convey the rich architectural complexity and the artistic elegance of the Pope's palace, chapel, and church. Their opulence defies description.
"faith01@myway.com"), September 26, 2004.
Heres a link to the above article:Revelation 18
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 26, 2004.
Notice the subtle deception in Faith's response. First she says:"Even your garb is like the Jewish garb. All studded in gold, priests wearing pompous crowns on their heads---etc."
When I call her to task and inform her about what the typical priest wears, she comes back with an article about the pope. Now of course, there is a a papal tiara, but does a tiara make one pompous. Not necessarily. Certainly, there have been pompous popes just as there are pompous protestant pastors. The pompousness comes from the individual, not from the things.
For example, I have seen protestant pastors pompously refer to themselves as doctor. They use it as a title to lord over their congregations and there is a subtle bit of intimidation in many people's use of that title. However, that doesn't mean that everyone who uses the title doctor is pompous.
-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), September 26, 2004.
No james--the title doctor is in reference to education.In secular college--my art professor was called doctor. It has to do with the degree of education. Surely you know that?
And I really was refering to the pope all along. I probably misled you by saying priest. I think of the popes and bishops and cardinals as priests. But I guess a mere priest has to earn his gold and crowns..
You can't ignore history james....
Revelation speaks of a religious institution that looks exactly like the Roman Catholic Church.
Rev. 18:
After this I saw another angel coming down from heaven. He had great authority, and the earth was illuminated by his splendor. With a mighty voice he shouted:
"Fallen! Fallen is Babylon the Great! She has become a home for demons and a haunt for every evil spirit, a haunt for every unclean and detestable bird. For all the nations have drunk the maddening wine of her adulteries. The kings of the earth committed adultery with her, and the merchants of the earth grew rich from her excessive luxuries."
Then I heard another voice from heaven say: "Come out of her, my people, so that you will not share in her sins, so that you will not receive any of her plagues; for her sins are piled up to heaven, and God has remembered her crimes. Give back to her as she has given; pay her back double for what she has done. Mix her a double portion from her own cup. Give her as much torture and grief as the glory and luxury she gave herself.
In her heart she boasts, 'I sit as queen; I am not a widow, and I will never mourn.' Therefore in one day her plagues will overtake her: death, mourning and famine. She will be consumed by fire, for mighty is the Lord God who judges her.
"When the kings of the earth who committed adultery with her and shared her luxury see the smoke of her burning, they will weep and mourn over her. 10Terrified at her torment, they will stand far off and cry:
" 'Woe! Woe, O great city, O Babylon, city of power! In one hour your doom has come!'
"The merchants of the earth will weep and mourn over her because no one buys their cargoes any more-- cargoes of gold, silver, precious stones and pearls; fine linen, purple, silk and scarlet cloth; every sort of citron wood, and articles of every kind made of ivory, costly wood, bronze, iron and marble; cargoes of cinnamon and spice, of incense, myrrh and frankincense, of wine and olive oil, of fine flour and wheat; cattle and sheep; horses and carriages; and bodies and souls of men.
"They will say, 'The fruit you longed for is gone from you. All your riches and splendor have vanished, never to be recovered.' The merchants who sold these things and gained their wealth from her will stand far off, terrified at her torment. They will weep and mourn and cry out:
" 'Woe! Woe, O great city, dressed in fine linen, purple and scarlet, and glittering with gold, precious stones and pearls!
In one hour such great wealth has been brought to ruin!' "Every sea captain, and all who travel by ship, the sailors, and all who earn their living from the sea, will stand far off. When they see the smoke of her burning, they will exclaim, 'Was there ever a city like this great city?' They will throw dust on their heads, and with weeping and mourning cry out:
" 'Woe! Woe, O great city, where all who had ships on the sea became rich through her wealth! In one hour she has been brought to ruin! Rejoice over her, O heaven! Rejoice, saints and apostles and prophets!
God has judged her for the way she treated you.' " Then a mighty angel picked up a boulder the size of a large millstone and threw it into the sea, and said:
"With such violence the great city of Babylon will be thrown down, never to be found again.
The music of harpists and musicians, flute players and trumpeters, will never be heard in you again.
No workman of any trade will ever be found in you again. The sound of a millstone will never be heard in you again.
The light of a lamp will never shine in you again. The voice of bridegroom and bride will never be heard in you again. Your merchants were the world's great men.
By your magic spell all the nations were led astray. In her was found the blood of prophets and of the saints, and of all who have been killed on the earth."
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 26, 2004.
I thought one who professes a doctrine is called a "doctor". Hislop professed the propaganda that you are indoctrinating here, Faith. You are doing quite a number in doctoring up the Catholic doctrines..................
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 26, 2004.
Faith,Please provide the facts that back up your statement that Revelation speaks of a religious institution that looks exactly like the Roman Catholic Church as far as the harlot of Bablyon goes. I know that's how you see it, but I wish for facts that show the harlot of Babylon cannot be any other "institution" (religious or otherwise) than the Roman Catholic Church.
-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), September 26, 2004.
Any comments on the Council of Carthage post that Gail provided above?
-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), September 26, 2004.
It has to do with level of education. You really must know this and are just pulling my leg--rod. But I'll humor you anyway--A Doctorate is a level of degree in education.
You can get a Masters degree--or a Bachelor's degree etc....ring a bell?
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 26, 2004.
Well Andy--revelation is not about proof. I don't mean the book of Revelation when I say that--but revelation in general. It is a faith thing.The book of Revelation gives many clues as to who is the Harlot.
It is a city that sits on seven hills
It is refered to as Mystery Babylon--which means it has an air of mystery...
Babylon is the secret word Peter uses to describe where he is writing from when he is writing from Rome.
We know that this Harlot is committing adultery. In order to be cheating on God--she must have a relationship with Him. Pagan Rome never makes that claim.
This Harlot is responsible for the blood of many saints and prophets in history.
This Harlot is accused of leading people astray with her magic spells.
The bridegroom and bride will not be found in her anymore--which implies that Jesus and his church were found in her at some point.
Then add to that the idea of the purple scarlet robes--the wealth and gold and jewels etc...
And lastly--Jesus is calling His people out of her.....so obviously-- Christians are being led astray--
I think Mystery Babylon is clearly an apostate religion....the city on seven hills is obviously Vatican City...
I can list more things.., but I think this is a good start.
And I think you can understand what I am seeing...
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 26, 2004.
Faith,The article you posted above shows that some popes lived in luxury and demanded respect. Catholic teaching has never been that popes were impeccable. There were also more than a few popes who lived holy lives in poverty, were held captive, and were martyred. What is the list supposed to prove?
BTW: Bowing and kissing the ring is simply a sign of respect for the office of the papacy as the chief shepherd of the church.
The author also makes two statements:
1. The Pope wanted to have the favor of the Roman Emperor instead of being persecuted.
2. Popes were rich and powerful, and they ruled over kings and emperors.
These statements support opposite ideas with regard to the papacy. What point is trying to be proved here?
Reality is much more different than these short statements. Even at the height of the political power of the papacy the pope always had problems with the Holy Roman Emperor and balancing the ambitions of the French Kings against the Germans. Popes also had problems getting kings to do what they said they were going to do with regards to Crusades and helping the poor.
Today, not many people would put much stake in the claim that the pope has any power over political entities. How many rulers of the world today do what Pope John Paul II says?
-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), September 26, 2004.
Well...Andy...for now, you are right and the Catholic Church seems to have lost it's power--a power, by-the-way, that no church of Jesus Christ should have ever aspired to in the first place. You can't erase the history though...And the book of Revelation is about an apostate church that is clearly far worse than even the worst time in Catholic Church history. Revelation described a re-vived Roman Empire--and most likely--there will be a revived political entity more apostate than ever before....
Can the Roman Catholic Church rise again?
Time will tell.
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 26, 2004.
Oops.....That should have read:And the book of Revelation is about an apostate church that is clearly far worse than even the worst time in Catholic Church history. Revelation described a re-vived Roman Empire--and most likely--there will be a revived religious entity more apostate than ever before....
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 26, 2004.
If you look at the state of the world today Faith, Christians are being persecuted in Africa, in China, in the Middle East, etc like never before. This is my personal opinion, but I can see the forces of evil at work today. It's only in the West that Christians can live in relative peace, even though we must continue to fight more subtle evils like abortion and sexual promiscuity.I think Revelation's message is timeless no matter how it will all come to fruition. In some ways the letters to the seven churches are letters to Christianity across the globe today. Sometimes I think of the West as the church of Laodicea. "For you say, I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing..."
I see the value in Revelation not so much as a way to gauge when the end of the world will be, but to motivate and inspire us to live the Christian life in faith and love and to struggle for Christ's sake against evil in the world.
It's too easy for those of us in developed countries to forget the plight of the suffering Church across the world.
-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), September 26, 2004.
Andy,You bring up a good point, most of us today in the United States who are blessed to be able to live a far wealthier lifestyle than most of the popes no matter how much temporal power they ever had. And the problem is, we feel that our extreme wealth is an entitlement. Even devout Christians can fall into the trap of taking our blessings for granted. Perhaps revelations is pointing to us.
-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), September 26, 2004.
I agree wholeheartedly James. Sometimes I get so caught up in the sensationalism of Revelations that I forget the hard message it has for us today, here and now.
-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), September 26, 2004.
I think the book of Revelation is quite specific in what it is saying.Obviously it is very important that we not generalize it make some nice little ditty out of it..
Revelation is a big warning flag----very big.
-- (:faith01@myway.com"), September 26, 2004.
Hi Faith,Here is a line by line reply:
It is a city that sits on seven hills
OK, let's assume its Rome, though Jerusalem could fit that bill too.
It is refered to as Mystery Babylon--which means it has an air of mystery...
I don't understand your point here. Paul talks about the "mystery" of Christianity in 1 Cor 15:51, Eph 1:9, Eph 3:3-4, etc. There is no air of mystery about Catholicism beyond the "mystery" Paul talks about in his Epistles.
Babylon is the secret word Peter uses to describe where he is writing from when he is writing from Rome.
That is true. Catholic apologists use this fact to support the claim that Peter was in Rome and thus was bishop of Rome at one time.
We know that this Harlot is committing adultery. In order to be cheating on God--she must have a relationship with Him. Pagan Rome never makes that claim.
Actually the word is fornication. Yes, fornication is used throughout the OT as an allegory for God's people cheating on Him through idolatry and for alliances with foreign powers. But here, it states that the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her. Ancient pagan Rome's power was nearly universal in the ancient world and Bablyon has been used in Scripture for cities hostile to God.
I think it also shows the sexual license of the ancient Roman Empire and the fact that Rome was a center of materialism in the ancient world. The only verse that mentions God says that he has remembered her iniquities. This could be the sins of ancient Rome such as orgies and persecution of the church. Nothing says that the harlot had a special relationship with God, although idolatry was rampant in ancient pagan Rome.
This Harlot is responsible for the blood of many saints and prophets in history.
Yes, ancient Rome under Nero, Domitian, and Trajan too, I think. Also the religious wars that came shortly after the Protestant Reformation if you want to include anybody being killed for their beliefs.
This Harlot is accused of leading people astray with her magic spells.
The Roman Catholic Church considers sorcery a mortal sin.
The bridegroom and bride will not be found in her anymore--which implies that Jesus and his church were found in her at some point.
"And the voice of harpers, and musicians, and of pipers, and trumpeters, shall be heard no more at all in thee; and no craftsman, of whatsoever craft he be, shall be found any more in thee; and the sound of a millstone shall be heard no more at all in thee; And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived. "
I think you are confusing a bridegroom and bride with THE Bridegroom and Bride as an allegory for Christ and His Church. In the context of the passage, bridegroom and bride could easily be married people since the city has been destoyed and is desolate. No light, no commerce, no life. The destruction of the city is so complete, it's like a tomb. The Bridegroom and Bride don't make their entrance until chapter 21.
Then add to that the idea of the purple scarlet robes--the wealth and gold and jewels etc...
Could be any nation or anybody that is rich, but ancient pagan Rome fits in nicely with the rest.
And lastly--Jesus is calling His people out of her.....so obviously-- Christians are being led astray--
This happened in ancient pagan Rome and is happening across the world today too. Many fell from the faith when persecution occurred. Many are being led astray and have been led astray. However, ancient Rome fits the bill nicely here too.
I think Mystery Babylon is clearly an apostate religion....the city on seven hills is obviously Vatican City...
Or mystery could be just what it says, "And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH." Nothing about mystery "religion" in the verse. Could be the mystery of naming ancient Rome in code as Babylon like you mentioned earlier, regarding Peter.
Is Vatican City set on seven hills, or is Rome set on seven hills? More specifically was ancient pagan Rome set on seven hills or is Vatican City set on seven hills? Vatican City is but a small part of Rome. The Vatican City State occupies an area of little less than one half square kilometer in the center of Rome. I think its even situated on a field. There is one hill named Vatican Hill but it overlooks Vatican City.
Refs: http://sights.seindal.dk/sight/150_Vatican_City_State.html
http://sights.seindal.dk/sight/1247_The_Seven_Hills_of_Rome.html
-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), September 26, 2004.
Faith says:"I think the book of Revelation is quite specific in what it is saying.
Obviously it is very important that we not generalize it make some nice little ditty out of it.. "
Obviously that is what you think, but that doesn't make you right. I don't see how I was making some nice little ditty out of it. Scripture consisitently warns those of us who are wealthy that we ought to be careful. Even the poorest of us on this board are in the top 5% of the world's wealthiest people. Now, there is nothing inherently wrong with that, but wealth does give us more options to sin and forget about God. That was my only point. I don't think that was a nice ditty, I find it rather convicting.
-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), September 26, 2004.
Sorry james..,But the subject of revelation 18 is not "wealthy people".
This Harlot is accused of horrific crimes.....her cup runneth over-- and God has remembered her crimes against His people.
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 26, 2004.
Faith wrote:"It has to do with level of education. You really must know this and are just pulling my leg--rod. But I'll humor you anyway-- A Doctorate is a level of degree in education. You can get a Masters degree--or a Bachelor's degree etc....ring a bell? "
Faith, you humor me more often than you believe.
Of course, that's what it refers to today. But, what does it refer to in the Bible? That's really what we are talking about in the context of this thread's topic.
It does "ring a bell" when I here those "ding-a-lings".
.............
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 26, 2004.
James wrote-"For example, I have seen protestant pastors pompously refer to themselves as doctor. They use it as a title to lord over their congregations and there is a subtle bit of intimidation in many people's use of that title. However, that doesn't mean that everyone who uses the title doctor is pompous. "
James mentions what I'm am referring to. The term "doctor" doesn't have to have a secular connotation. It can also be the title for one who professes the Scriptures, "doctor" having a Biblical connotation.
.....................
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 26, 2004.
Oops! I almost forgot:"ding-a-ling.....a-ring-a-ring-a-ling!"
..............................
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 26, 2004.
i.e. Luke 2:46 in kjv"And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions."
-- James (stinkcat_14@hotmail.com), September 26, 2004.
Thanks, James.Oops, I didn't mean to stay on tangent, Faith.
I'm just kidding around, Faith.
:) See?
............
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 26, 2004.
Faith, I wonder if you could concede to my point above, that the deuterocanicals were indeed canonized at the same time as the N.T. books way way back in the 4th century, and that the claim that the deuteros were not canonized until Trent is false.Gail
-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), September 27, 2004.
rod--I don't recall the term doctor in the Scriptures as refering to a church leader.
Luke--for example--was a doctor. But I think it is obvious that he was a medical doctor. He makes frequent mentions of illnesses and diagnoses. See Colossians 4:14.
I can tell you that I have never heard any of our pastors refered to as Doctor.., though many of them may have a Doctorate in theology.
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 27, 2004.
Gail--I have no way of verifying your list.
All I know is that the Council of Trent did indeed ratify the deuterocannical books. Why did they do that if it was already done in any official way? I don't think they were ever official because there was too much disagreement.
Even when the Vulgate was written--Jerome did not want to include them. He was forced to do so--but kept them separate by sandwiching them inbetween the Old and New Testaments.
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 27, 2004.
Maybe they had to Faith because Martin Luther put them in dispute again. I'm not sure.
-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), September 27, 2004.
No Andy..,I think it is more likely that they needed to ratify these books to fight the Reformation who said that the Catholic Church of Rome was not following God's Word.
There are some teachings in those second class books [ books that were not written by prophets or apostles of God]--that supported such false teachings--which is what the reformation was about. People wanted to get back to the Scriptures and the truth in them.
Rome needed to make these books official to fight against Luther's very good points.
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 27, 2004.
Luther missed the points with his "Sola Fide", "Sola Scriptura", and "Sola Gratia" doctrines. Luther was in error.................
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 27, 2004.
Rod--That's what we all nedd--in good conscience--to decide for ourselves.., just where things went wrong.
Paul M...assumes that we have left the original church as Christ started. But the way I see it--Rome changed the face of Christianity when it blended with the pagan state of Rome at the time of Constatine.
In as far as I can see--by knowing my Scriptures--It is the people who are led astray by the false teachings of Rome--that have left the church as Christ inteneded.
To get a good picture of how church should look., all we need to do is turn to the book of Acts.
Luther picked up on a lot of the false teachings and got the ball of the reformation started. However--even he missed some important aspects.
We are not perfect--but we need to allow God to show the way, via His most relevant Word to us.
Religion is man-made and since humans are faulty--it makes little sense to follow a religion or the tradition of man--over God's Word.
I can't ignore what the Spirit shows me in the Scriptures., or what my conscience says in response to such things as apparitions and visions or prophecy that comes to us after-the fact of God's completed revelation to us in His Word. All I can do is try and point out the contradictions. I'm just planting seeds. It's up to God to make them grow or not.
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 27, 2004.
Faith-"Luther picked up on a lot of the false teachings and got the ball of the reformation started. However--even he missed some important aspects. "But, you, Faith, are not in error and have the truth? You, like Luther, both cae up with your understandings and acceptance of doctrines via the same methods? Yet, Luther was wrong, but you are right? And, the Catholic Church is wrong?
But, most importantly, you say that a personal interpretation is justifiable. You overlook the splintering of doctrine into confusion. But, still, you don't call it "arrogance".
...............
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 27, 2004.
Faith,You said, I think it is more likely that they needed to ratify these books to fight the Reformation who said that the Catholic Church of Rome was not following God's Word.
How can you say this in light of the info Gail provided regarding the Council of Carthage in 397?
-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), September 27, 2004.
Correction:You, like Luther, both [came up with your understandings and acceptance of doctrines via the same methods?
Is it really the Holy Spirit guiding both of you? Look at the mess Luther engendered with his rebelious behavior. He didn't even consider what social changes would spark by his disobedience and false doctrines. You call that being guided by the Holy Spirit? Look at the fruits and you shall see what their source is.
...............
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 27, 2004.
Andy--the only important thing to me is that the protestant Bible's Old testament is the same Old Testament that Jesus defines. That is good enough for me.The Jews did not accept those additional apocryphal books and neither did many Catholics back then--including Jerome himself. He was forced to add those books to his translation--but he did not give them the same weight as the Old Testament and the new Testament.
Neither do the Protestants--and apparently, neither did Jesus.
Jesus' Bible and Protestant Bible are the same
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 27, 2004.
Actually, faith, the Jews accept Maccabees (1 and 2) and Sirach, but not in the canon. They preserved them too.The Christian Yahwist
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), September 27, 2004.
No Elpidio. They do not accept them.They rejected them and did not want them added to their Scriptures-- and Jesus did not utilize those books either. Never are they quoted from.
Open a Jewish Bible and look to see if those books are there. They are not.
So in what way could they be accepted if not in their canon?
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 27, 2004.
Well,faith,Jesus celebrated Hannukah (feast of lights-See John 6 and 7) found in 2 Maccabees.
All the books of the Hebrew Bible are found in Sirach except for Esther. It is Sirach which gives the Jewish canon its validity. For that reason it was also preserved by Jews.
The Christian Yahwist. PS: See Sirach=Ecclesiasticus Ch.44-51. from NAB Bible
Sirach
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), September 27, 2004.
It would seem unimaginable that the Jews would not hold on to those books. They are records of Jewish life. Sirach is perhaps more revealing about Jewish life.....................
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 27, 2004.
Sorry Elpidio--but that book is not mentioned in the Hebrew Canon either.Just because the author of Macabees mentions things familiar to Jews-- doesn't prove anything. Surely you don't think that the book of Macabees invented Hannakuh--right?
And just because the book of Sirach mention books from the Hebrew Scriptures--doesn't necessesarily follow that it [Sirach] is included.
These books were not written in Hebrew--and were not written by an apostle or a prophet of God. They were written during what is known by the Jews as the 400 silent years.
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 27, 2004.
Trouble from the begining...James 4:1
What causes fights and quarrels among you? Don't they come from your desires that battle within you?
1 Tim 6:3-5
If anyone teaches false doctrines and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, he is conceited and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions and constant friction between men of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain.
2 Peter 2:1-3
But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them- -bringing swift destruction on themselves. Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.
2 John 1:2-11
To the chosen lady and her children, whom I love in the truth--and not I only, but also all who know the truth-- because of the truth, which lives in us and will be with us forever: Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and from Jesus Christ, the Father's Son, will be with us in truth and love. It has given me great joy to find some of your children walking in the truth, just as the Father commanded us. And now, dear lady, I am not writing you a new command but one we have had from the beginning. I ask that we love one another. And this is love: that we walk in obedience to his commands. As you have heard from the beginning, his command is that you walk in love. Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist. Watch out that you do not lose what you have worked for, but that you may be rewarded fully. Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him. Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work.
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 27, 2004.
Faith, you said "I have no way of verifying your list." The list is found at Bruce Metzger's website. (Too tired to look for it right now) It is a translation of the Council of Carthage done by a reputatable Protestant scholar. It is the first "list" that we know of that depicts the N.T. canon as well. Are those books suspect as well? (They are to some)So what -- some of the fathers had questions about Revelations, Hebrews, 2nd Peters, the book of James. Are we to infer by their doubts concerning these books that it's okay to throw them out as well.
The method you are using to believe-only-what-you-want-to-believe, irregardless of the evidence, makes it impossible to have a dialogue with you based on EVIDENCE. You aren't interested in evidence, only a touchy-feeling faith based on subjective feelings and "I think this" and "I think that."
Conversely my faith is based on HISTORICAL evidence! I am not afraid of the truth, but rather, EMBRACE IT!
Gail
-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), September 28, 2004.
Besides, didn't Jesus and the Apostles use the Septuagint? I thought the Hebrew canon wasn't ratified until after Christ's saving death on the cross and the start of Christianity as a separate religion. I could be wrong on this since I'm being lazy and going from memory.Faith, I thought you said that the church had nothing to do with forming the Bible because it was revealed by the Holy Spirit. That is, all Christians accepted the same books in the early church. The Council of Carthage is early evidence that most Christians accepted the deuterocanonicals.
Are you are saying the Holy Spirit guided the Jews in their canon instead of the Christians at Carthage?
-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), September 28, 2004.
Jesus defines the Hebrew Canon in this:"Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city, that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. (Matthew 23:34-35)
The first murder in the Old Testament was, of course, when Cain killed Abel. The last murder according to the Hebrew Old Testament was when the Prophet Zechariah, was stoned to death in the temple (2 Chron. 24:20-21).
If you were to look at the table of contents of a Hebrew Old Testament--you would notice two differences from our English Old Testament. First it has only twenty-two books, not thirty-nine. Yet, it is important to note that the content is the same. It is just that the Hebrew Bible combines certain books.
The second thing is that the order is different. The last book in the Hebrew Bible is Chronicles--not Malachi. But that is the interesting proof that Jesus' Bible was the same as the Hebrew Old Testament. I showed you a list in the link above of the Hebrew Canon. It is the very same canon that Jesus defines in Matthew. It is the same canon the Protestant accepts.
The Jews agreed that the Old Testament canon closed in about 400 B.C. with the prophecy of Malachi. The period between the Old Testament and the New Testament is often refered to as "The Four Hundred Silent Years." It really doesn't matter that the Jews were forced to canonize their Scriptures in A.D 95, to stop the addition of such uninspired books as the ones contained in the apocrypha. The canon was understood long before that., as even Jesus reveals for us.
We cannot be sure when the books were added to the Septuagint--but there is no evidence that those books were in the Septuagint at the time of Christ. Later additions of the Septuagint include these translations. But ever since they were inserted--their relative value has been debated.
According to Erwin W. Lutzer who wrote "Seven Reasons Why You Can Trust the Bible" reports that the first *official* council to ratify these books of the apocrypha was the Council of Trent in 1546.
I think it is important to remember that the apocryphal books were never a part of the Hebrew Bible--the very Bible that Jesus used and called the Jews to "know."
It doesn't matter to me what the Catholic Church did or said about those books in A.D. 397. If they were included--I do not think it was an official thing. But even if it were., it doesn't mean that they were right. I trust Jesus Word about it first. Jesus never quotes from those books. They are not part of the Jewish Scriptures.
Even Cardinal Cajetan--who opposed Martin Luther at Ausburg in 1518 published "A Commentary on all the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament". His commentary, however, did not include the Apocrypha. Did he not know they were official or authentic? Or is your list of the apocryphal books a later addition to your Council of Carthage list?
I find it hard to believe that the author of this book I am referencing--would make statements about the official status of those books being determined at Trent--if in fact, they were officila long before that.
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 28, 2004.
Cardinal Cajetan
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 28, 2004.
Hi Faith,I did some research and YOU'RE RIGHT in regards to the Council of Trent. It was the first infallible pronouncement on the Canon, addressed to the Church Universal. The Council of Carthage was really a synod and not necessarily binding for the whole church. However, the Council at Carthage is among the earliest evidence we have that many Christians in the early church used the Septuagint. If you want to say the Holy Spirit selected the canon of the Bible and that the Church didn’t (because the books of the Bible were in use by Christians before anyone ratified it), then Carthage is evidence that the Holy Spirit decided upon the deuterocanonicals. The Council of Trent made it official for the whole Church.
The Council of Trent had to define the canon infallibly because of Luther's claims against the inspiration of the books most of Christendom used up to that time. The Catholic Church did what it has done through the centuries, infallibly define something only after is brought into dispute. Luther went with the Palestinian Jews canon instead of the Alexandrian Jews canon in part because of Maccabees.
In Matthew 23:34-35, Jesus is referring to "guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth". I think it's a stretch to say Jesus defined the Hebrew canon in this verse. There was no "official" definition of the Hebrew canon until after Jesus' death (just like Trent after Luther). It is an indication of the Hebrew books in use at the time of Christ's life, though.
The question is, what books did the Christians use? In a sense, the Protestants inherited their OT canon from the Palestinian Jews and the Catholic Church from the Hellenistic Jews. One question that might help to understand the intent behind the Hebrew canon is why the Palestinian Jews defined their canon at the time they did and why they didn't include the deuterocaninicals.
-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), September 28, 2004.
Aaaah, references, references.
Council of Carthage (African synods)
-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), September 28, 2004.
And Faith,If you choose not to rely on Carthage as the first substantial indication of what precisely was used as canon, then what would be the first historical record you would rely on to determine what was used as Canon?
And wouldn't you agree that it is unfair to rely on Carthage for the first historical record of the N.T., BUT NOT for the deuteros?
Gail
P.S. BTW, all Protestant apologists/ministers that I have spoken with regarding this issue, DO INDEED rely on Carthage.
-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), September 28, 2004.
The Hellenistic Jews were at odd terms with the rest of the Jews. The Hellenistic Jews were being assimmilated into a different culture during this time and critizised for doing so. At least, this is what some believe. But, let's also consider that assimilations of the Jews has been an on going thing throughout history. This is why Judaism has changed and splintered so much. Only a remnance will be united before the end of all this mess, before Christ returns..................
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 28, 2004.
I did some research and YOU'RE RIGHT in regards to the Council of Trent. It was the first infallible pronouncement on the Canon, addressed to the Church Universal. The Council of Carthage was really a synod and not necessarily binding for the whole church. However, the Council at Carthage is among the earliest evidence we have that many Christians in the early church used the Septuagint.Yes--but the Septuagint did not always contain the apocryphal books. Later editions contain those books--but we can't be sure when they were inserted. Earlier believers did not accept those books. If the first council to try and claim them isn't until the council of Carthage--what does that tell you about the earlier church?
If you want to say the Holy Spirit selected the canon of the Bible and that the Church didn’t (because the books of the Bible were in use by Christians before anyone ratified it), then Carthage is evidence that the Holy Spirit decided upon the deuterocanonicals. The Council of Trent made it official for the whole Church.
The way I see it Andy--the earlier church--meaning the apostles themselves--determined the New Testament canon as the letters and books were being written and immediately circulated. The New Testament was recognized before any council ever okayed it. Just read for yourself how they recognize each others writings as Scripture.
It was God's divine providence and it was accomplished early on.
The Council of Trent had to define the canon infallibly because of Luther's claims against the inspiration of the books most of Christendom used up to that time. The Catholic Church did what it has done through the centuries, infallibly define something only after is brought into dispute. Luther went with the Palestinian Jews canon instead of the Alexandrian Jews canon in part because of Maccabees.
I disagree with your understanding as to Rome's motivation for deciding to make the uninspired books of the apocrypha official. They needed to fight Luther's valid objection to non-biblical doctrines that were surmounting out of Rome--such as prayers to the dead, purgatory and indulgences..for example.
In Matthew 23:34-35, Jesus is referring to "guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth". I think it's a stretch to say Jesus defined the Hebrew canon in this verse. There was no "official" definition of the Hebrew canon until after Jesus' death (just like Trent after Luther). It is an indication of the Hebrew books in use at the time of Christ's life, though.
But don't you think it pretty obvious that Jesus defines the Hebrew Old Testament exactly--including even the order in which the Jews list their books? These two murders are *bookends* for the whole of the Hebrew canon.
Interestingly, eighteen out of the twenty-two books of the Hebrew canon are quoted in the New Testament (All except Judges, Chronicles, Esther, and Song of Solomon). But by clear implication these books were regarded as holy Scripture since Christ frequently refered to the whole Old Testament as a unit.
Even the council at Jamnia only ratified the books that were already accepted. See Jesus' definition in Matthew again.
The question is, what books did the Christians use? In a sense, the Protestants inherited their OT canon from the Palestinian Jews and the Catholic Church from the Hellenistic Jews. One question that might help to understand the intent behind the Hebrew canon is why the Palestinian Jews defined their canon at the time they did and why they didn't include the deuterocaninicals.
The apocryphal books were never a part of the Hebrew Bible. They are still not a part of the Hebrew Bible. That someone was trying to make them be a part--was the reason for the council in Jamnia.
-- (F"faith01@myway.com"), September 28, 2004.
For Gail-- And Faith, If you choose not to rely on Carthage as the first substantial indication of what precisely was used as canon, then what would be the first historical record you would rely on to determine what was used as Canon?Like I have said from the begining--I rely on the providence of God, not some church council.
No council ever discarded the books already accepted, or rejected books that weren't already rejected.
And wouldn't you agree that it is unfair to rely on Carthage for the first historical record of the N.T., BUT NOT for the deuteros?
I don't rely on Carthage for anything, Gail. The Jews never relied on Jamnia either...
Many people suppose that the decisions about what books would be in the Bible--were made by a church council behind closed doors, where they debated the issues, and then accepted some books, and rejected others.
I think the difference between us will come in how we look at this:
Did the New Testament give birth to the Church--or did the Church give birth to the New Testament? How you answer that question will determine what you believe about how the Bible came together..
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 28, 2004.
Actually, Faith, I think you misunderstood the point I was trying to make. I wasn't accusing YOU of using Carthage when it suits you, and discarding it when convenient. I was speaking, in general, of Protestant LEADERS who do that, and I was simply asking you to agree me with me on that point. I think you said earlier that you had been told, or under the impression, that Carthage only included the N.T. books and that Trent then ADDED the deuteros. Have we been able to demonstrate to you that that is not true?Gail
-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), September 28, 2004.
I am not sure what you are talking about now Gail.You made the claim that the apocryphal books were officially determined at the council of Carthage. I simply knew that that wasn't true. I find a site and linked you to it. I brought up the point that Cardinal Cajaten didn't seem to be aware of such an official claim to those books. Andy agreed with me that the first official canonization of the apocryphal books was at the Council of Trent.
I am also unaware of your claim that Protestants rely on the Council of Carthage for determining the old or New Testaments.
I don't think that that is true.
Personally I never said anything about Carthage other than that I didn't trust your supposed canon list of theirs--that included the apocryphal books. I never said anything about the Old or New Testament books with respect to Carthage.
I am not exactly sure what it is that you are asking me to agree about?
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 28, 2004.
What council you follow for the books of the Old and the New ,faith?Or Which Church Father?
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), September 28, 2004.
Hi Faith,I'm talking about the Protestant assertion (not by you) that you CAN use Carthage to affirm the N.T. canon BUT then discard Carthage when it comes to the deuteros.
In other words it would be misleading to say "The N.T. books were first canonized at Carthage, and the deuteros were added at Trent." And again, I'm not pinning this on you, but I'm just talking about this assertion that has been made by OTHERS.
Gail
-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), September 28, 2004.
Could you be more specific Gail?What Protestant church uses the Council of Carthage to determine the canon of the New Testament?
I have never heard that before....
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 28, 2004.
Faith,Yes--but the Septuagint did not always contain the apocryphal books. Later editions contain those books--but we can't be sure when they were inserted. Earlier believers did not accept those books. If the first council to try and claim them isn't until the council of Carthage--what does that tell you about the earlier church?
What evidence do you have that "earlier believers did not accept these books?" Are you referring to Jews or Christians? Anything earlier than the Council of Carthage to show that believers before that time did not accept the deuterocanonicals? I'm not talking about individuals, but churches as a group like the Council of Carthage. I know about Jerome's misgivings, but him being "forced" to admit the deuterocanonicals may be more evidence that they were widely accepted at the time. He might have been in the minority. Again, Church councils are usually called only if problems arise and what is generally accepted is suddenly under dispute. I'm not sure how your point is supported by the fact that no Christian council before 397 AD made a canon. Were there any Christian councils before Carthage that rejected the deuterocanonicals?
The way I see it Andy--the earlier church--meaning the apostles themselves--determined the New Testament canon as the letters and books were being written and immediately circulated. The New Testament was recognized before any council ever okayed it. Just read for yourself how they recognize each others writings as Scripture.
Faith, in my post I wasn't referring to the New Testament, but the Old. Which version of the Old Testament did the apostles use?
I disagree with your understanding as to Rome's motivation for deciding to make the uninspired books of the apocrypha official. They needed to fight Luther's valid objection to non-biblical doctrines that were surmounting out of Rome--such as prayers to the dead, purgatory and indulgences..for example.
But Luther rejected those books that were generally accepted up to that time because they supported Catholic doctrines. He decided that the books that could be used as Biblical support for Catholic doctrines like "Purgatory" and "Faith and Works" weren't inspired. He even added the word "alone" and wanted to get rid of the Letter of James. Did he come up with his doctrine first, and then question the canonicity of the deuteros, or was it the ther way around? There may be evidence that he questioned the canonicity of the deuterocanonicals before he came up with his doctrine. If there is, please provide it. I may have it wrong.
But don't you think it pretty obvious that Jesus defines the Hebrew Old Testament exactly--including even the order in which the Jews list their books? These two murders are *bookends* for the whole of the Hebrew canon.
Jesus was speaking to the Jews of the time and in the place of Palestine. So obviously, he mentioned the books that were in use at the time and place he was present. Rather than creating a canon in that verse, it's about guilt and the blood of the righteous. It's not an explicit creation of a canon. If you want to imply the validity of the Hebrew canon from a Scriptural verse that is fine. Let's just be clear that the support is through implication rather than an explicit and purposeful declaration. Still, I think it important to consider what canon the apostles and early Christians used after they were kicked out of the syangogues.
Interestingly, eighteen out of the twenty-two books of the Hebrew canon are quoted in the New Testament (All except Judges, Chronicles, Esther, and Song of Solomon). But by clear implication these books were regarded as holy Scripture since Christ frequently refered to the whole Old Testament as a unit.
Sounds good, but the actual version the New Testament writers used was usually the Septuagint which included the 7 "extra" books.
Even the council at Jamnia only ratified the books that were already accepted. See Jesus' definition in Matthew again.
So Jamnia did for Jews what the Council of Carthage and Trent did for Christians.
The apocryphal books were never a part of the Hebrew Bible. They are still not a part of the Hebrew Bible. That someone was trying to make them be a part--was the reason for the council in Jamnia.
But the Hebrew Bible was never officially created until Jamnia. And this happened after Christianity was a separate religion. And the early Christians, including the writers of the New testament used the Septuagint rather than the Hebrew version. There are many verses in the New Testament where the writers quoted from the Septuagint rather than the Hebrew text Ref.
The next question is whether the New testament writers quoted from the deuterocaninical books. I think the answer to that is no/maybe (but see this link for an alternate viewpoint). But if we are using that as a rule, then we would also have to remove all the other books from the protocanonical books that weren't directly quoted from and we should then include the other apocryphal books that are quoted from.
The fact is, most of the New testament quotes of the Old are from the Septuagint rather than the Hebrew version.
-- Andy S ("ask3332004@yahoo.com"), September 28, 2004.
Elpidio--you are not helping.I never said I follow any council...
I accept the Bible as given to me by God.....
The Bible is a remarkable collection of 66 books, united by a common theme, and like a tapestry it weaves together the story of God's redemption of the human race. That these books should be collected, and accepted as the Word of God is itself a miracle of God's providence.
The same authority that I see in the establishment of the Old Testament, I ascribe to the New Testament as well. The authority of the Scriptures is not found in human brilliance or speculation--but is rooted in God. Jesus commissioned the apostles to pass on the truth he had taught them.
John 14:25-26
All this I have spoken while still with you. But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.
The books of the New Testament were written during the last half of the first century. Obviously there was a process of selection and verification done by the early believers. And as long as the aposles were alive--everything could be verified:
Luke 1:1-4
Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.
Acts 1:21-22
..."Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from John's baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection."
For example...John could say, "The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. We write this to make ourjoy complete." [1 John 1:2-4]
Peter assured us that he was an eyewitness, "We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain.
Apostolic authority was the final court of appeal.
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 28, 2004.
This thread is already over 100 messages. Most long. So I decided to move the discussion into another thread.Who has the Truth, part 2 continued here.
Who has the truth part 2
-- Assistant Moderator (egonval@yahoo.com), September 28, 2004.
Hi Andy...After posting a response to this .., I went back and made the mistake of clicking on the link you provided--and I lost my whole respose to you! This is the second time I messed up like that in a week. It is frustrating.
Anyway--I'll attempt it again, though it will be a watered down version.
What evidence do you have that "earlier believers did not accept these books?" Are you referring to Jews or Christians? Anything earlier than the Council of Carthage to show that believers before that time did not accept the deuterocanonicals?
I go by the apostles and Jesus and what they said. Jesus never quotes from any of those books and neither do any of the apostles.
I'm not talking about individuals, but churches as a group like the Council of Carthage. I know about Jerome's misgivings, but him being "forced" to admit the deuterocanonicals may be more evidence that they were widely accepted at the time. He might have been in the minority. Again, Church councils are usually called only if problems arise and what is generally accepted is suddenly under dispute. I'm not sure how your point is supported by the fact that no Christian council before 397 AD made a canon. Were there any Christian councils before Carthage that rejected the deuterocanonicals?
I don't follow councils Andy. I believe the Bible , both Old and New Testament were known and understood by God's people long before any council ever sat down to ratify what was already understood.
When the apocryphal books were being inserted where they were not wanted--it became a problem.
Faith, in my post I wasn't referring to the New Testament, but the Old. Which version of the Old Testament did the apostles use?
I assume they used the same Scriptures as Jesus. And they did not contain the apocryphal books.
But Luther rejected those books that were generally accepted up to that time because they supported Catholic doctrines. He decided that the books that could be used as Biblical support for Catholic doctrines like "Purgatory" and "Faith and Works" weren't inspired. He even added the word "alone" and wanted to get rid of the Letter of James. Did he come up with his doctrine first, and then question the canonicity of the deuteros, or was it the ther way around? There may be evidence that he questioned the canonicity of the deuterocanonicals before he came up with his doctrine. If there is, please provide it. I may have it wrong.
The deuterocanonicals were never part of the Hebrew Bible. The New Testament writers never quote from them--and they contradict what the inspired Scriptures do reveal. Therefore, I do not believe they are valid. To make doctrines based on them is what Luther fought against.
Jesus was speaking to the Jews of the time and in the place of Palestine. So obviously, he mentioned the books that were in use at the time and place he was present. Rather than creating a canon in that verse, it's about guilt and the blood of the righteous. It's not an explicit creation of a canon.
Well--see that's what I call revelation. I do believe that Jesus defines for us the Jewish canon of Scripture in that verse. The two murders serve as bookends.
If you want to imply the validity of the Hebrew canon from a Scriptural verse that is fine. Let's just be clear that the support is through implication rather than an explicit and purposeful declaration. Still, I think it important to consider what canon the apostles and early Christians used after they were kicked out of the syangogues.
They used the Hebrew canon.
Sounds good, but the actual version the New Testament writers used was usually the Septuagint which included the 7 "extra" books.
Well from what I understand--that may not be true. Apparently there is good reason to believe that earlier editions of the Septuagint did not include those books. I don't know how t0o verify that other than to say that Jesus nor the apostles ever appeal to any of those books.
So Jamnia did for Jews what the Council of Carthage and Trent did for Christians.
It's more like Jamnia did for the Jews what Luther did for Christianity--by rejecting those books as uninspired second class talltales.
But the Hebrew Bible was never officially created until Jamnia. And this happened after Christianity was a separate religion. And the early Christians, including the writers of the New testament used the Septuagint rather than the Hebrew version. There are many verses in the New Testament where the writers quoted from the Septuagint rather than the Hebrew text Ref.
Well you can choose to believe that--but I recognize that the Jewish Hebrew Scriptures were already understood centuries earlier.
The next question is whether the New testament writers quoted from the deuterocaninical books. I think the answer to that is no/maybe (but see this link for an alternate viewpoint). But if we are using that as a rule, then we would also have to remove all the other books from the protocanonical books that weren't directly quoted from and we should then include the other apocryphal books that are quoted from.
The fact is, most of the New testament quotes of the Old are from the Septuagint rather than the Hebrew version.
But if none of the apocryphal books are recognized then what makes you assume the Septuagint contained them? And even if that translation did--obviously they were of no instructional value.
There are only like four books from the Old Testament that are not quoted--but by mere implication and having always been a part of the Old Testament--and the fact that they are written by prophets of God....supports their inspired status...
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 28, 2004.
Is it my imagination, or do we have a similar discussion going on at another thread?Well, anyway, the subject of the apochrypha, Greek Septuigint is a good and hairy question. It was always my understanding that the Greek Septuagint was the one most widely used because it was the popular lingo of the day. I tried to google up some info and got tooo many sites to weed through.
So, (and I know this doesn't necessary prove that the Greek Septuigint was the one most widely used), but I did find numerous quotes from early Christians quoting the deuteros. Here are a few quotes:
"Having then this hope, let our souls be bound to Him who is faithful in His promises, and just in His judgments. He who has commanded us not to lie, shall much more Himself not lie; for nothing is impossible with God, except to lie. Let His faith therefore be stirred up again within us, and let us consider that all things are nigh unto Him. By the word of His might He established all things, and by His word He can overthrow them. 'Who shall say unto Him, What hast thou done ? or, Who shall resist the power of His strength?'[Wisdom 12:12,ll:22] When and as He pleases He will do all things, and none of the things determined by Him shall pass away? All things are open before Him, and nothing can be hidden from His counsel. 'The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth His handy-work. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night showeth knowledge. And there are no words or speeches of which the voices are not heard.'[Ps. 19:1-3]" Clement of Rome,To the Corinthians, 27:5(c A.D. 80),in ANF,I:12
"Stand fast, therefore, in these things, and follow the example of the Lord, being firm and unchangeable in the faith, loving the brotherhood, and being attached to one another, joined together in the truth, exhibiting the meekness of the Lord in your intercourse with one another, and despising no one. When you can do good, defer it not, because 'alms delivers from death.'[Tobit 4:10,12:9] Be all of you subject one to another?[1 Pt 5:5] having your conduct blameless among the Gentiles,'[1 Pt 2:12] that ye may both receive praise for your good works, and the Lord may not be blasphemed through you. But woe to him by whom the name of the Lord is blasphemed![Isa 52:5] Teach, therefore, sobriety to all, and manifest it also in your own conduct. Polycarp,To the Phillipians,10(A.D. 135),in ANF,I:35
" 'Be just in your judgement':[Deut 1:16,17 Prov 31:9] make no distinction between man and man when correcting transgressions. Do not waver in your decision. 'Do not be one that opens his hands to receive, but shuts them when it comes to giving'[Sirach 4:31]" Didache,4:3-5(A.D. 140),in ACW,VI:17
"Melito to his brother Onesimus, greeting: Since thou hast often, in thy zeal for the word, expressed a wish to have extracts made from the Law and the Prophets concerning the Saviour and concerning our entire faith, and hast also desired to have an accurate statement of the ancient book, as regards their number and their order, I have endeavored to perform the task, knowing thy zeal for the faith, and thy desire to gain information in regard to the word, and knowing that thou, in thy yearning after God, esteemest these things above all else, struggling to attain eternal salvation. Accordingly when I went East and came to the place where these things were preached and done, I learned accurately the books of the Old Testament, and send them to thee as written below. Their names are as follows: Of Moses, five books: Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy; Jesus Nave, Judges, Ruth; of Kings, four books; of Chronicles, two; the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, Wisdom also, Ecclesiastes, Song off Songs, Job; of Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah; of the twelve prophets, one book; Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras. From which also I have made the extracts, dividing them into six books." Melito of Sardes,Fragment in Eusebius' Ecclesiatical History,4:26(A.D. 177),in NPNF2,I:206
Here's the link http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/deutero.htm
*******
So, at any rate, we can see from the above that they were widely used and quoted. The Jewish council that I think was mentioned above who stuck to the Hebrew version could not possibly have been lead by the Holy Spirit. If they had been, they would have accepted the gospel presentation of our Lord. Conversely, they rejected Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, so why should any Christian rely on them for their canon of scripture?
Gail
-- Gail (Rothfarms@socket.net), September 28, 2004.
Because Gail--The Hebrew Scriptures--minus any apocryphal books--was Jesus' Bible.
The deuterocanonical books are not written by prophets or apostles of God either....
Jesus said he sends prophets and apostles to carry the Word of God.
-- ("faith01@myway.com"), September 29, 2004.