Posted on 05/21/2018 7:51:02 AM PDT by Salvation
Gal 5:16-25
Brothers and sisters, live by the Spirit and you will certainly not gratify the desire of the flesh. For the flesh has desires against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; these are opposed to each other, so that you may not do what you want. But if you are guided by the Spirit, you are not under the law. Now the works of the flesh are obvious: immorality, impurity, lust, idolatry, sorcery, hatreds, rivalry, jealousy, outbursts of fury, acts of selfishness, dissensions, factions, occasions of envy, drinking bouts, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
In contrast, the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control.
Against such there is no law. Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified their flesh with its passions and desires. If we live in the Spirit, let us also follow the Spirit.
My Bible doesn't add things like Roman Catholicism.
I've posted the passage in question from Galatians.
What the msgr has posted is an addition to what Paul wrote in Galatians.
Speaking of shutting the gate.....
Sorry e, but we have told you numerous times that the first Bible was the Vulgate with all the books.
Protestant Bibles have some books omitted due to the whims of Martin Luther.
You lose; Catholics win!
The Catholic Bible IS the complete Bible and the first one printed by the Guttenberg Press!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gutenberg_Bible
The Gutenberg Bible (also known as the 42-line Bible, the Mazarin Bible or the B42) was the first major book printed in the West using movable type. It marked the start of the “Gutenberg Revolution” and the age of the printed book in the West. Widely praised for its high aesthetic and artistic qualities,[1] the book has an iconic status. Written in Latin, the Gutenberg Bible is an edition of the Vulgate, printed by Johannes Gutenberg, in Mainz, in present-day Germany, in the 1450s.
As Jerome completed his translations of each book of the Bible, he recorded his observations and comments in an extensive correspondence with other scholars. These letters were collected and appended as prologues to the Vulgate text for those books where they survived.
In these letters, Jerome described those books or portions of books in the Septuagint that were not found in the Hebrew as being non-canonical; he called them apocrypha.[21] Jerome's views did not prevail and all complete manuscripts and editions of the Vulgate include some or all of these books.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate
Protestant Bibles have some books omitted due to the whims of Martin Luther.
You really are ignorant of history aren't you?
Recommend you read The Canon of Scripture by F.F. Bruce.
sal, we can keep playing and you can keep losing.
Good that you posted the link.
And you protest too much.
How is rebutting Salvation’s errors, numerous as they are, as protesting too much?
You guys just don’t ever get it, no matter how many times you are proved wrong.
The canon that includes the Apocrypha was added by the Council of Trent AFTER Luther translated the Bible.
What Luther translated was recognized as the canon of Scripture by the Catholic church at the time he translated it, until they changed it later..
https://www.catholic.com/qa/didnt-the-catholic-church-add-to-the-bible
By the time of the Reformation, Christians had been using the same 73 books in their Bibles (46 in the Old Testament, 27 in the New Testament)—and thus considering them inspired—for more than 1100 years. This practice changed with Martin Luther, who dropped the deuterocanonical books on nothing more than his own say-so. Protestantism as a whole has followed his lead in this regard.
Sorry s, it doesn't matter what some elitist Catholic wishful thinking is, the Vulgate was a late fourth century Latin translation of the books that already had been written in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic by the end of the FIRST century - in fact, there already WAS a Latin version prior to the Vulgate called the "Vetus Latina". So the Vulgate was NOT the "first Bible" and the Vulgate that Trent named as its "official" Bible underwent numerous additions and changes over the years so it wasn't really even Jerome's Vulgate.
And, please tell me what we "lose" by recognizing that the Apocryphal books - though perhaps nice stories - are not the Divinely-inspired, words of God? It's not as if only Protestants see it that way. Do you think you can read these comments and learn the actual truth this time? It can be irritating to have to keep repeating the same proofs all the time. Thanks!
I had to read 2 Maccabees for my OT Survey class in seminary. An interesting book. Good history.
1 Maccabees 9:27 explicitly states that at the time of the books writing, prophets of God had already ceased to appear:
Geisler and MacKenzie summarize the failure of the Apocrypha as a whole to pass the test of propheticity:
“and thus considering them inspired”
No. There was debate among Catholic scholars concerning how important the Apocryphal books were. Were they authoritative, or just good reading?
Writing prior to the canon decision at the Council of Trent, Cajetan wrote to the Pope:
“Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus.
Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith.
Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.”
http://thesearewritten.blogspot.com/2007/08/cardinal-cajetan-on-biblical-canon.html
“After listing the twenty-two Old Testament books and the twenty-seven authorized canonical books of the New Testament, Athanasius wrote: These are the fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness.”
He explicitly states that the canonical Scriptures alone were used for the determination of doctrine while the books of the Apocrypha held ecclesiastical sanction for reading only and were not considered part of the canon. This distinction is further amplified by Rufinus at the beginning of the fifth century. He is important as a witness to the exact nature of the canon of Scripture for he lived in Rome and wrote his comments on Scripture just a few years after the Councils of Hippo and Carthage under Augustine.
He claims that the list he gives is that which the Fathers have handed down to the Church, and that these books alone are used to confirm doctrine and deduce proofs for the faith. He divides the writings circulating in the Church of his day into three broad categories. First, there is the canon of inspired Scripture of the Old and New Testaments which he enumerates. Secondly, there are what he calls ‘ecclesiastical’ writings which were read in the Church but were not authoritative for the defining of doctrine. He specifically mentions the Old Testament Apocrypha in this category. Then there was a third classification of writings which he designates as ‘apocryphal’, by which he means heretical writings which were not read in the Church.”
https://www.the-highway.com/scripture1_Webster.html
I think Rome included in their canon at Trent as kind of a "back at you" to the Reformers who had rejected them.That's some way to determine your canon.
I do find it very interesting though that at Trent, when Rome was formalizing their canon that they never included any of the other writings they cling to so dear and draw so much of their theology from such as the Didache or The Protoevangelium of James.
That they didn't is telling.
I guess there is nothing stopping them from reopening the canon for reconsideration. Save for the pushback it would generate.
The above seven reasons build a compelling case that the Apocrypha should not be regarded as Scripture. All of this becomes very problematic for the Roman Catholic Church which has made a supposedly infallible declaration regarding the canonicity of the Apocrypha, a declaration which cannot be retracted. But what happens when the facts of history undermine the dogmatic position taken by Rome? And what is left of her infallibility if one of her “infallible” declarations is shown to be false?
To summarize: the Jews who were entrusted with the oracles of God (Rom. 3:2) did not accept the Apocrypha. Neither did Jesus or the writers of the New Testament. Neither did Jerome, major theologians, and even Roman Catholic scholars up until the time of the Reformation. It wasn’t until 1546 at the Council of Trent that the Apocrypha was officially and infallibly declared to be Scripture, as even admitted to by Roman Catholic sources. The Apocrypha cannot pass the test of propheticity and certain books even contain doctrinal and historical errors. This, of course, is not to say the Apocrypha is not useful. It certainly is. But it is not Scripture. And Protestants are in good standing with the historical evidence and historic position of the Church when they refuse to acknowledge the books of the Apocrypha as canonical.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.