Skip to comments.
The Complete Bible: Why Catholics Have Seven More Books [Ecumenical]
CUF ^
Posted on 09/06/2008 4:20:00 PM PDT by NYer
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-52 next last
1
posted on
09/06/2008 4:20:02 PM PDT
by
NYer
To: Salvation; narses; SMEDLEYBUTLER; redhead; Notwithstanding; nickcarraway; Romulus; ...
For your reflection and discussion.
2
posted on
09/06/2008 4:21:11 PM PDT
by
NYer
("Ignorance of scripture is ignorance of Christ." - St. Jerome)
To: NYer
3
posted on
09/06/2008 4:29:11 PM PDT
by
Fred
(The Democrat Party is the Nadir of Nihilism)
To: NYer
Oddly the whole premese seems to be refuted by the article itself....here it says:
Protestant Bibles contain all those books, except those rejected by the Protestant Reformers in the 1500’s.
Then later it states:
DISCUSSION: Prior to Jesus’ time, the Jews did not have a sharply defined, universal canon of Scripture. Some groups of Jews used only the first five books of the Old Testament (the Pentateuch); some used only the Palestinian canon (39 books); some used the Alexandrian canon (46 books), and some, like the Dead Sea community....
Obviously there was a precedent for the Protestant Old Testament in the Palestinian canon predating Christ. So to state the Protestant canon was some 1500's creation with sinister motives is just flat out wrong.
4
posted on
09/06/2008 4:33:11 PM PDT
by
Always Right
(Obama: more arrogant than Bill Clinton, more naive than Jimmy Carter, and more liberal than LBJ.)
To: NYer
The message of salvation is brief. Why add more books?
To: Brian S. Fitzgerald
The message of salvation is brief. Why add more books? Why eliminate them?
6
posted on
09/06/2008 4:37:38 PM PDT
by
NYer
("Ignorance of scripture is ignorance of Christ." - St. Jerome)
7
posted on
09/06/2008 4:41:21 PM PDT
by
Titan Magroyne
("Drill now drill hard drill often and give old Gaia a cigarette afterwards she deserves it." HerrBlu)
To: NYer
The Complete Bible: Why CatholicsProtestants Have Seven MoreFewer Books [Ecumenical] Fixed it for you. No charge.
Don't give the other side lexical benefit.
8
posted on
09/06/2008 4:42:32 PM PDT
by
markomalley
(Extra ecclesiam nulla salus)
To: Always Right
Oddly the whole premese seems to be refuted by the article itself....here it says: Speed reading was never my forte. You jumped over the response. I suggest you go back and read the post through.
9
posted on
09/06/2008 4:43:13 PM PDT
by
NYer
("Ignorance of scripture is ignorance of Christ." - St. Jerome)
Comment #10 Removed by Moderator
To: NYer
Because they don’t add anything to salvation which is with Jesus Himself - you believe on Jesus and your salvation is assured.
11
posted on
09/06/2008 4:45:01 PM PDT
by
SkyDancer
("Warning - Hurricane Sarah Is Coming")
To: markomalley
Fixed it for you. No charge. Thanks That might explain why some posters post comments without reading the entire text ;-0
12
posted on
09/06/2008 4:47:15 PM PDT
by
NYer
("Ignorance of scripture is ignorance of Christ." - St. Jerome)
To: NYer
13
posted on
09/06/2008 5:04:17 PM PDT
by
GOP Poet
To: NYer
Thank you for posting this. It is a question that I have wondered about for many years.
14
posted on
09/06/2008 5:06:59 PM PDT
by
skimask
(Never argue with an idiot, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience)
Comment #15 Removed by Moderator
To: NYer
FTR, many Jews think the Hebrew Bible has 24 books.
ML/NJ
16
posted on
09/06/2008 5:10:18 PM PDT
by
ml/nj
Comment #17 Removed by Moderator
To: Always Right
Actually, it doesn’t. If you read it again it might be clearer. It talks about why the Jews rejected the version used by the Apostles and that version was later seized on by the Protestant Reformers.
18
posted on
09/06/2008 5:42:55 PM PDT
by
IrishCatholic
(No local communist or socialist party chapter? Join the Democrats, it's the same thing.)
To: NYer
When the canon became a serious issue following the Protestant schism in the early 1500s, Trent dogmatically defined what the Church had consistently taught for more than 1,000 years.
Consistently? On the bright side, given the variety of ancient opinions on
New Testament Canon, it's a minor miracle that Protestants and Roman Catholics can agree on that much. :)
19
posted on
09/06/2008 6:02:20 PM PDT
by
Zero Sum
(Liberalism: The damage ends up being a thousand times the benefit! (apologies to Rabbi Benny Lau))
To: Always Right
You wrote:
“Obviously there was a precedent for the Protestant Old Testament in the Palestinian canon predating Christ.”
What Palestinian canon predated Christ?
“So to state the Protestant canon was some 1500’s creation with sinister motives is just flat out wrong.”
No, it’s true. Even Protestants sometimes admit this albeit without the “sinsiter” idea. Take a look at the works of the Lutheran (IIRC) Albert C. Sundberg.
You also might want to read the book by Gary Michuta called Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger: http://www.handsonapologetics.com/index.htm
20
posted on
09/06/2008 6:02:43 PM PDT
by
vladimir998
(Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ. St. Jerome)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-52 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson