[narses]

Religion Forum threads labeled “Ecumenical”

Ecumenical threads are closed to antagonism.

To antagonize is to incur or to provoke hostility in others.
Unlike the “caucus” threads, the article and reply posts of an “ecumenical” thread may discuss more than one belief, but antagonism is not tolerable.

More leeway is granted to what is acceptable in the text of the article than to the reply posts. For example, the term “gross error” in an article will not prevent an ecumenical discussion, but a poster should not use that term in his reply because it is antagonistic. As another example, the article might be a passage from the Bible which would be antagonistic to Jews. The passage should be considered historical information and a legitimate subject for an ecumenical discussion. The reply posts however must not be antagonistic.

Contrasting of beliefs or even criticisms can be made without provoking hostilities. But when in doubt, only post what you are “for” and not what you are “against.” Or ask questions.

Ecumenical threads will be moderated on a “where there’s smoke, there’s fire” basis. When hostility has broken out on an “ecumenical” thread, I’ll be looking for the source.

Therefore “anti” posters must not try to finesse the guidelines by asking loaded questions, using inflammatory taglines, gratuitous quote mining or trying to slip in an “anti” or “ex” article under the color of the “ecumenical” tag.

Lord, in this holy season of prayer and song and laughter, we praise you for the great wonders you have sent us: for shining star and angel’s song, for infant’s cry in lowly manger. We praise you for the Word made flesh in a little Child. We behold his glory, and are bathed in its radiance.

Be with us as we sing the ironies of Christmas, the incomprehensible comprehended, the poetry made hard fact, the helpless Babe who cracks the world asunder. We kneel before you shepherds, innkeepers, wisemen. Help us to rise bigger than we are. Amen.

[narses]

Religion Forum threads labeled “Ecumenical”

Ecumenical threads are closed to antagonism.

To antagonize is to incur or to provoke hostility in others.
Unlike the “caucus” threads, the article and reply posts of an “ecumenical” thread may discuss more than one belief, but antagonism is not tolerable.

More leeway is granted to what is acceptable in the text of the article than to the reply posts. For example, the term “gross error” in an article will not prevent an ecumenical discussion, but a poster should not use that term in his reply because it is antagonistic. As another example, the article might be a passage from the Bible which would be antagonistic to Jews. The passage should be considered historical information and a legitimate subject for an ecumenical discussion. The reply posts however must not be antagonistic.

Contrasting of beliefs or even criticisms can be made without provoking hostilities. But when in doubt, only post what you are “for” and not what you are “against.” Or ask questions.

Ecumenical threads will be moderated on a “where there’s smoke, there’s fire” basis. When hostility has broken out on an “ecumenical” thread, I’ll be looking for the source.

Therefore “anti” posters must not try to finesse the guidelines by asking loaded questions, using inflammatory taglines, gratuitous quote mining or trying to slip in an “anti” or “ex” article under the color of the “ecumenical” tag.

Lord, in this holy season of prayer and song and laughter, we praise you for the great wonders you have sent us: for shining star and angel’s song, for infant’s cry in lowly manger. We praise you for the Word made flesh in a little Child. We behold his glory, and are bathed in its radiance.

Be with us as we sing the ironies of Christmas, the incomprehensible comprehended, the poetry made hard fact, the helpless Babe who cracks the world asunder. We kneel before you shepherds, innkeepers, wisemen. Help us to rise bigger than we are. Amen.

[Yashcheritsiy]

The Apocrypha and Why it's Not Scripture

[CodeToad]

The DSS show us that there is more information to be had than what “modern” man has allowed to be passed down. I think we will find over time there are many more documents to be had. In both the name of science and faith we need to continue to seek them out and study their authors and content. From a faith viewpoint, I don’t think God handed us in modern times all the of his words as easily as it seems but demands we seek them out.

[mountainlion]

I think I heard that there were 18 books refereed to in the new Testament that were not included. Some no longer exist so much has been lost. I don't like the idea of just one person deciding what should be included and what should not be.

[Free Vulcan]

The Protestant, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Assyrian bibles all differ, with four of those being in the original Catholic (not Roman Catholic) church.

Not sure what the point is here.

[Liberty Tree Surgeon]

Question - is the Roman Catholic Bible the Septuagent (pre-Christ Greek translation by Jews) or is the later Masoretic text (post-Christ Hebrew consolidation by Jews)?

[roamer_1]

In the interest of reasonable accuracy:

The 'Damasian List' is found in a spurious document called the 'Gelasian Decretal' which likely dates to somewhere around 600AD, and has no historical value whatsoever.

The Council of Jamnia nonsense has long been put to bed, and Graetz is long dead.

Stopped reading right there, as a document that relies upon such gibberish is hardly to be taken seriously.

There was no Jewish canon because there was no concept of canon. The Jewish 'Canon' was the Torah. The approved prophets were secondary, and the approved writings were tertiary... And the prophets and writings were in flux.

However, the Masoretic Texts, when they did become canonized, were thought to be a close representation of the Temple collection - And the Dead Sea Scrolls prove that out, being 65% proto-Masoretic in origin. Incidentally, the Alexandrian tradition (read: Septuagint) is reckoned in single digit percentages within the DSS collection, far below even the Babylonian tradition and the local writings of the Qumran community.

[paradoxical]

bookmark

[JCBreckenridge]

“2. They could not have been written after the time of Ezra (around 400 BC);

3. They had to be written in Hebrew;”

Which is why the Septuagint included them?

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

Even JEROME did not want to include those disputed OT books. The Pope said to include them so he did.

I am reading them now, I like the Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus books but Judith and Tobit are a hoot! Pious fiction best considered tall tails!

I’m working on Baruch now, in the old 1611 KJV version as I like trying to get my mind around the ancient English languages.

I believe all People should read them to see why they are not relevant, mostly redundant of things already taught in the OT.

Maccabees coming up soon. Let’s see, Josephus’ version or OT version. Decisions, decisions.

As for Martin Luther wanting to remove some NT books. the only books that all Christians considered without doubt, were..
The four Gospels, Acts, all Paul’s letters (except Hebrews one of my favorite books), 1John and 1 peter.

It was centuries later that HEBREWS, James, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, Jude and Revelation were added. As no one knew exactly where in the Scriptures they should be placed, so they were just stuck in the back.

There was a problem with accepting two books. Hebrews and Revelation.

The Latin church wanted Rev but not Hebrews. The Greek church wanted Hebrews but not Rev.

Finally they compromised and both were added.

[CynicalBear]

Promoting books with errors like the following doesn’t add to confidence in the truthfulness of Christianity.

Tobit claims to have been alive when Jeroboam revolted in 931 B.C. and 210 years later when Assyria conquered Israel in 721 B.C. Then it says in Tobit 14 that he was 112 when he died. Oops!

In Judith we find an error of who Nebuchadnezzar was King of.

Judith 1:1 While King Nebuchadnezzar was ruling over the Assyrians from his capital city of Nineveh,

Nebuchadnezzar didn’t rule over the Assyrians he was King over Babylonia.

2 Kings 24:1 While Jehoiakim was king, King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylonia invaded Judah

Why would anyone rely on books with obvious errors? The Holy Spirit inspired books have never been shown to have errors.

[mdmathis6]

“Psalm 22 But I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people.

7All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying,

8He trusted on the LORD that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him.”

The passage in Wisdom builds upon Psalm 22 and may be derived from it as the writer of Wisdom would have been familiar with psalm 22. The trial, mocking and torture of jesus Christ were a fullfillment of prophecy from Psalm 22....not Wisdom!

[kabumpo]

Very interesting. To me, Hebrews is the greatest book in the bible. It would have been a shame to have lost it.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Merry Christmas, Narses!

[TBP]

The Bible is a heavily altered,selective document. It is written to advance certain worldviews and exclude those that don’t agree with certain Establishment worldviews.

[Monkey Face]

I’ve always wondered about this: If this (The Bible) is the Word of God, why are Bibles different from each other?

[Salvation]

"We are compelled to concede to the Papists
that they have the Word of God,
that we received it from them,
and that without them
we should have no knowledge of it at all."

~ Martin Luther

Apostolic Authority and the Selection of the Gospels (Ecumenical)
The Bible - 73 or 66 Books? (Ecumenical Thread)
How Rediscovering the “Plot” of Sacred Scripture is Essential to Evangelization
The Word of God is a Person Not Merely a Text
Are Catholics into the Bible?
Are the Gospels Historical?
What is Biblical Prophecy? What Biblical Prophecy is NOT, and What It Really IS
Biblical Illiteracy and Bible Babel
The Pilgrims' Regress - The Geneva Bible And The "Apocrypha"

The "Inconvenient Tale" of the Original King James Bible
The Bible - an absolutely amazing book
Christian Scriptures, Jewish Commentary
Essays for Lent: The Canon of Scripture
Essays for Lent: The Bible
1500 year-old ‘ Syriac ‘ Bible found in Ankara, Turkey
How we should read the Bible
St. Jerome and the Vulgate (completing the FIRST Bible in the year 404) [Catholic Caucus]
In Bible Times
Deuterocanonical References in the New Testament

Translations Before the King James: - The KJV Translators Speak!
EWTN Live - March 23 - A Journey Through the Bible
"Our Father's Plan" - EWTN series with Dr. Scott Hahn and Jeff Cavins on the Bible timeline
The Daunting Journey From Faith to Faith [Anglicanism to Catholicism]
Reflections on the Soon to Be Released New American Bible (Revised Edition)[Catholic Caucus]
New American Bible changes some words such as "holocaust"
Is the Bible the Only Revelation from God? (Catholic / Orthodox Caucus)
History of the Bible (caution: long)
Catholic and Protestant Bibles
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH: ON READING THE BIBLE [Catholic Caucus]

Because I Love the Bible
Where Is That Taught in the Bible?
When Was the Bible Really Written?
Three Reasons for Teaching the Bible [St. Thomas Aquinas]
The Smiting Is Still Implied (God of the OT vs the NT)
Where Is That Taught in the Bible?
Friday Fast Fact: The Bible in English
Bible Reading is Central in Conversions to Catholicism in Shangai, Reports Organization
Verses (in Scripture) I Never Saw
5 Myths about 7 Books

Lectionary Statistics - How much of the Bible is included in the Lectionary for Mass? (Popquiz!)
Pope calls Catholics to daily meditation on the Bible
What Are the "Apocrypha?"
The Accuracy of Scripture
US Conference of Catholic Bishops recommendations for Bible study
CNA unveils resource to help Catholics understand the Scriptures
The Dos and Don’ts of Reading the Bible [Ecumenical]
Pope to lead marathon Bible reading on Italian TV
The Complete Bible: Why Catholics Have Seven More Books [Ecumenical]
Beginning Catholic: Books of the Catholic Bible: The Complete Scriptures [Ecumenical]

Beginning Catholic: When Was The Bible Written? [Ecumenical]
The Complete Bible: Why Catholics Have Seven More Books [Ecumenical]
U.S. among most Bible-literate nations: poll
Bible Lovers Not Defined by Denomination, Politics
Dei Verbum (Catholics and the Bible)
Vatican Offers Rich Online Source of Bible Commentary
Clergy Congregation Takes Bible Online
Knowing Mary Through the Bible: Mary's Last Words
A Bible Teaser For You... (for everyone :-)
Knowing Mary Through the Bible: New Wine, New Eve

Return of Devil's Bible to Prague draws crowds
Doctrinal Concordance of the Bible [What Catholics Believe from the Bible] Catholic Caucus
Should We Take the Bible Literally or Figuratively?
Glimpsing Words, Practices, or Beliefs Unique to Catholicism [Bible Trivia]
Catholic and Protestant Bibles: What is the Difference?
Church and the Bible(Caatholic Caucus)
Pope Urges Prayerful Reading of Bible
Catholic Caucus: It's the Church's Bible
How Tradition Gave Us the Bible
The Church or the Bible

[Bruinator]

John 3:16.

Catholic, Protestant - It makes no difference if one heeds these words. If we agree on these words, we are all brothers in Christ.