Posted on 03/13/2015 12:40:51 PM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
1.) The King James Bible and/or Protestant Bible contains 39 Old Testament books and 27 New Testament books.
Roman Catholics include all of these books within their sacred canon, with the addition of other books not included within the Protestant Canon.
The Coptic Bible contains more books than all of the aforementioned (including the 27/39) and books that Roman Catholics believe to be canonical - and some other books.
2.) The First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD issued the Nicene Creed, adhered to by almost all Christians (Roman Catholics, Greek Orthodox, Protestants and Coptics) with the exception of a few Protestant denominations. St. Jerome noted in his writings that the Book of Judith was considered (at the First Council of Nicaea) to be "sacred scripture."
The principal argument used against deuterocanonical books is that supposedly neither Jesus nor the Apostles quoted from them. If this is indeed true, then a counter argument is that neither Ezra, Nehemiah or Esther were quoted from.
It has been posited that to quote from one book in a set ("history": Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther or "poetry": Ecclesiastes or Song of Solomon) validates the entire set. But this counter argument used against Roman Catholics, Coptics and Greek Orthodox is grounded in conflation and extrapolation and opens up the door to 3:
3.) If Jude quoted from the Book of Enoch (Jude 1:14) and the Assumption of Moses (Jude 19), then to quote one verse from those books would validate the whole of both books.
4.) Some argue that we need to look to the "Deluxe" sets (Codex Alexandrinus, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) --- the oldest surviving Greek Manuscripts available --- to determine what books are or are not canonical. The problem with this is that each codex contains at least one book that neither Protestants nor Catholics believe to be Canonical and secondly, until the discovery made by Tischendorf and others of these codices. the long ending of Mark (Mark 16:9-20) was believed for over 1000 years to be valid. But none of theses codices contains the long ending while both the long and short ending can be found among Greek fragments.
So which of the aforementioned Bibles do you believe to be the "true" Bible?
Whichever one says to crack your boiled eggs on the large end.
Ooh goodie. Can Jews play? (“no!“) :)>
Where is the obvious comparison?
It would appear that you would like to bring the un-holy Koran into this, but didn’t think it necessary.
***But none of theses codices contains the long ending while both the long and short ending can be found among Greek fragments. ***
Ah but one of those codices does have a large GAP at the end of Mark so the long ending could be added later. There are no other gaps in that codex.
Some of the codices also contain the non canonical THE SHEPHERD OF HERMAS.
Roman Catholics and Jews had the same Old Testament from 70-90 AD which was in Greek.The Apostles and Early Church Fathers spoke Greek. When Writing to the Gentiles Paul Communicated in Greek.
90 AD The Jews wanted the Old Testament in Hebrew Only. They Couldn’t Find all the Books in Hebrew so they were eliminated. It was Centuries when Hebrew scrolls were encountered.
There are many Critical Passages in Greek version /Roman Catholic version that are fulfilled in New Testament.
Let’s see, I use: the King James bible my grandmother got me at my baptism; the Philips NT translation from high school graduation; the New Jerusalem Bible; the NIV Study Bible; a regular edition NIV Bible; the Message NT Bible; the Good News NT Bible. And the occasional online search for other translations if I’m trying to figure something out, or needing to do a public reading and want to find one that one can read aloud and be understood.
Paul quoted several Greek poets. “A some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are all his children’”.
Later Christian first century authors also quoted Homer’s writings.
Jude simply quoted from a text of Enoch.
Not really. Almost all first century Christians accepted the following books.
The four Gospels
Acts
All the letters of Paul except Hebrews (Uncertain authorship),
First Peter, First John, and that was all.
Then, two hundred years later came James, 2nd Peter, the other John letters Jude and Revelation.
From what I’ve read, the Roman church wanted Revelation to be added and Hebrews left out.
The Greek church wanted Hebrews but not Revelation. So, they agreed to put both books in.
I believe EVERYONE should read the Apocrypha at least once to see just why they were left out. Even Jerome wanted them out till ordered to put them in.
Then you are missing the good stuff from st Paul!
I suppose you really do believe in the golden plates of Moroni!
Did a semester in college on his writings.
My point exactly...
What if JimRob charged for Religious threads that scramble up to 3,000 posts in 3 days?
Poor question, in my opinion. Just trying to stir up trouble. The Bible does not get one to heaven. Only way is for a person to believe in Christ. (John 3:16)
The question begs the fact that Jesus left us a Church, not a canon of Scripture.
To miss that fact is to indulge legalism.
The Law, Scripture, was put in charge to lead us to Christ.
-— The Law, Scripture, was put in charge to lead us to Christ. -—
Which Scriptures?
The original texts are best.
-— The principal argument used against deuterocanonical books is that supposedly neither Jesus nor the Apostles quoted from them. -—
Whoever is using that argument should stop, because the overwhelming number of citations of the Old Testament in the New Testament are from the Septuagint.
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.