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?
Those men in the first Century who wrote the bible were NOT unbelieving Jews...What they didn't believe in was any thing resembling your religion...
“the oldest surviving Greek Manuscripts available”
As a side note, the ‘lost’ books (as well as everything else ‘lost’ from the classical Egyptian, Greek & Roman civilizations) were destroyed by the rampaging muslim armies of Mohammad and his disciples - the varsity - during the period 632-732AD.
There are three things primarily: purgatory, praying for the dead, and the treasury of merit.
The treasury of merit is particularly interesting. It contains the merit of Jesus and the other saints who have a surplus. In particular, monks who separated themselves from the work and spent their time praying and doing other 'holy' things, were able to earn heaven and build up a surplus of merit that would help others who didn't have enough merit to earn heaven. Or something like that...
The Holy Spirit is given to ALL true believers.
Acts 15:8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9 He made no distinction between us and them,
>>It’s funny that some would let unbelieving, Christ rejecting, sons of Satan determine their canon<<
Romans 3:1 What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? 2 Much in every way! First of all, the Jews have been entrusted with the very words of God.
Not to Catholics.
God promised to preserve His word for all generations. Catholics trying to take the credit is simple blasphemy. Catholics may want to consider the fact that God used many unholy men to advance His plan. Judas was one of them.
Denigrating the Jews will have dire consequences as they are still God's chosen people. It would be wise to see what God says about those who curse the Jews.
And I don't hear of any Catholics burning fish hearts to chase away demons.
Quite contrary to the example Jesus left us on how to live.
Those men in the first Century who wrote the bible were NOT unbelieving Jews...What they didn’t believe in was any thing resembling your religion
the unbelieving 1st century Jews I am referring to is the Council of Jamnia which the Protestants accept as the Jews setting the OT canon. this Council rejected the Septuagint used by Paul and the Church.
funny, there was another 1st century religious dispute involving circumcision. who did the Holy Spirit work thru to settle the matter, the unbelieving Pharisees ( who comprised the Council of Jamnia )or the Bishops of the Church, the pillar of truth?? obviously, the Church was the instrument used by the Holy Sprit to convey truth. just as the Church was the instrument used in the 4th century to set the canon of Scripture.
what is next, will someone support their belief that the Eucharist is not the Body of Christ by citing the Muslims as not believing it? ( which they don’t of course )
the Holy Spirit works thru the Church to lead us to truth, always has and always will.
Denigrating the Jews will have dire consequences as they are still God’s chosen people
God’s chosen people are Israel, which is comprised all people who are in Christ, regardless of whether they are Jew or Gentile.
if one rejects Jesus Christ as being sent from the Father and His sacrifice for sins on the cross, they ARE NOT God’s chosen people, regardless if they are Jew or Gentile.
I am not holding my breath to get answers to the two simple questions put forth in post #54.
the Bible picked up by Martin Luther in the year 1515, exactly 500 years ago and decades before the Council of Trent, HOW MANY BOOKS WERE IN IT?
what year did the FIRST 66 BOOK BIBLE APPEAR ON EARTH?
the charge has been made that the Council of Trent “added” some books to the Bible. logically, that must mean that prior to Trent, all Bibles contained 66 books. hmm, is that true?
The "church" has not superseded Israel. And those who teach it an those who believe it have a huge surprise coming. The promises made to the nation of Israel were for all time.
The “church” has not superseded Israel
Agreed. The Church is Israel, it can’t supersede itself.
Your question in #54 are immaterial. The Old Testament words of God were entrusted to the Jews and NOT the Catholics. The New Testament books which were considered scripture were known well before there was ever a usurper called the Catholic Church as has been shown many times on these threads. Now go burn some fish hearts to chase those demons away.
How preposterous. God said He would bring all of Israel back to the land promised them which is happening today. You on your way?
I have to work today, so I cannot join in, but I certainly hope metmom helps this poor wayward thinker. There are so many errors in this propaganda piece that one has to wonder if they were brought up under Goebbels, for surely this has almost no truth within it. I leave it to your able fingers to write some encouragement to abandon the demonic doctrines of Rome and come into the light of Jesus, alone. Let that stinking Tiber cover over the errors of the cult and find hope in the One, the only One...if He permits.
He would bring all of Israel back to the land promised them which is happening today
I think Hebrews 11:8-16 would be helpful to you in this regard.
I have to work today
please, next day off enlighten this poor wayward thinker and correct all my Goebbels like propaganda.........I look forward to having all the errors corrected.
And so it shall be when that heavenly Jerusalem comes down from heaven to the earthly Jerusalem.
Revelation 21:21 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 22 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
As it was foretold long ago.Ezekiel 48:35 "The distance all around will be 18,000 cubits. "And the name of the city from that time on will be: the Lord is there."
After the tribulation God will once more be a God to the "house of Israel".
Hebrews 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
So if you are an Israelite when are you moving to Israel?
Jeremiah 32:37 I will surely gather them from all the lands where I banish them in my furious anger and great wrath; I will bring them back to this place and let them live in safety. 38 They will be my people, and I will be their God.
What? He hasn't brought you back to the land of Israel? Hmmm, you must not be of the nation of Israel.
And that will be an eternal covenant He makes with Israel at that time.
Ezekiel 16:60 Yet I will remember the covenant I made with you in the days of your youth, and I will establish an everlasting covenant with you.
Why even bring it up...Nobody believes it anyway...
The Council of Jamnia, presumably held in Yavneh, was a hypothetical late 1st-century council at which the canon of the Hebrew Bible was alleged to have been finalized. First proposed by Heinrich Graetz in 1871, this theory was popular for much of the twentieth century. However, it was increasingly questioned from the 1960s onward and the theory has been largely discredited.[1]
You really think the Jews of the O.T. didn't know that they had the scriptures and oracles???
The Apocyrpha should not be considered scripture for at leastt some of the following reasons (there many reasons but here are five compelling ones):
1. Though there are a couple of allusions in the NT there is no direct quote from any of the Apocyrphal books.
2. Though the early church fathers are respected, that doesn’t mean their actions, opinions, or writings are inspired, plus not ALL the church fathers believed the Apocyrpha was inspired either - Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Origen, and Jerome all rejected the Apocyrpha as scripture.
3. During the 2nd Century AD the Alexandrian Jews adopted Aquila’s Greek version of the OT without apocryphal books.
4. As previously mentioned, Jesus and the New Testament writers never once quote the Apocrypha, although there are hundreds of quotes and references to almost the entire book of the Old Testament.
5. No canon or council of the Christian church recognized the Apocrypha as inspired for nearly four centuries.
Finally, why argue over these books? They have no direct influence or doctrinal relevance to the Christian faith. Other than for some possible historical interest, such as in the books of Maccabees, what relevance do any of these books have on the Gospel? If they never existed - what effect would that have on the Gospel? Nothing at all. If you remove Isaiah or the Psalms THAT WOULD affect the New Testament and the Gopsel. Let these irrelevant books go.
That's biblical ignorance at its finest...
Eph 2:11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
Eph 2:12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
Eph 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
Eph 2:14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
Eph 2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
Eph 2:16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
Did Jesus flip the Gentiles into Israel to make another old man??? The scripture tells us not...Some of Israel were from the Jewish old man and put into Christ...Some of the Gentile from the Gentile old man were put into Christ...To make ONE NEW MAN...
Jews were taken out of Israel...Gentiles were taken out of the World and made into 'one new man'...CHRISTIANS...NOT a new Israel...
Jesus did not show up to build a church...Jesus showed up to bring the physical Jewish Kingdom to Jews...The Jews rejected Jesus...THEN Jesus told us he was going to build a church...For Jews...And Jews only...
They were the adoption...They would be adopted AWAY FROM ISRAEL and put into Christ...They would no longer be identified as Israel, but Christians...
Rom_9:4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;
It was then revealed to Peter that Gentiles would be added to this 'adoption'...And it was later revealed to the apostle Paul that HE was the one who was going to bring this about...
Along with the other apostles, Paul was going to put Jew and Gentile into the body of Christ...
Rom 10:12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
If what you claim is correct, it would be just as accurate to claim that saved Israel became 'spiritual' Gentiles...For there is no difference...This spiritual Jew or Israel nonsense is just that...Nonsense...
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.