Denomination-specific TheologyA special subforum where a thread starter can restrict threads to replies by members of a particular denomination only to discuss denomination-specific theology.
Orthodox, catholics and protestants have different bibles. But theres a curse in revelation about adding or removing scriptures from bible. Im greatly confused and afraid.
Orthodox, catholics and protestants have different bibles. But theres a curse in revelation about adding or removing scriptures from bible. Im greatly confused and afraid.
Firstly St. John was specifically talking about the book of Revelation. Even though I think we can apply it to the all the books.
Revelation 22 (ESV) 18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.
I embrace the canon that was established by the Council of Carthage in 397 AD. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Josue, Judges, Ruth, 4 books of Kingdoms, 2 books of Paralipomenon, Job, Psalter of David, 5 books of Solomon, 12 books of Prophets, Isaias, Jeremias, Daniel, Ezechiel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, 2 books of Esdras, 2 books of Machabees, and in the New Testament: 4 books of Gospels, 1 book of Acts of the Apostles, 13 letters of the Apostle Paul, 1 of him to the Hebrews, 2 of Peter, 3 of John, 1 of James, 1 of Jude, and the Apocalypse of John. The Canon was reaffirmed at the Council of Trent
I am glad that Martin Luther who determined which books he wanted in his canon, didn't removed the other books he wanted to remove. He fought hard to remove them, but wasn't successful Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation. BTW in his German tranlation of the Bible those four books were put into an appendix because he felt them not on the same footing as the rest of the New Testament.
He especially did not like James calling it an epistle of straw.
The books that were removed from the Old Testament and the books in the New Testament that he tried to remove, didn't jive with his view of Christianity.
There is alot of information online about this subject. You can decide for yourself after some thoughtful research.
Peace and blessings, Neriah
__________________
Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one receives the prize? So run that you may obtain it.
Every athlete exercises self-control in all things. They do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable.
So I do not run aimlessly; I do not box as one beating the air.
But I discipline my body and keep it under control, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.
Orthodox, catholics and protestants have different bibles. But theres a curse in revelation about adding or removing scriptures from bible. Im greatly confused and afraid.
It can be confusing, but nothing to be afraid of.
Take your time while researching the information online about it.
I am a re-vert back to the Catholic Church.
I liked my years of being a Protestant. But I thought it fair to me to put to rest some things about Catholicism and Protestism.
The canon of the bible was one of the things I had to "figure out" .
You may not come to the same conclusion as I have for whatever reason, for me it is evident.
And now I couldn't be happier.
Take your time researching this.
God bless,
Neriah
ETA I know a few Protestants that accept the books that were taken out during the Reformation and they are still Protestant. So don't let that aspect of it deter you
__________________
Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one receives the prize? So run that you may obtain it.
Every athlete exercises self-control in all things. They do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable.
So I do not run aimlessly; I do not box as one beating the air.
But I discipline my body and keep it under control, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.
1 Corinthians 9:24-27
Last edited by Neriah; 15th March 2009 at 09:47 AM.
Orthodox, catholics and protestants have different bibles. But theres a curse in revelation about adding or removing scriptures from bible. Im greatly confused and afraid.
I wouldn't get too caught up about the different bibles, although I will say that I personally enjoy the good old King James version, myself. It is fun to memorize, and being a more difficult read; at least in my case, makes me pay closer attention, thus I get more out of it than say an ESV or NASB. The catholic and orthodox bibles have apocryphal or deuterocanonical books which are great teaching books and do have importance, but don't pass the smell test of inspiration which is why none of the protestant churches have them in theirs. I think that you will get a good Christian education regardless of which way you go.
That being said, there are two bible translations that you should absolutely avoid: "The Book" and "The Message". Both are very loose translations and are more like a summary than actual scripture.
If you like modern english, try the ESV, it reads beautifully, and is very true to the original message. Good luck and God bless
The Catholic and Orthodox Bibles differ from the Protestant Bible is containing the deutercanonical books of the Old Testament. The Jewish Bible does not contain these books, which is one of the reasons that the Protestants rejected them. There is no unique doctrine contained in them so that Christians are not divided because of anything in them that is not in the remainder of the Bible. Also, it is interesting that the New Testament contains references and quotations from all the books of the Old Testament except Esther and the deutercanonical books. The Catholics have claimed that there are New Testament references and I have examined these "references" and found that they are not references at all. In any event, the deutercanonical books, as Luther said, are interesting and good literature.
I am coming to believe the duetercanonicals should have stayed in the Bible through my study of Church history. See the Torah the Jews read was compiled after Christ and so is the Bible we read today. The Jews who compiled the Torah denied Christ and the reason they took out the duetercanonical books is because they were written in Greek. Due to heavy Greek influence many Jews used this as their main language. These writings were also translated into Hebrew but over time the Hebrew texts were lost and the Greek ones were still left. When the Jews wanted to decide which books should go into their Torah they made a rule that only books in the Jewish language could be considered. Thus the Deutercanonicals were out of question. Also, there is speculation that they also were not put in because they had too much writing proving that Jesus was the Messiah.
So who is right? The council's of Christians who came after Christ and were his devout followers. Or the Jews who denied Christ after his coming and thought of him as a heretic. You can decide who had the holy spirit in their hearts.
I hope this helped.
__________________ "I believe in Christianity as I believe the sun has risen; not only because I see it, but by it I see everything else."
C.S. Lewis
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Deo duce, ferro comitante To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I am coming to believe the duetercanonicals should have stayed in the Bible through my study of Church history. See the Torah the Jews read was compiled after Christ and so is the Bible we read today. The Jews who compiled the Torah denied Christ and the reason they took out the duetercanonical books is because they were written in Greek. Due to heavy Greek influence many Jews used this as their main language. These writings were also translated into Hebrew but over time the Hebrew texts were lost and the Greek ones were still left. When the Jews wanted to decide which books should go into their Torah they made a rule that only books in the Jewish language could be considered. Thus the Deutercanonicals were out of question. Also, there is speculation that they also were not put in because they had too much writing proving that Jesus was the Messiah.
So who is right? The council's of Christians who came after Christ and were his devout followers. Or the Jews who denied Christ after his coming and thought of him as a heretic. You can decide who had the holy spirit in their hearts.
I hope this helped.
Although the deutercanonical books were originally written in Greek, that is not the primary reason that the Jews decided to exclude them. After all, small parts of the book of Daniel are written in Aramaic. The primary reason was that the deutercanonical books are late in date, having been written following the exile to Babylon. Part of the problem was that during that perior Judaism had begun to diverge into various sects so that not all agreed on these books. To regain unity in scripture these books were rejected, along with many other post-exilic books, even as the Church rejected a multitude of other books when determing the canon of the New Testament. Some remnants of Judaism such as the Essenes continued to retain various books, but did not officially consider them to be scripture.
As has been stated on other threads, there is absolutely no prophecy in the deutercanonical books concerning the Messiah, much less that Jesus was that Messiah. If the Jews had been motivated by that, then they would have had to excise passages such as Isaiah 53 and many of the Psalms, not to mention all of the cited Old Testament passages used in the New Testament to confirm the Messiahship of Jesus. As it is, there is not a single quotation or direct reference in the New Testament from the deutercanonical books.
At this point in time, the question of the deutercanonical books is entirely moot as everyone who has read and/or studied them knows full well that, although interesting, they contain absolutely nothing which differentiates those who hold them to be scripture from those who don't.
As has been stated on other threads, there is absolutely no prophecy in the deutercanonical books concerning the Messiah, much less that Jesus was that Messiah [.....] As it is, there is not a single quotation or direct reference in the New Testament from the deutercanonical books.
First, you are in error if you believe there is absolutely no prophecy in these books.
Wisdom 2
12. Let us therefore lie in wait for the just, because he is not for our turn, and he is contrary to our doings, and upbraideth us with transgressions of the law, and divulgeth against us the sins of our way of life. 13 He boasteth that he hath the knowledge of God, and calleth himself the son of God. 14 He is become a censurer of our thoughts. 15He is grievous unto us, even to behold: for his life is not like other men's, and his ways are very different. 16 We are esteemed by him as triflers, and he abstaineth from our ways as from filthiness, and he preferreth the latter end of the just, and glorieth that he hath God for his father.17 Let us see then if his words be true, and let us prove what shall happen to him, and we shall know what his end shall be. 18 For if he be the true son of God, he will defend him, and will deliver him from the hands of his enemies. 19 Let us examine him by outrages and tortures, that we may know his meekness and try his patience. 20 Let us condemn him to a most shameful death: for there shall be respect had unto him by his words. 21 These things they thought, and were deceived: for their own malice blinded them. 22 And they knew not the secrets of God, nor hoped for the wages of justice, nor esteemed the honour of holy souls.
This is a direct prophecy of Christ! And since when a book must have a prophecy of Christ in order to be canonical and Scripture? Scriptures themselves give no such rule for determining a book canonical and Scripture. As it is, this is a man-made theory.
Second, there is not a single quotation or direct reference in the New Testament from several books of the OT: Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Obadiah, Zephaniah, Judges, 1 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Lamentations and Nahum. Not one of these Old Testament books is ever quoted or alluded to by Christ or the Holy Apostles in the New Testament. Should we exclude these books as well? I believe it is a safe to say that direct quotation [s] or reference [s] in the New Testament to any book, or the lack thereof, does not prove or disprove canonicity. We have the book of Enoch and the Assumption of Moses (quoted by St. Jude), and the writings of the pagan poets Epimenides, Aratus, and Menander (quoted by St. Paul in Acts, 1 Corinthians, and Titus). Yet not one of these books is deemed canonical by Christians today (expect the Book of Enoch, accepted by the Ethiopian Orthodox Christians).
All of the objections raised by most Protestants against the deutercanioncal books are full of fallacies. It doesn't take a long time to finally realize this.
In IC.XC,
Ramon
__________________ "For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh (cf. 1 Cor 10:16)" (1st Apology 66, AD 160) - St. Justin Martyr.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
O Taste and see that the Lord is Good! (Ps 33:8, LXX)
Last edited by Ramon96; 14th April 2009 at 02:24 PM.
Not all Jews, ancient and modern, reject these books.The Ethiopian Jews still accept them as Scriptures (cf. Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 6, p. 1147). And those who translated the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek (The Septuagint, which Christ and the Holy Apostles rely on more than the Hebrew version) thought it was! Jews never had a Bible Canon, even in Jesus time there was disagreement on what was "Scriptures". Only in a council of Jarmina (90AD) did some Jews officially declare there canon, and even then it was not blinding to the entire Jewish community, as the Ethiopian Jews decided to keep the deuterocanonical books in there canon, even to this day. It is interesting Protestants main argument is that "Jews didn't accept them". First, not every Jews, ancient and modern, reject them. Second, we do not follow what some Christ-hated Jews said. There have no authority in the Church. The question to most Protestants is not "Why do you listen to Jews instead of Christ' Church for the Canon of Scriptures?" but "Why do you listen to some Jewish sects while ignoring other Jewish sects that did and still accept the deuterocanonical books?".
You should study these books (Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sairch, Epistle of Jeremiah, Baruch, 1-3 Maccabees, 1 Esdras, additions to Esther, Daniel, and Psalms [Psalm 151], and Prayer of Manasseh ) . Why? For 1500 years they was accepted by Christians. In fact, even Renowed Protestant Scholars and Theologians admits this! Read J.N.D Kelly "Early Christian Doctrines" (pg. 53), Brenton (The Septuagint with Apocrypha, pg 1), Thomas C. Oden (Ancient Christian Commentary). The Majority of Christians today accept them as Scriptures (Catholics [Latin/East), Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Ethiopian Orthodox, and some Protestants accept them as well).
All the Ancient Apostolic Churches accept Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sairch, Epistle of Jeremiah, Baruch, 1-2 Maccabees, and additions to Esther, Daniel as Scriptures. All the Ancient Apostolic Churches of the East accept 1 Esdras, 3 Maccabess, Prayer of Manesseh, Psalms 151 as Canonical Scriptures.
In IC.XC,
Ramon.
__________________ "For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh (cf. 1 Cor 10:16)" (1st Apology 66, AD 160) - St. Justin Martyr.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
O Taste and see that the Lord is Good! (Ps 33:8, LXX)
Last edited by Ramon96; 14th April 2009 at 02:03 PM.
First, you are in error if you believe there is absolutely no prophecy in these books.
I stand corrected. What I said, in entirety, is that the claim that the Jews rejected the deutercanonical books is not based upon any rejection on their part of claims by the church concerning the person and work of Jesus Christ from anything contained in these books. Although as you have correctly pointed out, small portions of these books are prophetic, they apparently were not significant enough to warrant any reference in the New Testament. Thus, to claim that the Jews rejected the deutercanonical books primarily or solely because of their Christian content is erroneous at best and disinegenuous at worst,
Wisdom 2
12. Let us therefore lie in wait for the just, because he is not for our turn, and he is contrary to our doings, and upbraideth us with transgressions of the law, and divulgeth against us the sins of our way of life. 13 He boasteth that he hath the knowledge of God, and calleth himself the son of God. 14 He is become a censurer of our thoughts. 15He is grievous unto us, even to behold: for his life is not like other men's, and his ways are very different. 16 We are esteemed by him as triflers, and he abstaineth from our ways as from filthiness, and he preferreth the latter end of the just, and glorieth that he hath God for his father.17 Let us see then if his words be true, and let us prove what shall happen to him, and we shall know what his end shall be. 18 For if he be the true son of God, he will defend him, and will deliver him from the hands of his enemies. 19 Let us examine him by outrages and tortures, that we may know his meekness and try his patience. 20 Let us condemn him to a most shameful death: for there shall be respect had unto him by his words. 21 These things they thought, and were deceived: for their own malice blinded them. 22 And they knew not the secrets of God, nor hoped for the wages of justice, nor esteemed the honour of holy souls.
This is a direct prophecy of Christ! And since when a book must have a prophecy of Christ in order to be canonical and Scripture? Scriptures themselves give no such rule for determining a book canonical and Scripture. As it is, this is a man-made theory.
It is quite puzzling, indeed, that, given the fact that the writers of the New Testament freely used many prophetic passages from the Old Testament, they did not apparently see the direct prophecy of Christ which you clearly see nor did they choose to use it in favor of much less direct references. One might add that many detractors of the Bible consider all efforts to establish the canon to be based upon man-made theories.
Second, there is not a single quotation or direct reference in the New Testament from several books of the OT: Song of Songs, (references to the church as the bride of Christ in Ephesians 5 and in Revelation) Ecclesiastes, (e.g Eccl. 3:17 is referenced both in Matthew 16:27 and in Romans 2:6-10) Esther (none whatsoever), Obadiah (e.g. Obad. 21 is referenced in Revelation 11:15), Zephaniah (e.g. Zeph. 3:16 is referenced in Hebrews 12:12), Judges (the Nazarite vow which is unique to the book of Judges was repeated in the life of John the Baptist in the New Testament), 1 Chronicles (the geneaology of Jesus Christ as given both in Matthew and in Luke refer to the geneaologies in I Chronicles), Ezra, (Ezra 7:25 finds its New Testament counterpart in Colossians 1:28) Nehemiah (in John 18:1 Christ crossed the ravine of Neh. 2:15), Lamentations (e.g. Lam. 3:40 is referenced in II Corinthians 13:5) and Nahum (e.g. Nahum 1:7 is referenced in II Timothy 2:19). Not one of these Old Testament books is ever quoted or alluded to by Christ or the Holy Apostles in the New Testament. Should we exclude these books as well?
Other than Esther, which has been hotly debated on other issues, the books you cited are referenced in the New Testament as I have noted above. Thus, the answer to your question is no, because they are referenced, other than the book of Esther.
I believe it is a safe to say that direct quotation [s] or reference [s] in the New Testament to any book, or the lack thereof, does not prove or disprove canonicity.
Pray tell, what does establish canonicity? Are there any rules or guidelines?
We have the book of Enoch and the Assumption of Moses (quoted by St. Jude), and the writings of the pagan poets Epimenides, Aratus, and Menander (quoted by St. Paul in Acts, 1 Corinthians, and Titus). Yet not one of these books is deemed canonical by Christians today (expect the Book of Enoch, accepted by the Ethiopian Orthodox Christians).
The fact that these books have never been accepted by the Jews or Christians (except those peculiar Ethiopians) is of mild interest to me.
All of the objections raised by most Protestants against the deutercanioncal books are full of fallacies. It doesn't take a long time to finally realize this.
How long does it take? For some such as myself it has been taking over half of a century, although I must confess that my first couple of decades were spent in other pursuits.
In IC.XC,
Ramon
The bottom line is that the deutercanonical books are really quite irrelevant. The vast majority of Protestant and a majority of Catholics are blissfully unaware of their very existence. The web site, catholic.org, was unaware of their existence until I called them and asked them about it.
Somehow both Protestants and Catholics manage to get through their lives without these books.
So many bibles! Which one to believe? 
Linear Mode
