Apparitions of "Mary"

[ScottBot]

Missvicious,

You have a misunderstanding. The Apocrypha books were never considered canon until the Council of Trent in the 1800's. They were added to the Catholic bible to counteract the reformation. The books of the Apocrypha are wonderful books to read but they have errors and things that are only tought in them. The Jewish did not consider them to be scriptural with good reason. At any rate, books that have errors cannot be considered inspired scripture because God does not make mistakes, so to include them is in fact saying that the Word of God is not inerrant.

God Bless

Patently false.

The books in question have been considered the canon of Scripture since the councils of Carthage, Rome, and Hippo at the end of the 4th century.

The books were not included in the list that was promulgated by the Council of Jamnia by a group of diasporate Pharisees under the leadership of Rabii Yohanan ben Zakkai not some 30 years after Roman Emperor Titus laid seige to Jerusalem and raised Solomon's Temple to the ground. It is speculated that at this council, the canon of the Hebrew scriptures was closed. The canon includes all of the books now popular in most Protestant bibles, by setting a someone arbitrary set of qualifications to what was considered acceptable.

However, once Christ breathed life into His church just prior to His acsension, there was no longer a need to follow the leadership of the Pharisees. The wine was new (The Gospel) and the skins were old (the law of the Pharisees) So Jesus put the new wine into new wineskins (The Church), who now had Christ's authority to determine Scripture. It is this canon of Scripture that we are to follow, not anything determined by a group of xenophobic hebrew scholars who were more interested in preserving Jewish tradition than the good news of Christ.

 

[IamAdopted]

Patently false.

The books in question have been considered the canon of Scripture since the councils of Carthage, Rome, and Hippo at the end of the 4th century.

The books were not included in the list that was promulgated by the Council of Jamnia by a group of diasporate Pharisees under the leadership of Rabii Yohanan ben Zakkai not some 30 years after Roman Emperor Titus laid seige to Jerusalem and raised Solomon's Temple to the ground. It is speculated that at this council, the canon of the Hebrew scriptures was closed. The canon includes all of the books now popular in most Protestant bibles, by setting a someone arbitrary set of qualifications to what was considered acceptable.

However, once Christ breathed life into His church just prior to His acsension, there was no longer a need to follow the leadership of the Pharisees. The wine was new (The Gospel) and the skins were old (the law of the Pharisees) So Jesus put the new wine into new wineskins (The Church), who now had Christ's authority to determine Scripture. It is this canon of Scripture that we are to follow, not anything determined by a group of xenophobic hebrew scholars who were more interested in preserving Jewish tradition than the good news of Christ.

You need to really think about what you said for before Christ there were already scripture of the OT written. For the scripture were foreshadow of Christs comings. These were all written down. Historical err are in those other books. They could not be from God. God does not make mistakes. There are Historical err in them as well as spiritual err in them. God does not contradict Himself.

 

[ScottBot]

You need to really think about what you said for before Christ there were already scripture of the OT written. For the scripture were foreshadow of Christs comings. These were all written down. Historical err are in those other books. They could not be from God. God does not make mistakes. There are Historical err in them as well as spiritual err in them. God does not contradict Himself.

I'm sure this means something to someone, because I have NO idea what you are talking about.

THe Septuagint was the most widely used set of Scriptures in the Jewish world. WHat "errs" are you talking about?

 

[IamAdopted]

I'm sure this means something to someone, because I have NO idea what you are talking about.

THe Septuagint was the most widely used set of Scriptures in the Jewish world. WHat "errs" are you talking about?

in these extra books that you seem to think are from God.

 

[ScottBot]

in these extra books that you seem to think are from God.

me, and 75%+ of the rest of Christianity. 100% until recently.

 

[IamAdopted]

me, and 75%+ of the rest of Christianity. 100% until recently.

Sorry.. Don't buy it.

 

[Hentenza]

Patently false.

The books in question have been considered the canon of Scripture since the councils of Carthage, Rome, and Hippo at the end of the 4th century.

The books were not included in the list that was promulgated by the Council of Jamnia by a group of diasporate Pharisees under the leadership of Rabii Yohanan ben Zakkai not some 30 years after Roman Emperor Titus laid seige to Jerusalem and raised Solomon's Temple to the ground. It is speculated that at this council, the canon of the Hebrew scriptures was closed. The canon includes all of the books now popular in most Protestant bibles, by setting a someone arbitrary set of qualifications to what was considered acceptable.

However, once Christ breathed life into His church just prior to His acsension, there was no longer a need to follow the leadership of the Pharisees. The wine was new (The Gospel) and the skins were old (the law of the Pharisees) So Jesus put the new wine into new wineskins (The Church), who now had Christ's authority to determine Scripture. It is this canon of Scripture that we are to follow, not anything determined by a group of xenophobic hebrew scholars who were more interested in preserving Jewish tradition than the good news of Christ.

Your opinion, of course. The Apocrypha was not considered scripture during the councils and ONLY the RCC have canonize them. I can not in good concience consider books that have errors and unique teachings as scripture. The word of God is inerrant so to include these errant books is to say that God makes mistakes. I think not.

 

[the_Abbot]

What teachings in the Apocrypha are false?

 

[Merciel]

Yes it was for a Good reason so that Salvation could come to the gentiles. For Jesus came to His own first and His own did not receive Him. But for those who did gave He the power to become the sons of God.

Wow. I never heard a Christian ever claim that it was good that the Jews rejected Christ. I can't even find any applause for the Jews for doing this in the Bible. In fact, it seems like it wasn't something to smile over. Of course, the books I read (the Gospels, the Epistles, etc.) are rejected by the same Jews that you seem to think have more authority on Scripture than actual Christians, so I guess since the Jews rejected the NT, we Christians should reject it too.

 

[Merciel]

Your opinion, of course. The Apocrypha was not considered scripture during the councils and ONLY the RCC have canonize them. I can not in good concience consider books that have errors and unique teachings as scripture. The word of God is inerrant so to include these errant books is to say that God makes mistakes. I think not.

There was an Eastern Orthodox Christian in this thread who mentioned that those books are also part of the Eastern Orthodox canon, and as you already know, they had nothing to do with the Council of Trent.
As for errors, if one wants to be really hard-hearted, they can find errors in the first two chapters of Genesis.

 

[Hentenza]

There was an Eastern Orthodox Christian in this thread who mentioned that those books are also part of the Eastern Orthodox canon, and as you already know, they had nothing to do with the Council of Trent.
As for errors, if one wants to be really hard-hearted, they can find errors in the first two chapters of Genesis.

Could you please point out the errors in Genesis?

 

[Merciel]

Could you please point out the errors in Genesis?

Genesis 1 and 2 contradict each other. At least according to people with hard hearts. I personally don't believe they do, but that's because I read commentaries and apologetics before making an opinion on them.
Now if the Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox say that the Apocrypha contains contradictions and falsehoods, then I'll agree with them because I haven't studied them. However, if they offer explanations for passages that seem contradictory, then I will listen to them.

 

[Hentenza]

Genesis 1 and 2 contradict each other. At least according to people with hard hearts. I personally don't believe they do, but that's because I read commentaries and apologetics before making an opinion on them.
Now if the Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox say that the Apocrypha contains contradictions and falsehoods, then I'll agree with them because I haven't studied them. However, if they offer explanations for passages that seem contradictory, then I will listen to them.

Marciel,

Of all the apologetic studies that I have done on Genesis, I had never come accross a contradiction between Gen 1 and 2.
As far as the errors in the Apocrypha, some errors are plain errors like geographical errors and such. For example, the book of Judith claims in 1:5 that King Nebuchadnezzar ruled over Assyria when in fact he reigned over Babylon. Others have to do with Theology not found anywhere else. For example, Tobias 6:5-7 talks about magic to drive away spirits. Of course, that is contradictory to the word of God. God would not sanction magic.

 

[Merciel]

Marciel,

Of all the apologetic studies that I have done on Genesis, I had never come accross a contradiction between Gen 1 and 2.
As far as the errors in the Apocrypha, some errors are plain errors like geographical errors and such. For example, the book of Judith claims in 1:5 that King Nebuchadnezzar ruled over Assyria when in fact he reigned over Babylon. Others have to do with Theology not found anywhere else. For example, Tobias 6:5-7 talks about magic to drive away spirits. Of course, that is contradictory to the word of God. God would not sanction magic.

And I would like to hear the defense of these passages before passing judgment on them. Otherwise, it'd be like me reading the Skeptic's Annotated Bible and judging the Bible on that and only that.

 

[Rhamiel]

Tobit 6 :5-7 is not about magic, is it magic when Moses strikes the rock and water comes out? no it is God telling people what to do (or in this case an angel of God) and miiracles happening as a result.
Who was the king of assyria at the time? could King Nebuchadnezzar have been ruling over both kingdoms, Babylon was an empire right?

 

[IamAdopted]

Genesis 1 and 2 contradict each other. At least according to people with hard hearts. I personally don't believe they do, but that's because I read commentaries and apologetics before making an opinion on them.
Now if the Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox say that the Apocrypha contains contradictions and falsehoods, then I'll agree with them because I haven't studied them. However, if they offer explanations for passages that seem contradictory, then I will listen to them.

If you will see how things are recorded in Genesis then you would have no doubt. We go to Genesis 1 and we have the outline of the beginning. Then we go to Genesis 2 and it goes into much detail of the outline that we have. Very easy reading.

 

[ContentInHim]

hmmmm trust Jews who reject Christ, or trust Christians?

The Jews formed what we consider the OT - do you not trust that?

As for them not believing in Jesus as Messiah - you should be grateful that this is the case. Have you not read and understood that it is God's mercy on us that has caused them to reject Jesus though that will change shortly.

RO 11:25 I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in

 

[ScottBot]

Sorry.. Don't buy it.

That's good, because its not for sale.

 

[ScottBot]

Your opinion, of course. The Apocrypha was not considered scripture during the councils and ONLY the RCC have canonize them. I can not in good concience consider books that have errors and unique teachings as scripture. The word of God is inerrant so to include these errant books is to say that God makes mistakes. I think not.

... in your opinion.

 

[lionroar0]

There was an Eastern Orthodox Christian in this thread who mentioned that those books are also part of the Eastern Orthodox canon, and as you already know, they had nothing to do with the Council of Trent.
As for errors, if one wants to be really hard-hearted, they can find errors in the first two chapters of Genesis.

According to some there are about some 600 errors in the Bible.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

Peace