Deuterocanonical books.

[WisdomTree]

It is the lost third letter, the genuine article. It starts thus:

Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Coffee, our brother, to the church that is in Corinth a holy people called by God to fellowship with our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Grace, mercy, and peace to you and to all the household of God, born in union with Jesus through the waters of baptism and filled with the Spirit by the anointing with the oil of gladness before witnessed in household of God.

I offer thanks to our Lord Jesus Christ for you all that all of you are walking according to the faith and that your have adopted the discipline of the Spirit in your fellowship; being freed from all immorality and vice and walking according to the commandments of the Lord. He is our strength in times of trouble and the light in dark places into which some of you must walk for the sake of the faith that was delivered to you at my hand and at the hands of our brethren Timothy and Silvanus.

Our hope is secure in Christ and …
​

"Lost"

What was the letter that it was paired with? Letter from the Corinthians to Something or rather was it not?

 

[MoreCoffee]

"Lost"

What was the letter that it was paired with? Letter from the Corinthians to Something or rather was it not?

I can develop the themes as need arises

 

[WisdomTree]

I can develop the themes as need arises

Careful, such carelessness might bring upon the Internet Inquisition upon you. You'll expect it even less than the Spanish Inquisition.

 

[Targaryen]

Ummm we seem to have a few individuals that think it's already here, and that they are the inquisitors. but that's besides the point.

 

[WisdomTree]

Ummm we seem to have a few individuals that think it's already here, and that they are the inquisitors. but that's besides the point.

Heresy!!!

 

[MoreCoffee]

I rather liked the third letter of the apostle Paul to the church in Corinth

 

[Knee V]

Ummm we seem to have a few individuals that think it's already here, and that they are the inquisitors. but that's besides the point.

But we expect them.

 

[Erose]

It would appear that your sect considered them to not be on an equal level.

Really? How do you make such a claim as the Church has always viewed this section in Daniel as canonical. One of the things that may be confusing to many, sadly even Catholics, is that the Catholic Church has always viewed the writings that were later referred to as the Deuterocanonicals as equal to the rest of the OT writings. There is in Catholic understanding a three grades of authority in Scripture, but this is broken down as the Gospels (having primary authority); the rest of the New Testament writings; and then the OT writings.

The sad usage of the term Deuterocanonical which was coined for purposes of apologetics with Jews, has muddied the understanding that these writings have the same level of Canonicity as all the other OT writings.

My point is that your observation is wrong.

Squint you are blindly throwing darts now hoping something will stick.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I've translated some more of the letter. Here is is, I shall work on the punctuation as needed.

Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Coffee, our brother, to the church that is in Corinth a holy people called by God to fellowship with our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Grace, mercy, and peace to you and to all the household of God, born in union with Jesus through the waters of baptism and filled with the Spirit by the anointing with the oil of gladness before witnesses in household of God.

I offer thanks to our God and Father for you all that all of you are walking according to the faith and that your have adopted the discipline of the Spirit in your fellowship; being freed from all immorality and vice and walking according to the commandments of the Lord. He is our strength in times of trouble and the light in dark places into which some of you must walk for the sake of the faith that was delivered to you at my hand and at the hands of our brethren Timothy and Silvanus.

Our hope is secure in Christ who gave his life for us and has brought to us hope and new life in the Spirit. Let us therefore always walk in the light of Christ, never turning back as has been the habit of some, always seeking to do what is good and what is pure and what is perfect as the Spirit guides and enables us. For in Jesus Christ we have received everything that is needed to live a godly life of fellowship with God the Father and with one another, being filled with the Spirit and having graces and gifts such as are needed to meet the trials of our faith which the world shall bring before the day of the Lord arrives. Therefore I urge you, my brethren, look not to the left or to the right but keep your eyes fixed upon the Lord and walk as he walked in truth and holiness as the day draws near and your salvation begins to appear. Yes, be of good cheer even in trials because your salvation is near at hand.

Now I write to you because I am concerned for you that some who are of the party of the circumcision have come to you and troubled you with made up stories calling you to live as do the Jews according to the flesh. I say to you, put these ones out of the fellowship of the brethren because their message is not the gospel of our Lord.
​

 

[squint]

Really? How do you make such a claim as the Church has always viewed this section in Daniel as canonical. One of the things that may be confusing to many, sadly even Catholics, is that the Catholic Church has always viewed the writings that were later referred to as the Deuterocanonicals as equal to the rest of the OT writings. There is in Catholic understanding a three grades of authority in Scripture, but this is broken down as the Gospels (having primary authority); the rest of the New Testament writings; and then the OT writings.

The sad usage of the term Deuterocanonical which was coined for purposes of apologetics with Jews, has muddied the understanding that these writings have the same level of Canonicity as all the other OT writings.

My point is that your observation is wrong.

Squint you are blindly throwing darts now hoping something will stick.

Was just recalling something someone ELSE posted earlier here that appeared to be from your end that said as much.

Perhaps you could read the thread if you are interested?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Really? How do you make such a claim as the Church has always viewed this section in Daniel as canonical. One of the things that may be confusing to many, sadly even Catholics, is that the Catholic Church has always viewed the writings that were later referred to as the Deuterocanonicals as equal to the rest of the OT writings. There is in Catholic understanding a three grades of authority in Scripture, but this is broken down as the Gospels (having primary authority); the rest of the New Testament writings; and then the OT writings.

The sad usage of the term Deuterocanonical which was coined for purposes of apologetics with Jews, has muddied the understanding that these writings have the same level of Canonicity as all the other OT writings.

My point is that your observation is wrong.

Squint you are blindly throwing darts now hoping something will stick.

The use of 'deuterocanon' was well intentioned and done in good faith and ought to be seen as such. It's the later development, when the western church was rent apart with schism and heresies arising from the action of Martin Luther and from the immoral and wicked actions of some monks and priests and bishops within the Catholic Church that brought the term 'deuterocanon' into some difficulty and paved the way walked by some men of bad faith to label these books and portions of books as 'apocrypha'. We live in the shadow of those men who did wickedly.

It seems from reading squint's posts that his controlling theme is always torture either by men in this world or by separation from God in the next world (the doctrine of eternal torment is what appears to be in mind) so many of his posts try to swing the discussion to that theme no matter what that actual thread theme may be.

 

[Erose]

Was just recalling something someone ELSE posted earlier here that appeared to be from your end that said as much.

Perhaps you could read the thread if you are interested?

Whether another Catholic said it or not it doesn't matter. What I stated was the position of the Church, not my opinion or the opinion of a another poster.

 

[squint]

Whether another Catholic said it or not it doesn't matter. What I stated was the position of the Church, not my opinion or the opinion of a another poster.

The post is #82 if you wanted to compare notes to that. I already said I haven't read scholar criticism of the document in question, largely because the text itself wasn't that interesting.

Other DC books are far better and deserve full attentions for content, again, imho.

 

[squint]

It seems from reading squint's posts that his controlling theme is always torture either by men in this world or by separation from God in the next world (the doctrine of eternal torment is what appears to be in mind) so many of his posts try to swing the discussion to that theme no matter what that actual thread theme may be.

Don't recall inserting any of that into this thread. Sorry to disappoint your forced expectations.

 

[Erose]

The use of 'deuterocanon' was well intentioned and done in good faith and ought to be seen as such. It's the later development, when the western church was rent apart with schism and heresies arising from the action of Martin Luther and from the immoral and wicked actions of some monks and priests and bishops within the Catholic Church that brought the term 'deuterocanon' into some difficulty and paved the way walked by some men of bad faith to label these books and portions of books as 'apocrypha'. We live in the shadow of those men who did wickedly.

That may be the case, but there is no doubt that has created much misunderstanding even within the walls of the Catholic Church. It is of my opinion that the term Deuterocanon should not be used any longer within Catholic apologetics. Perhaps we should use abstulit-canon or something similar instead.

It seems from reading squint's posts that his controlling theme is always torture either by men in this world or by separation from God in the next world (the doctrine of eternal torment is what appears to be in mind) so many of his posts try to swing the discussion to that theme no matter what that actual thread theme may be.

I don't think Squint believes in eternal punishment.

 

[Erose]

Other DC books are far better and deserve full attentions for content, again, imho.

I can understand that position. One can do similar assessments of the various degrees of the literary talents of other authors of Sacred Scripture; but the level of literary style doesn't dictate the level of canonicity though.

 

[squint]

That may be the case, but there is no doubt that has created much misunderstanding even within the walls of the Catholic Church. It is of my opinion that the term Deuterocanon should not be used any longer within Catholic apologetics. Perhaps we should use abstulit-canon or something similar instead.

I'm rather surprised at your comment above.

I don't think Squint believes in eternal punishment.

Not true whatsoever. We know for no uncertain fact that Satan and devils will have eternal punishment, which is both eternal and punishment.

 

[squint]

I can understand that position. One can do similar assessments of the various degrees of the literary talents of other authors of Sacred Scripture; but the level of literary style doesn't dictate the level of canonicity though.

I would agree with that as well.

The writing can't bring contradictions or confusions to basic orthodox understandings. Which are part of the problems of some of these texts to begin with.

That doesn't mean they don't have a place or are not scriptural.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Don't recall inserting any of that into this thread. Sorry to disappoint your forced expectations.

Time will tell

 

[Erose]

I'm rather surprised at your comment above.

Why would you be? The term is relatively new in Catholic apologetics (16th century) and gives the impression that those writings are secondary to the "protocanical" books, which isn't true. I know that Sixtus of Siena coined the phrase in his debates with Jews, to distinguish between the writings accepted as canonical by the Jews and those that they rejected; but the fact is that term has really caused more harm than good, and should be thrown in the trash.

Not true whatsoever. We know for no uncertain fact that Satan and devils will have eternal punishment, which is both eternal and punishment.

sorry, should have added humans. That you don't believe humans will experience eternal punishment.