Deuterocanonical books.

[MoreCoffee]

The writing can't bring contradictions or confusions to basic orthodox understandings.

Whose basic orthodoxy would that be?

 

[squint]

Whose basic orthodoxy would that be?

For purposes here let's leave it at the Nicene Creed, K?

 

[MoreCoffee]

For purposes here let's leave it at the Nicene Creed, K?

What exactly in the seven books and portions of Daniel & Esther contradicts the Nicene Creed?

 

[Targaryen]

What exactly in the seven books and portions of Daniel & Esther contradicts the Nicene Creed?

Yeah I'm wondering that myself...I'm seeing nothing that goes against the Creed there myself.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Also wondering that.

 

[WisdomTree]

Maybe it's because the chapter makes it look like the whole thing was written while on drugs as such it goes against the Creed because drugs are bad... Then again, all the apocalyptic literatures reads as if the author was on some kind of psychedelic.

 

[Targaryen]

Maybe it's because the chapter makes it look like the whole thing was written while on drugs as such it goes against the Creed because drugs are bad... Then again, all the apocalyptic literatures reads as if the author was on some kind of psychedelic.

LOL if that were the case, then the Gnostic texts could be held under the same type of analysis

 

[single eye]

squint & LAC, here is what we know. Jesus and Another Comforter were uniquely qualified to deliver THE FAITH to THE SAINTS. This made the saints uniquely qualified to write scripture. Here is what we don't know, anything at all about the people who selected the books of the bible. Here is what we lack, any evidence at all that anyone other than the saints wrote scripture. What has happened since the launch of the bible-canon obsession proves nothing.

 

[WisdomTree]

squint & LAC, here is what we know. Jesus and Another Comforter were uniquely qualified to deliver THE FAITH to THE SAINTS. This made the saints uniquely qualified to write scripture. Here is what we don't know, anything at all about the people who selected the books of the bible. Here is what we lack, any evidence at all that anyone other than the saints wrote scripture. What has happened since the launch of the bible-canon obsession proves nothing.

Hence why Catholics, Orthodox, Miaphysites, Nestorians, High Church Protestants and Reformed (sorta) relies on Traditions.

 

[Targaryen]

squint & LAC, here is what we know. Jesus and Another Comforter were uniquely qualified to deliver THE FAITH to THE SAINTS. This made the saints uniquely qualified to write scripture. Here is what we don't know, anything at all about the people who selected the books of the bible. Here is what we lack, any evidence at all that anyone other than the saints wrote scripture. What has happened since the launch of the bible-canon obsession proves nothing.

All of this adds nothing to the debate on the original topic, doesn't make any point other then hypotheses and as Wisdom Tree pointed out, can be explained in church traditions, which mainline churches have.

Can we get back on topic now?

 

[MoreCoffee]

I reckon that we know what our respective churches teach us. That's tradition even when one pretends that it isn't. And the canon is tradition.

 

[squint]

What exactly in the seven books and portions of Daniel & Esther contradicts the Nicene Creed?

Didn't say there was.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Didn't say there was.

Oh, good; then we can all rest assured that the 'deuterocanon' is consistent with the Nicene creed and hence with being a Christian.

 

[squint]

squint & LAC, here is what we know. Jesus and Another Comforter were uniquely qualified to deliver THE FAITH to THE SAINTS. This made the saints uniquely qualified to write scripture. Here is what we don't know, anything at all about the people who selected the books of the bible. Here is what we lack, any evidence at all that anyone other than the saints wrote scripture. What has happened since the launch of the bible-canon obsession proves nothing.

The issue you expressed earlier is an example of how people can be pawns of bad teaching. Nothing personal mind you. Everyone is entitled to their own mind/conscience objections right or wrong.

I certainly understand that the sausage making process that took place well after most of the material was scribed was potentially done by factions and disputes, some good, maybe some not so good.

Not to the dire extents that some might portray though, as you are attempting. The Law and the Prophets were well established in writing at the time of Christ for example.

The topic matter here would be largely peripheral to the main body of scripture. There 'seems' to be much less (if any, can't recall specifically) of 'thus saith the Lord' statements in any of these documents.

You should re-examine your basis for the 'evil creator sub god' though.

That's kind of the last stop on the way out the door of christianity altogether. God did unquestionably perform retributive evil in the O.T.

There are however credible paths of understanding those matters. So I would encourage you to at least dialog your way through it to see if you can understand it, which will happen if you are so led.

Divine Justice is excellent territory.

 

[squint]

Oh, good; then we can all rest assured that the 'deuterocanon' is consistent with the Nicene creed and hence with being a Christian.

Believe it or not I agree with the bolded part of post #82 which I believe was issued from your sect's scholar mill.

And since I remarked that I did NOT think BnTD was worth the effort, I took some heat, right or wrong. So sue me.

 

[MoreCoffee]

So, if the deuterocanonical books are consistent with Christian faith and are also regarded as canonical by the ancient churches why all the fuss about them in protestant circles?

 

[squint]

Maybe it's because the chapter makes it look like the whole thing was written while on drugs as such it goes against the Creed because drugs are bad... Then again, all the apocalyptic literatures reads as if the author was on some kind of psychedelic.

zing.

 

[squint]

So, if the deuterocanonical books are consistent with Christian faith and are also regarded as canonical by the ancient churches why all the fuss about them in protestant circles?

Anything to disagree with the RCC, I'm sure.

The age of thinking for ones self does contain the potential for disputes huh?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Anything to disagree with the RCC, I'm sure.

I am not so sure of that. But I do not doubt that for some it works that way.

 

[WisdomTree]

So sue me.

Litigation is actually quite hard in most countries, you know with frivolous lawsuits and what not.