How Many Books Are in Your Bible? 66? 73? 81?

[CharismaticLady]

If by demonic you mean people are actually experience demonic experiences, then no I don't share that view. If by demonic you mean that superstitions and other forms of false spirituality are lies from the father of lies, then yes I do agree.

Ouija boards aren't occult. It's a copyrighted game by Milton-Bradley that relies on the human ideomotor effect. It's not spirits or ghosts or demons. It's a cheap parlor trick.

I'm talking about actual occultism. False spiritualities and superstition that, by its very nature, turns us away from the foundational truth of Christ and His Gospel and toward meaningless spiritual fluff. The occult isn't all Spiritualism and seances, it's anything that involves a belief or practice concerning hidden truths that must be acquired through some method or practice. Such things are dangerous and of the devil because they are a false spirituality, a lie.



Numerology is occult. Yes. Because attempting to find hidden truth through numbers is a form of occultism. God has not given us "hidden mysteries" by a "use of numbers", that would be numerology, which is occultism.



"I like to dig deep" has been the mantra of the esotericists since the days of the ancient Gnostics, who being unsastisfied with the real truth of God wanted to make themselves special by thinking that they could discover secret knowledge hidden away from the ignorant masses of normal people. And so they contrived elaborate cosmologies and systems and rituals, retaining their secrets only for the specially initiated. From Simon Magus to Basiledes, to Boehme and Swedenborg the dangerous doctrine of esotericism has consistently been a dangerous attack against the Holy Christian Church and the apostolic faith.

We do not confess hidden mysteries by which men can discover truths therein. We confess one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, of all things seen and unseen. And in one Lord Jesus Christ the only Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages, conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, who suffered, died, was crucified under Pontius Pilate, buried, and rose on the third day, ascended into heaven, is seated at the right hand of the Father, from whence He will come again as judge of the living and the dead, whose kingdom is everlasting. And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life. We confess one holy catholic and apostolic Church, one baptism, look forward to the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting in the Age to Come.

There is nothing deeper than the depth of mercy found in the Holy Gospel. Of the God who comes to sinners in their unworthiness and shares in all that we are, becoming weak with the weak, and suffering the death of all men for the sake of all men.

That singular holy and precious truth cannot be improved upon. There is nothing deeper, more sublime, more bewildering and amazing than the One who so loved us and laid down His life for us. Behold the Mystery of Mysteries, the Virgin cradles the Creator of the stars in her arms, the One whose voice thundered from Mt. Horeb is nailed to a cross crying out His undying love for His murderers.

-CryptoLutheran

How do you know an Ouija board is a harmless game? Do you own one? Have you ever played it with your kids?

 

[ViaCrucis]

How do you know an Ouija board is a harmless game? Do you own one? Have you ever played it with your kids?

I don't own one and never have. But the ideomotor effect is well documented. There's nothing spiritual or supernatural about it. This is easily demonstrated by the fact that when people use a Ouja or other planchette board it suddenly stops working when the ones using it are blindfolded. Because it's not spirits, ghosts, or even demons moving anything, it's the people. They're doing it without even knowing it. That's the ideomotor effect. There's nothing supernatural about it.

The planchette never moves on its own.
And the board never "works" unless the participants can see or know where the letters/numbers are on the board.

Now if the planchette suddenly started moving all on its own in the style of some silly Hollywood horror flick, well that would definitely be something. But that doesn't happen.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[prodromos]

How do you know an Ouija board is a harmless game?

He never said it was harmless.

 

[ViaCrucis]

He never said it was harmless.

I don't think Ouja boards have any inherent power. But using them as a means of real spiritual activity is certainly harmful, as all superstition is harmful. That is the problem with things like divination, they lead us away from the One in whom we place our faith and toward various kinds of woo. The devil is a liar.

Fortunately, "one little word shall fell him." The devil, being a liar from the beginning, is crushed and downtrodden by the smallest of words. Which is why St. James says "Resist the devil, and he must flee." The devil is a coward, impotent and weak. Christ our God has defeated him, and so we know, "Greater is He that is in us than he that is in the world." And "We are more than conquerors through Him who loves us."

"O Death, where is your sting? O Hell, where is your victory? Christ is risen, and you are overthrown. Christ is risen, and the demons are fallen. Christ is risen, and the angels rejoice. Christ is risen, and life reigns. Christ is risen, and not one dead remains in the grave. For Christ, being risen from the dead, is become the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep. To Him be glory and dominion unto ages of ages. Amen."

-CryptoLutheran

 

[CharismaticLady]

I don't think Ouja boards have any inherent power. But using them as a means of real spiritual activity is certainly harmful, as all superstition is harmful. That is the problem with things like divination, they lead us away from the One in whom we place our faith and toward various kinds of woo. The devil is a liar.

Fortunately, "one little word shall fell him." The devil, being a liar from the beginning, is crushed and downtrodden by the smallest of words. Which is why St. James says "Resist the devil, and he must flee." The devil is a coward, impotent and weak. Christ our God has defeated him, and so we know, "Greater is He that is in us than he that is in the world." And "We are more than conquerors through Him who loves us."

"O Death, where is your sting? O Hell, where is your victory? Christ is risen, and you are overthrown. Christ is risen, and the demons are fallen. Christ is risen, and the angels rejoice. Christ is risen, and life reigns. Christ is risen, and not one dead remains in the grave. For Christ, being risen from the dead, is become the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep. To Him be glory and dominion unto ages of ages. Amen."

-CryptoLutheran

Well, at least, you are as gentle as a dove.

 

[luze]

In the years 382, 393, 397 when the bible was put together by the Catholic Church they added The New Testament 27 books to the 46 Old Testament so originally it's 73

 

[Philip_B]

In the years 382, 393, 397 when the bible was put together by the Catholic Church they added The New Testament 27 books to the 46 Old Testament so originally it's 73

Generally correct, save the inference of the way the word Catholic is used, as at this time the church understood itself to be Catholic so it has no sense of denomination.

 

[ViaCrucis]

In the years 382, 393, 397 when the bible was put together by the Catholic Church they added The New Testament 27 books to the 46 Old Testament so originally it's 73

The problem with thinking that the regional councils of Rome, Carthage, Hippo, Laodicea (etc) were universally definitive is that, historically, they weren't. None of these councils settled the matter, and there continued to be disputes about certain books for well after these councils. For example, in the East the Apocalypse of St. John continued to be disputed for centuries, and didn't achieve consensus until around the time of St. John of Damascus. And even as late as the high middle ages 3 Corinthians could be found in the Armenian New Testament. The Syriac Peshitta for a long time lacked a number of the Antilegomena, such as the Apocalyspe, as well as 2 and 3 John.

So it's fine to say that the councils of Rome, Carthage, and Hippo were instrumental in the process of defining the Canon in the West, these were hardly universally definitive rulings and did not end continued debate about certain books.

When Luther challenged the Deuterocanonicals (and some of the Antilegomena for that matter), he wasn't fighting against some long-established dogmatic pronouncement of the Church catholic; he was bringing a (albeit controversial) voice into a debate that had been going on for many centuries before he even existed.

I am not arguing that Luther was right on this matter (it's important to understand that Lutheranism has never taken Luther's position as authoritative on this matter, Lutherans have no dogmatic position on the Deuterocanonical books), only that Luther here is not going against some universal position of the Christian Church, but is giving his own voice to a very old debate. Agree or disagree with his opinion, that's really all he did.

I think it's also important here to be clear about my own position on these things:

I regard the matter open. There remains an open question and ongoing debate about certain books. As such I can neither agree with the Catholic or Protestant positions. I cannot say the Deuterocanonicals are in, nor can I say they are out. As far as I'm concerned this is a matter that requires a universal consensus of the entire Christian Church, and without that clear consensus the matter cannot be settled one way or another.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ralfyman]

This might help:

Biblical canon

 

[tz620q]

The problem with thinking that the regional councils of Rome, Carthage, Hippo, Laodicea (etc) were universally definitive is that, historically, they weren't. None of these councils settled the matter, and there continued to be disputes about certain books for well after these councils.
-CryptoLutheran

As always, I respect your opinion and agree mostly with you; but the Western church, including Northern Africa tried hard to settle the matter. From a Protestant viewpoint, one could make the case that after fighting the Arian heresy for 60 years, the church recognized the need for a canon to be defined to draw clear lines of what was scripture and worthy of being read in church. Jerome's Latin translation was as much about clarifying what was scripture and completing a canon as it was about creating a vernacular translation for the Western church; but it was never meant to be an ecumenical olive branch to the Greek speaking church.
You are right that the canon was never closed completely in the church Catholic; but I am not sure that they thought this was a hill they would die on. Doctrine lived within the church and through the church (both East and West) and while scripture was an important source for this; it was the lens of the church that brought focus to the scriptures, not scripture bringing focus to the church. That is really the difference in this discussion. The number of books that are scripture is an odd argument that insists on a "right" number, even though there has never been a universally accepted "right" number.

 

[prodromos]

In fact, the Jewish people rejected and destroyed the apocrypha after the overthow of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

This appears not to be fact at all.

 

[Philip_B]

This appears not to be fact at all.

It is in fact more of an overstatement, as it is clear that they did not destroy it, and whilst the writings were excluded there is an implied causality and an implied proximity, neither of which is established. So whilst it might be harsh to say some people just make stuff up it is tempting, however some people do say things which whilst they do in some sense correspond to reality they can be told in such a way as to suggest something else.

 

[Knee V]

We are to study to show ourselves approved, and to me that means observing His ways.

I realize that this is somewhat tangential, so please forgive me for that.

When the King James translators chose the word "study", they didn't mean it in the way that we use it now, which is different. It is only "study" in the sense of "be studious" or "be diligent". The way we use "study" nowadays comes from the idea of "be studious to read and learn".

Either way, it is not a command to examine number patterns.

 

[CharismaticLady]

I realize that this is somewhat tangential, so please forgive me for that.

When the King James translators chose the word "study", they didn't mean it in the way that we use it now, which is different. It is only "study" in the sense of "be studious" or "be diligent". The way we use "study" nowadays comes from the idea of "be studious to read and learn".

Either way, it is not a command to examine number patterns.

The way I take it is to be open to know the truth. Many are not open and just have faith in church fathers and not the apostles. I know the apostles were filled with the Spirit; I'm not so sure of the church fathers.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Many are not open and just have faith in church fathers and not the apostles

You and I have something in common.

Neither of us know what you're talking about.

 

[CharismaticLady]

You and I have something in common.

Neither of us know what you're talking about.

Actually, I'm talking about the Reformation.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Actually, I'm talking about the Reformation, not the Catholic doctrines. And as doctrines, I'm talking about scriptural doctrines not the unsubstantiated "holy traditions" about Mary.

Without Sacred Tradition, you would have no way of knowing which writings are inspired and which ones are not.

 

[CharismaticLady]

Without Sacred Tradition, you would have no way of knowing which writings are inspired and which ones are not.

View attachment 260956

That is what I don't buy 100%. Someone in the Church didn't canonize the Epistle of Barnabas. That is one reason why we have such a problem with abortion. The Epistle of Barnabas is the only book that has the commandment against abortion and infanticide. And that commandment was quoted in the Didache. Where did the writers of the Teachings of the Twelve Apostles (the Didache) get that commandment, as without the EoB, it is not in the 27 books, nor the Old Testament?

 

[prodromos]

In the Eastern Church, life has always been understood to begin at conception, so the biblical commandment not to murder includes the unborn.

 

[Philip_B]

Actually, I'm talking about the Reformation.

That was not immediately apparent.