How many here accept the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha as Scripture?

[ananda]

when it says "to the words" i believe it means "to those words" in context. That being said, ive gone back and forth on Balaam. When i found out about him i accepted him, then rejected him but now accept him again. i had rejected him for basically the same reason you do. be sure though that I know and agree that he has not made it into the kingdom.

We'll have to agree to disagree

 

[ananda]

Exodus 15: 3 The Lord is a man of war: the Lord is his name. 4 Pharaoh's chariots and his host hath he cast into the sea: his chosen captains also are drowned in the Red sea. 5 The depths have covered them: they sank into the bottom as a stone. 6 Thy right hand, O Lord, is become glorious in power: thy right hand, O Lord, hath dashed in pieces the enemy. Yet Jesus said to "Love our enemy".

Yes, we are to love our enemies, and to leave justice to YHWH.

YHWH Himself does love His enemies (e.g. mankind), and is patient towards us, continually urging us to repent and turn back towards Him. However, there comes a time when that love and patience is no longer applicable from YHWH's point of view, and justice must work its due process (such as the verses you quoted). I see no contradiction.

 

[Onieu]

We'll have to agree to disagree

Thanks for the discussion i appreciate your contribution. Hope we both find truth

 

[Onieu]

Exodus 15:
3 The Lord is a man of war: the Lord is his name.
4 Pharaoh's chariots and his host hath he cast into the sea: his chosen captains also are drowned in the Red sea.
5 The depths have covered them: they sank into the bottom as a stone.
6 Thy right hand, O Lord, is become glorious in power: thy right hand, O Lord, hath dashed in pieces the enemy.


Yet Jesus said to "Love our enemy".

"

Reread Deu 13:1-5. A false prophet can prophesy something that does come to pass. He is false if his message is intended to turn one away from YHWH or His Torah (Deu 13:5).
​

You could put Jesus in that thought if you're not careful. "Love your enemy?""

If Messiah turned us away from God or the Torah then He would be false prophet in my view yes. But love your enemy doe snot turn us away from God or Torah =). Messiah was in perfect conformity to the Law. in fact the New Testament says He perfectly fulfilled the Law

 

[Onieu]

By the way what the heck is a Messianic Jew anyways?

A messianic jew is a broad term which is used for any Christian which lives like a Jew. This can refer to Christians who live culturally like Jews just as tradition or as "being all things to all people" but don't think the way of life is mandatory or required. then there are other christians who think living as a Jew (that is, living as the Law of Moses in the Bible commands us) is required/mandatory for all christians.

 

[ananda]

A messianic jew is a broad term which is used for any Christian which lives like a Jew. This can refer to Christians who live culturally like Jews just as tradition or as "being all things to all people" but don't think the way of life is mandatory or required. then there are other christians who think living as a Jew (that is, living as the Law of Moses in the Bible commands us) is required/mandatory for all christians.

I consider the term to refer to those who believe Yehoshua (aka Jesus) is Messiah while remaining in a form of Judaism (and more specifically, Written Law/Torah observant, but not necessarily Oral Law/Talmud observant).

 

[Hoshiyya]

By the way what the heck is a Messianic Jew anyways?

You'll get different definitions from different people.

 

[Onieu]

I consider the term to refer to those who believe Yehoshua (aka Jesus) is Messiah while remaining in a form of Judaism (and more specifically, Written Law/Torah observant, but not necessarily Oral Law/Talmud observant).

Yes, i dont think the term is really appropriately used, but yet it is used as how i explained. It can be very confusing but i was specifying what the term has come to mean in practice/usage not necessarily how it should be used.

 

[ananda]

Yes, i dont think the term is really appropriately used, but yet it is used as how i explained. It can be very confusing but i was specifying what the term has come to mean in practice/usage not necessarily how it should be used.

I don't doubt that you see it that way.

I see Messianics as those within Judaism, not Christianity.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I would ignore even the Apocrypha, since even Jerome, who included it with the other books, did not consider it scripture. He considered it only useful in the same sense as morality plays are.

"But you must know that there are other books, which are not ca nonical, but were called by the ancients ecclesiastical, that is to say, the book of Wisdom, which is said to be Solomon's, and the other Wisdom, which is said to be the son of Sirach's, which book is called by the Latins by the general name of Ecclesiasticus, by which name not the author of the book, but the nature of the writing is declared. Of the same class is the book of Tobit, and Judith, and the books of Maccabees. And in the New Testament the book of the Shepherd, or Hermes, which is called the two roads, or the judgment of Peter, all of which they have thought fit to be read in the churches, but not to be brought forward for the confirmation of the faith." — Symbol of Rujftnus, vol. Q, p. 186.

They contain things which contradict the scripture, were not included by the Jews as part of the canon, contradict history and other important facts, and therefore should not be trusted, as Jerome says, "for the confirmation of the faith."

This all depends on who decided your canon. All those Old Testament writings are considered Canonical by the Catholic Church. There is no deuterocanon of the New Testament.
We don't go by what the Jews say was their canon, because there was no Jewish Canon until there was a specific list of Catholic Canon. Even in Jesus' time, there were factions which accepted only the Torah, those that accepted the Law, Prophets and Psalms. Catholics accept the Septuagint because Jesus quoted almost exclusively from the Greek translation of the OT. Also, in the deuterocanon, there are practices, like the celebration of Hannukah, which appear nowhere else in the OT, as well as Catholic practices, such as prayer for the dead, which Protestants subsequently rejected.

 

[Hoshiyya]

My 2 cents:
The Septuagint (as early as 3rd century BCE) was a Jewish canon, you could say, and represented a canon that was much older, since they obviously didnt invent it then and there when the Greek version was made.
Anyway, Yeshua never quotes from outside the Bible, but divides it into Law, Prophets and "Psalms" (Writings.)

 

[Onieu]

I don't doubt that you see it that way.

I see Messianics as those within Judaism, not Christianity.

Hmm? All i am saying is that those within Christianity ALSO call themselves messianics lol. ive been to congregations that do this before. i found out when the "rabbi" started saying eating bacon is not a sin. im saying those who call themselves messianics but are protestants, imply they are torah observant when they aren't. its i think confusing and inappropriate for them to use it yet they do. so i was reporting on how people use it, not on how they should use it

 

[Root of Jesse]

I personally accept everything found in the Septuagint, Peshitta, and the Vulgate. On top of that, I'm considering the books of the Armenian and the Ethiopian canon, but I haven't read those "extra-canonical" books so can't decide quite yet.

Also, I look favourably towards some of the post-apostolic books such as the Gospel of James, Acts of Paul and Thecla, Paul's Letter to the Laodiceans, Letter of Barnabas, the Revelations of Peter, Letters of Clement, Letters of Ignatius, Letters of Polycarp, and the Shepherd of Hermas. My view is not from reading them, but rather based on the opinions of the Church Fathers (I do look forward to reading them though).

Once I read all of them, I will make a decision for myself.

There's a difference between reading and accepting their content, and considering them on par with Scripture. I've read a lot of what you mention and they're worthy for deepening your faith. I've also read some of the writing of Anne Catherine Emmerich, about the early life of the Blessed Virgin. I don't believe all of it, but it was enlightening. Good luck in your reading. I wish I had started at your age...

 

[ananda]

Hmm? All i am saying is that those within Christianity ALSO call themselves messianics lol. ive been to congregations that do this before. i found out when the "rabbi" started saying eating bacon is not a sin. im saying those who call themselves messianics but are protestants, imply they are torah observant when they aren't. its i think confusing and inappropriate for them to use it yet they do. so i was reporting on how people use it, not on how they should use it

That is true. I believe MJ is not only very ancient, it is also very new at the same time, and the people within it are still defining themselves.

 

[Root of Jesse]

My 2 cents:
The Septuagint (as early as 3rd century BCE) was a Jewish canon, you could say, and represented a canon that was much older, since they obviously didnt invent it then and there when the Greek version was made.
Anyway, Yeshua never quotes from outside the Bible, but divides it into Law, Prophets and "Psalms" (Writings.)

Absolutely! IT was a canon, but only one of several. It was only after the Christians accepted this canon that the Hebrews decided to exclude those books.

 

[ananda]

Anyway, Yeshua never quotes from outside the Bible, but divides it into Law, Prophets and "Psalms" (Writings.)

Do you believe this should be of any significance for us, that is, His recognition of the separate sections?

 

[Onieu]

That is true. I believe MJ is not only very ancient, it is also very new at the same time, and the people within it are still defining themselves.

yes =)

 

[FireDragon76]

I consider the Apocrypha "deuterocanonical". It belongs in the Bible but its doctrines are inferior, and it is best used for historical, liturgical, or devotional purposes. Many Eastern Orthodox also have this view of these books, but for now I consider myself a catholic-minded Protestant.

 

[GabrielWithoutWings]

Gnostic christians are christians who subscribe to one of the ancient sects fo christianity labelled by scholars as gnostics. they believed certain doctrines among them being that the old testament was not inspired by the Father, and that the Creator is not the Father.

You're making one of the most common fallacies regarding ancient Gnosticism. There was no monolithic "Gnosticism" that was competing with proto-Catholic Christians. Instead, you had many different teachers teaching different points of view. Gnosticism most likely developed out of Hellenized Judaism in Alexandria and possibly Syria during the early pre-Christian years. They adopted and reinterpreted middle Platonism.

On the Old Testament, the Sethians typically glorified Old Testament villains such as Cain. They believed that Demiurge was a demon named Ialdabaoth who saw his reflection of the Fullness of the Father and though that he was the only God.

Depending on the sect, different points of view were expressed about the Old Testament. Some sects would invert many of the figures (Sethians), some thought it was a mix of the Demiurge speaking and Sophia speaking, and some were perfectly fine with everything in it, though they had their own exegesis (Valentinians). Then again, Marcion (who may or may not have had Gnostic tendencies) did away with it altogether.

Another one is the complete detesting/hating of the physical world to the point that they either condemnall physical things as evil and abstain from physical pleasures (such as being vegetarians or people against all sex even for procreation in marriage) or they indulged in physical pleasures in order to abuse the physical world (basically these latter people justified to themselves excessive sinning).

The Gnostics who were against the physical world are the Sethians. They thought matter was a prison to keep the divine sparks of God imprisoned in flesh. They were against marriage and childbirth because they viewed childbirth as simply imprisoning more people in matter.

The Carpocratians were the libertine sect. They believed that matter could only be overcome by diving headfirst into it.

The Valentinians were the middle ground. They believed that Creation was imperfect and flawed but still good because it's a reflection of the Pleroma (Fullness). They viewed sex, marriage and childbirth all as good things that were necessary to salvation. They also viewed the Demiurge not as evil, but as an imperfect reflection of the Father who was also necessary for salvation.

Gnosticism was also characterized by a secret knowledge that puffeth up. Vain boasting of frivolous knowledge at which this knowledge alone saved you rather than righteousness saving you and that you could only receive the knowledge if you were chosen; they believed in occult knowledge which they believed most people were literally incapable of understanding because their souls were created evil.

Incorrect. No one had an "evil" soul. We must also understand that people back then made a distinction between soul (psyche) and spirit (pneuma).

Some people were hylic, some were psychics, and some were pneumatics. Hylic people were considered to be not ready to receive psychic teachings until they were properly educated and took steps to become that way. Psychics were how they typically classified your average proto-orthodox Christian. Pneumatics were considered to be spiritually aware and filled with gnosis.

So, it really depends on which set of Gnostics you're talking about. You can't lump them all together. Some Gnostic teachers not only taught against proto-orthodox teachers but other Gnostic teachers as well.

 

[Soulgazer]

"Gnostic" is a very old term, meaning "scholar". It was used by Ireanus as a derogatory remark against all that did not agree with him. The opposite of "gnostic" in this usage is "pagan", which means "uneducated".

"The term "Gnosticism" was coined in the Seventeenth century, picked up by scholars in the centuries following who had access to perhaps 20% of the material...."~This Way, Jeremy Puma, pg 3

The current thinking is that there really was no seperate Christian movement, but a Christianity that has been "dumbed down" for the masses, taken over by the uneducated, and proclaiming material that it didn't have the understanding of to be "heretical".

Almost all of the works in the Bible, with some small exceptions, are pseudopigrapha, and some of the older Jewish works Midrash. So it really depends on what you mean by "scripture". These are writings that reflect the beliefs of the men who wrote them; we study those beliefs in efforts to improve our understanding of what it means to be a christian on a personal level.

The Nag Hammadi Library is a treasure trove for people who wish to improve their understanding. It takes some training to understand the Christianity that these writings come from before you dive right in though.