Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The vast majority of Christians do consider them to be Scripture. The proper term for the books in question is Deutorocanonicals.And there are only 66 boox in the Bible. The Apocrypha are not considered Scripture by Christians.
Apparently not as they're still in current RC Bibles.All European Christians had 73 books in their Bibles from the time the Catholic Church chose the 73 books up until the Protestant reformation, over a thousand years before some new religions dropped books.
When the Church chose the canon in the 300s all apocryphal books were rejected.
And the angel answered her. Again, there's absolutely NO indication of any vow of perpetual virginity. Somebody made that up.Mary was betrothed, the angel told her that she would have a son in the future, and she asked how that could be.
No, the grammer is NOT continuous. Here's its correct English translation: Luke 1:34Mary asked the angel, “How can this be, since I have not had sexual relations with a man?”The grammar of her statement is continuous, she is "not knowing a man", which is inconsistent with a bride who is expecting to have sexual relations with her soon to be husband. Her statement is completely consistent with the kind of vows described in Numbers 30, so your statement that there is "no scriptural evidence" is false.
No, they don't. Not even all RCs do.The vast majority of Christians do consider them to be Scripture. The proper term for the books in question is Deutorocanonicals.
They are part of the Bible, no sure how some Evangelicals think that they care about the Bible when they get rid of some of their booksNo, they don't. Not even all RCs do.
And "deuterocanonicals" is correct; they're NOT canonicals.
No, they don't. Not even all RCs do.
And "deuterocanonicals" is correct; they're NOT canonicals.
Sorta depends on how one words the claim, doesn't it? I mean the "vast majority" of Christian churches don't consider them to be Scripture, and it's mainly two denominations/communions (RC and EO) which do.The vast majority of Christians do consider them to be Scripture. The proper term for the books in question is Deutorocanonicals.
The AV 1611, an Anglican version, has them in a separate section between the OT & NT.Saint Jerome, who translated the Bible into Latin for the Catholic Church, rejected the deutercanonical books, although he was later pressured to translate them, as well. In the end he apparently gave into the pressure.
Interestingly, the Anglicans and Lutherans do include the deutercanonical books, despite RCC claims that Luther was responsible for eliminating them from the canon of scripture. However, neither body considers them to be inspired scripture on the level of the other 66 books, but merely as interesting literature of the period which can be judged by the individual as to their value.
Your saying does not make it so.No, the grammer is NOT continuous. Here's its correct English translation: Luke 1:34Mary asked the angel, “How can this be, since I have not had sexual relations with a man?”
Still, no Scriptural evidence.
So Deuteronomy isn't about laws (nomoi). Got it!No, they don't. Not even all RCs do.
And "deuterocanonicals" is correct; they're NOT canonicals.
So are you supporting the papacy? You seem to think it is acceptable for a single person to define what is true for the rest of the Church.Saint Jerome, who translated the Bible into Latin for the Catholic Church, rejected the deutercanonical books, although he was later pressured to translate them, as well. In the end he apparently gave into the pressure.
The vast majority of Christians do consider them to be Scripture. The proper term for the books in question is Deutorocanonicals.
Sorta depends on how one words the claim, doesn't it? I mean the "vast majority" of Christian churches don't consider them to be Scripture, and it's mainly two denominations/communions (RC and EO) which do.
Since the majority of Christians belong, either actively or nominally, to one or the other of those two, it can be said that the majority of Christians can be presumed to consider them Scripture--but that's about all.
The AV 1611, an Anglican version, has them in a separate section between the OT & NT.
And there are only 66 boox in the Bible. The Apocrypha are not considered Scripture by Christians.
Constantine legalized Christianity which ended the persecution of the Church, but he never made Christianity the official religion of Rome. You are thinking of Justinian.
Pagans did not engage in Christian worship as a result of pagan temples being repurposed as churches. If they went anywhere, they went underground.
The Churches understanding of Mary had been settled in the Council of Ephesus in 431AD, almost a century before Justinian, so your claim of Mary 'worship' being the result of pagan influence due to pagans mingling with Christians in the repurposed temples is completely without merit.
I hope that you were simply repeating something you read somewhere else (possibly Alexander Hislop) and it wasn't something you came up with yourself.
They WERE half-siblings. They had the same mom, but their father was Joseph, while Jesus' Father is GOD.
I probably picked up the information during my extensive reading of early church history as part of the Church History paper I did for my MDiv. I guess it depends on whose history one chooses to read.Constantine legalized Christianity which ended the persecution of the Church, but he never made Christianity the official religion of Rome. You are thinking of Justinian.
Pagans did not engage in Christian worship as a result of pagan temples being repurposed as churches. If they went anywhere, they went underground.
The Churches understanding of Mary had been settled in the Council of Ephesus in 431AD, almost a century before Justinian, so your claim of Mary 'worship' being the result of pagan influence due to pagans mingling with Christians in the repurposed temples is completely without merit.
I hope that you were simply repeating something you read somewhere else (possibly Alexander Hislop) and it wasn't something you came up with yourself.
"How can this be?" Such a young woman entering into a normal Jewish lifelong marriage would not ask such a question. The author felt it important enough to include instead of the many wonderous things Jesus did that are not included in the Bible.No, the grammer is NOT continuous. Here's its correct English translation: Luke 1:34Mary asked the angel, “How can this be, since I have not had sexual relations with a man?”
Still, no Scriptural evidence.
You claim that Saint Jerome 1) "rejected" the deutercanonical books" and 2) was later "pressured" to translate those books. This time I ask that your provide documentation for your allegations.Saint Jerome, who translated the Bible into Latin for the Catholic Church, rejected the deutercanonical books, although he was later pressured to translate them, as well. In the end he apparently gave into the pressure.
Interestingly, the Anglicans and Lutherans do include the deutercanonical books, despite RCC claims that Luther was responsible for eliminating them from the canon of scripture. However, neither body considers them to be inspired scripture on the level of the other 66 books, but merely as interesting literature of the period which can be judged by the individual as to their value.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?