Is there salvation without Mary?

[bbbbbbb]

The AV 1611, an Anglican version, has them in a separate section between the OT & NT.

Quite correct. If some wish to consider them to be the inspired Word of God, that is their decision, right or wrong.

 

[bbbbbbb]

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.

Certainly. You can find the full context here - Jerome - Wikipedia

Particular pertinent aspects are as follow:

He is best known for his translation of most of the Bible into Latin (the translation that became known as the Vulgate) and his commentaries on the whole Bible. Jerome attempted to create a translation of the Old Testament based on a Hebrew version, rather than the Septuagint, as Latin Bible translations used to be performed before him. His list of writings is extensive, and beside his Biblical works, he wrote polemical and historical essays, always from a theologian's perspective.

Although Jerome was once suspicious of the Apocrypha, he later viewed them as Scripture. For example, in Jerome's letter to Eustochium he quotes Sirach 13:2;[25] elsewhere Jerome also refers to Baruch, the Story of Susannah and Wisdom as scripture.

The text that Jerome used to translate the Old Testament was the Hebrew text, which does not include the deutercanonical books. Although the Septuagint does include these books, he did not trust it. Therefore, he was suspicious of these books.

Now, if you don't like the Wikipedia article, please feel free to correct it. All you need to do is provide at least two reliable citations for review by the Wikipedia folks for any change you wish to make.

 

[Valletta]

Certainly. You can find the full context here - Jerome - Wikipedia
Particular pertinent aspects are as follow:
He is best known for his translation of most of the Bible into Latin (the translation that became known as the Vulgate) and his commentaries on the whole Bible. Jerome attempted to create a translation of the Old Testament based on a Hebrew version, rather than the Septuagint, as Latin Bible translations used to be performed before him. His list of writings is extensive, and beside his Biblical works, he wrote polemical and historical essays, always from a theologian's perspective.
Although Jerome was once suspicious of the Apocrypha, he later viewed them as Scripture. For example, in Jerome's letter to Eustochium he quotes Sirach 13:2;[25] elsewhere Jerome also refers to Baruch, the Story of Susannah and Wisdom as scripture.
The text that Jerome used to translate the Old Testament was the Hebrew text, which does not include the deutercanonical books. Although the Septuagint does include these books, he did not trust it. Therefore, he was suspicious of these books.

First, as I told you in this very thread in message 525, "Wikipedia is quite biased, people band together to preserve misinformation." The information there can change minute by minute. You claimed that Saint Jerome 1) "rejected" the deutercanonical books" and 2) was later "pressured" to translate those books.
The Wikipedia excerpts you provided do NOT use the words "rejected" or "pressured." The article claims Jerome was suspicious of the Apocrypha (an anti-Catholic term) and later viewed them as Scripture. The excerpts say NOTHING about Jerome being pressured. [/QUOTE]

 

[robycop3]

Your saying does not make it so.

πως εσται τουτο επει ανδρα ου γινωσκω​

The verb ending of "ω" is the simple present, so just as "τρωω" can be written as "I eat" or I am eating", "γινωσκω" can be written as "I know" or "I am knowing". There is absolutely no past tense involved such as in the translation you gave.

But Scripture plainly stated Mary had at least 6 more children. That's the bottom line.

 

[robycop3]

So Deuteronomy isn't about laws (nomoi). Got it!

Off-subject.

 

[robycop3]

When you include the Anglican Communion, the Lutherans, the Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrians, and other churches which do not define the issue one way or the other, the figures become overwhelming.

But that aside, even if we were to omit the Lutherans, who have an open canon, which I think would be misleading because the Deuterocanonicals are not uncanonical in Lutheranism (regardless of what Martin Luther thought about them; Lutheranism is much more than Martin Luther and historically, most European Lutheran churches aren’t even officially called Lutheran, but rather have names like The Church of Sweden, the Church of Denmark, the Evangelical Church in Germany, and so on), the statement by @robycop3 that Christians do not accept the deuterocanonical books as scripture is false and offensive.

No, it's not false. If it's offensive, I don't care; truth is TRUTH & I won't deny it to keep from offending someone.
I consider many of those so-called Christians as quasi-pseudo Christians. If that offends someone, again, I don't care.

 

[robycop3]

They are still officially a part of the KJV, and its not a bible exclusive to Anglicanism, although it was originally translated for use in the Church of England to replace the Bishop’s Bible and the Geneva Bible and other earlier translations.

I have several current KJV copies as well as a repro AV 1611, & the Apocrypha are found ONLY in the 1611.

 

[robycop3]

Hi there, I’m a Christian, and I accept the books you call Apocrypha. Specifically, I accept everything in the Narrow Canon of the Ethiopian Tewahedo Orthodox Church as inspired scripture.

I only accept the 66 books of the Protestant canon.

 

[robycop3]

There is no scriptural affirmation of that position. Joseph is the adoptive father of Jesus Christ, and so it is completely legitimate to believe, as did Luther, Calvin, Cranmer and Wesley, that His brothers were half-brothers by Joseph’s deceased prior wife, or cousins, and that Mary was, as John Wesley put it, “a pure and unspotted Virgin.”

She is also the Mother of God, because Jesus Christ is God incarnate.

There's absolutely NO EVIDENCE that Joe had a prior wife. And Scripture doesn't call them anything but Jesus' siblings. Not once is another mother even hinted at for them by the slightest implication, nor in any other known legitimate Jewish writings.

The doctrine "Mary was a perpetual virgin" is horse feathers.

 

[robycop3]

"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.

She knew she was talking to an angel, not a man. And, as virgins didn't become pregnant, it was quite-natural for her to have asked.

 

[Valletta]

There's absolutely NO EVIDENCE that Joe had a prior wife. And Scripture doesn't call them anything but Jesus' siblings. Not once is another mother even hinted at for them by the slightest implication, nor in any other known legitimate Jewish writings.

The doctrine "Mary was a perpetual virgin" is horse feathers.

There is nothing in Scripture to support your speculation--zero. Claiming that "brother" must indicate Mary had other children, despite so many Biblical uses of the word for cousins or for kin, is also pure speculation. It is your choice to believe or not believe writing from so long ago that Saint Joseph was a widower.

 

[robycop3]

If there were any LEGITIMATE jewish writings saying Joe was a widower, the RCC would've been hawking it for hundreds of years. The "mary was a perpetual virgin" doctrine is false, as is the doctrine she was "assumed" into heaven.

 

[Valletta]

I have several current KJV copies as well as a repro AV 1611, & the Apocrupha are found ONLY in the 1611.

After 1611 some printers did remove the books, but in the U.S. it was not until 1880 that the American Bible Society voted to remove the books. The Archbishop of Canterbury ordered those books removed in England in 1885.

 

[Valletta]

If there were any LEGITIMATE jewish writings saying Joe was a widower, the RCC would've been hawking it for hundreds of years. The "mary was a perpetual virgin" doctrine is false, as is the doctrine she was "assumed" into heaven.

It is not a secret--take the time to study for yourself text from the early centuries of Christianity.

 

[Albion]

Indeed so. Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, Assyrians, Old Catholics, Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, and the various Sui Juris Eastern Catholic Churches, represent a majority of Christendom. And these books are included in the KJV, because it was created for use by the Church of England; that most current editions of the KJV omit them started as a cost-savings exercise by printers in the 1800s.

Anglicans and Lutherans do not consider the Apocrypha to be Scripture (meaning inspired writings). That is the official position of those churches. Of course there's no telling what individual members believe about them, just as we could say about individual Catholics and Orthodox Christians, etc.

These churches do consider them to be worth reading but not as revelation or as a basis for any doctrine.

 

[robycop3]

It is not a secret--take the time to study for yourself text from the early centuries of Christianity.

I have, & all that pops up concerning the Mary=perpetual virgin theory is RC stuff.

 

[robycop3]

Anglicans and Lutherans do not consider the Apocrypha to be Scripture (meaning inspired writings). That is the official position of those churches. Of course there's no telling what individual members believe about them, just as we could say about individual Catholics and Orthodox Christians, etc.

These churches do consider them to be worth reading but not as revelation or as a basis for any doctrine.

They do have some historical value.
But they have goofs, such as the Book of Enoch referring to a 365 day year, when in Enoch's time it was only 360 days. Thus, that book was written after the 700s BC, the time cosmic catastrophe changed the year's length to its present value.

 

[Albion]

They do have some historical value.

Yes. They are basically morality tales and as the (Anglican) Articles of Religion put it, they are valuable to read for "example of life and instruction of manners" but not for establishing any doctrine.

 

[The Liturgist]

They do have some historical value.
But they have goofs, such as the Book of Enoch referring to a 365 day year, when in Enoch's time it was only 360 days. Thus, that book was written after the 700s BC, the time cosmic catastrophe changed the year's length to its present value.

LOL what? You do realize that for the year to change from 360 days to 365 days 5 hours 48 minutes and 45 seconds, there would have to be a massive acceleration, which would increase the distance of the Earth from the Sun, and this accelerational force would likely destroy everything on the planet, and there is no archaeological or scientific evidence to support this idea? And yet you accuse us of having doctrinal errors!

Not one of the early church fathers mentions such an event; they were under the belief, which was as accurate as one could get in the first century BC, when the Coptic Calendar and the derivative Julian calendar were adopted (which are still used by the persecuted Christians in Egpyt, Ethiopia, Israel and Palestine, and Jordan, as well as by the Russian, Georgian, Ukrainian and Serbian Orthodox Christians, who were so horrifically persecuted by the communists, and later in the case of the Serbian Orthodox Christians, in Kosovo by Albanian Muslims, a persecution which continues even at present, and also by the Greek Orthodox monasteries on Mount Athos).

 

[The Liturgist]

Anglicans and Lutherans do not consider the Apocrypha to be Scripture (meaning inspired writings). That is the official position of those churches. Of course there's no telling what individual members believe about them, just as we could say about individual Catholics and Orthodox Christians, etc.

These churches do consider them to be worth reading but not as revelation or as a basis for any doctrine.

In the case of Anglicanism, that seems to contradict Article VI of the 39 Articles, which establishes them as scripture, but furthermore, the 39 Articles are obsolete anyway in the Episcopal Church and most other Anglican churches, which is why they are included in the 1979 BCP as a historical reference, but these articles were effectively defanged by the venerable Edward Pusey anyway, and thus your misinterpretation of Article VI is a view limited to the small minority of low church Continuing Anglicans, and probably the Archdiocese of Sydney. It is roughly as credible as the idea that the 1662 BCP prohibits the wearing of chasubles (which of course, it does not, as the great Anglo-Catholic Rev. Percy Dearmer establishes clearly in his liturgical masterpiece The Parson’s Handbook).

At any rate, the Church of England, in Mattins and Evensong, reads, and via the BBC Radio 3, broadcasts, the Deuterocanonical Books on a regular basis, such that the main exposure most people in the UK have to these books is from the Church of England (and to a lesser extent, the Church of Wales, the Church of Ireland, and the Scottish Episcopal Church).

Regarding Lutheranism I suppose you are technically correct insofar as the Lutherans have an open canon, but it is also irrelevant insofar as the Deuterocanon is in their lectionary, and it is used. And of course, Luther, Wesley, Cranmer and Calvin believed in the perpetual virginity of the Theotokos, as my friend @MarkRohfrietsch can confirm.