Name a doctrine that you used to believe in but dont anymore.

[Metal Minister]

I would say that the issue is not whether there are additional doctrines in those books. After all, you will find things in the Psalms that are not in Deuteronomy, and things in Isaiah that are not in Ruth. And you will find some things in Wisdom of Solomon that are not in Daniel, for example. The reason that those books are there is not because we nees them in order to prove certain doctrines. Rather, we have them for the same reason we have the rest of the Old Testament: they are part of Israel's collection of sacred writings. Just as parts of the 39 were written when Israel was in exile and in a language that was not Hebrew, many of these books were written when much of Israel was in diaspora and in a language that was not Hebrew.

Except those books were largely rejected by the Jews.

 

[Knee V]

Except those books were largely rejected by the Jews.

After Christ, I agree. But since they rejected Christ, they have as much authority for us as people from any other non-Christian religion do, which is none.

But in the centuries leading up to Christ, what specific percentage of Jews rejected these books? And if they were largely rejected by the BC Jews, then why were the Jews using them during the time of Christ? Where would the early church get the idea that those books were Scripture?

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

I'd like to note I'm receiving an excellent education from both sides of the debate here. Thank you.

 

[Albion]

In our Tradition we are in complete agreement. That others have different traditions doesn't concern me.

It isn't a matter of whether you personally are concerned about the other traditions or not. The point is that they exist. Every Catholic-type church has its own, therefore, there is much more of a problem with interpretations there than there is with those churches that follow "Sola Scriptura" where at least there is a single, agreed-upon, authority: the Bible.

Now...since you mentioned it, I am not surprised that you wouldn't care that there is no unanimity among the Catholic churches, each having its own version of Tradition. That's because these churches take the view that they--each of them--is the "one true church."

They promote the POV that you expressed here, but that doesn't exonerate this group of churches from the diversity of opinions that comes from following custom and tradition instead of making the word of God in Scripture their common source of doctrinal guidance.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Well, I figured that must be why the additional books make a difference.

But if the worms should stay in the can, that's fine.

One speculates that a 65 book bible would still contain an adequate basis for the major doctrines of the faith. Remove the Gospel according to Luke and what major doctrine would disappear?

My reply in the earlier post is intended to provoke thought. Have you read the book called Wisdom? It starts thus:

Love uprightness you who are rulers on earth, be properly disposed towards the Lord and seek him in simplicity of heart; for he will be found by those who do not put him to the test, revealing himself to those who do not mistrust him. Perverse thoughts, however, separate people from God, and power, when put to the test, confounds the stupid. Wisdom will never enter the soul of a wrong-doer, nor dwell in a body enslaved to sin; for the holy spirit of instruction flees deceitfulness, recoils from unintelligent thoughts, is thwarted by the onset of vice. Wisdom is a spirit friendly to humanity, though she will not let a blasphemer's words go unpunished; since God observes the very soul and accurately surveys the heart, listening to every word. For the spirit of the Lord fills the world, and that which holds everything together knows every word said. No one who speaks what is wrong will go undetected, nor will avenging Justice pass by such a one. For the schemes of the godless will be examined, and a report of his words will reach the Lord to convict him of his crimes. There is a jealous ear that overhears everything, not even a murmur of complaint escapes it. So beware of uttering frivolous complaints, restrain your tongue from finding fault; even what is said in secret has repercussions, and a lying mouth deals death to the soul. Do not court death by the errors of your ways, nor invite destruction through the work of your hands. For God did not make Death, he takes no pleasure in destroying the living. To exist -- for this he created all things; the creatures of the world have health in them, in them is no fatal poison, and Hades has no power over the world: for uprightness is immortal. (Wisdom 1:1-15)​

 

[Metal Minister]

One speculates that a 65 book bible would still contain an adequate basis for the major doctrines of the faith. Remove the Gospel according to Luke and what major doctrine would disappear?

That's a bit of a logical fallacy I think. Luke doesn't contradict other parts of the bible as the apocrypha (dueterocannonical) books do. Also, Luke reinforces the other Gospels, and expands upon them. It is an essential part of the NT. If I were to say "We could do without Acts", but we'd have the problem of what the book contains, yet Luke wrote both Acts, and Luke. They compliment each other. You'd invalidate Luke by invalidating Acts, and I believe vice versa. (Aside from the whole Revelations 22:19 thing. )

 

[MoreCoffee]

... Luke doesn't contradict other parts of the bible as the apocrypha (dueterocannonical) books do. ...

It is easy to claim contradictions exist in the 73 books of the canonical scriptures but it is not so easy to demonstrate they do exist.

The claim made in the quote has a common theme with claims made by those Atheists who insist that contradictions exist in the 66 books of the KJV (or modern translations of the same 66 books), yet do Christians here in GT agree with the atheist examples one can find on the web? Does the author of the quote accept the Atheist lists? I mention this because it seems that when a contradiction is claimed it is necessary to tell us what it is and why it is a contradiction and then to defend the claim of contradiction when it is challenged. This is how many Christians meet the challenge of claimed contradictions in the lists I mentioned.

 

[Metal Minister]

It is easy to claim contradictions exist in the 73 books of the canonical scriptures but it is not so easy to demonstrate that do exist.

The claim made in the quote has a common theme with claims made by those Atheists who insist that contradictions exist in the 66 books of the KJV (or modern translations of the same 66 books), yet do Christians here in GT agree with the atheist examples one can find on the web? Does the author of the quote accept the Atheist lists? I mention this because it seems that when a contradiction is claimed it is necessary to tell us what it is and why it is a contradiction and then to defend the claim of contradiction when it is challenged. This is how many Christian meet the challenge of claimed contradictions in the lists I mentioned.

First, I have no idea about any "atheist lists", but it seems as though you're trying to stop the discussion by comparing my point with that of unbelievers. I hope I'm mistaken.

Let's look at a couple for starters.

1) Sirach 3:3, 30 contradicts Leviticus 17:11 by stating alms can be an atonement for sin, when Leviticus states atonement is by blood.

2) Tobit 12:9 states that alms deliver from death and purge sin, which is a contradiction to 1 John 1:7 which states that only Jesus blood can do that.

3) Wisdom 8:19,20 claims that one can be "undefiled" (sinless) yet Romans 3:10, and Romans 5:18, 19 say the exact opposite.

4) Sirach 12:4-7 says to not help the sinner, to "withhold bread" and such, yet that directly contradicts Luke 6:27,30, Romans 12:20, and Proverbs 25:21.

Add to that historical errors such as Tobit claiming to be around in 931 b.c., and 722 b.c., yet his lifespan was only 158 years. Or where king Nebuchadnezzar was mistakenly called king of the assyrians, when he was the king of Babylon, by Judith. My friend, there was a reason these were rejected until Trent.
1) None are in Hebrew
2) None claim to be inspired
3) They were not acknowledged by the Jewish church (not taught or read from at the synagogues.)

I'm sorry my friend, but where the 66 books of the bible have no contradictions or flaws, these books are riddled with them. I could not, in good conscious, accept them as biblical. I hope this doesn't come across too rough or against the grain, I'm not trying to be difficult, only expressing my POV. It isn't my intention to offend or cause strife.

 

[Metal Minister]

Actually, the more I look at things, the more I believe I'm causing strife and division among the body of Christ, so I will withdraw. God bless my friends, it was fun and edifying to have these discussions with you all!

 

[MoreCoffee]

First, I have no idea about any "atheist lists", but it seems as though you're trying to stop the discussion by comparing my point with that of unbelievers.

Just asking you to pony up with the 'proof'. If the discussion stopped because of it then that would be fine by me, it would show that you didn't have the 'proof'.

I hope I'm mistaken.

A good hope, and one that is well founded.

Let's look at a couple for starters.

1) Sirach 3:3, 30 contradicts Leviticus 17:11 by stating alms can be an atonement for sin, when Leviticus states atonement is by blood.

#1) I see, so accessing the means of atonement by an act of faith, repentance, and mercy is a bad thing? "For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it for you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement, by reason of the life". Think of it, if faith and repentance can access the sacrifice of Christ maybe alms as an act of mercy, repentance, and faith can too. Consider the story of the unforgiving steward.

2) Tobit 12:9 states that alms deliver from death and purge sin, which is a contradiction to 1 John 1:7 which states that only Jesus blood can do that.

#2) See reply #1 above and consider that accessing the sacrifice of Christ on the cross is the means by which sins are purged.

If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not live according to the truth; but if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. (1 John 1:6-7)​

An act of mercy in giving alms seems like it might be walking in the light,

He looked up and saw the rich putting their gifts into the treasury; and he saw a poor widow put in two copper coins. And he said, "Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all of them; for they all contributed out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty put in all the living that she had." (Luke 21:1-4)​

It isn't how much alms one gives but that one gives out of a good motive is what counts. As the scripture says,

Then the angel called the two of them privately and said to them: "Praise God and give thanks to him; exalt him and give thanks to him in the presence of all the living for what he has done for you. It is good to praise God and to exalt his name, worthily declaring the works of God. Do not be slow to give him thanks. It is good to guard the secret of a king, but gloriously to reveal the works of God. Do good, and evil will not overtake you. Prayer is good when accompanied by fasting, almsgiving, and righteousness. A little with righteousness is better than much with wrongdoing. It is better to give alms than to treasure up gold. For almsgiving delivers from death, and it will purge away every sin. Those who perform deeds of charity and of righteousness will have fullness of life; but those who commit sin are the enemies of their own lives. (Tobit 12:6-10)​

The motive in the story of Tobit is faith, mercy, and humble repentance.

3) Wisdom 8:19,20 claims that one can be "undefiled" (sinless) yet Romans 3:10, and Romans 5:18, 19 say the exact opposite.

#3) The passage in Wisdom, in the words of Solomon the King, says no more than that Solomon was born with generous gifts from God, a good disposition, a healthy and undefiled body, and intelligence. The passage does not claim sinlessness.

Having meditated on all this, and having come to the conclusion that immortality resides in kinship with Wisdom, noble contentment in her friendship, inexhaustible riches in her activities, understanding in cultivating her society, and renown in conversing with her, I went all ways, seeking how to get her. I was a boy of happy disposition, I had received a good soul as my lot, or rather, being good, I had entered an undefiled body; but, realising that I could never possess Wisdom unless God gave her to me, -a sign of intelligence in itself, to know in whose gift she lay -- I prayed to the Lord and entreated him, and with all my heart I said: <Then follows a long prayer asking for wisdom>(Wisdom 8:17-21)​

4) Sirach 12:4-7 says to not help the sinner, to "withhold bread" and such, yet that directly contradicts Luke 6:27,30, Romans 12:20, and Proverbs 25:21.

#4) Sirach 11:29-12:7 is a passage about choosing the right friends written by a father for his son. It says,

Sirach 11:29-12:7 Do not bring everyone home with you, for many are the traps of the crafty. (30) Like a captive partridge in a cage, so is the heart of the proud: like a spy he watches for your downfall, (31) ever on the look-out, turning good into bad and finding fault with what is praiseworthy. (32) A hearthful of glowing coals starts from a single spark, and the sinner lurks for the chance to spill blood. (33) Beware of a scoundrel and his evil contrivances, in case he puts a smear on you for ever. (34) Give a home to a stranger and he will start trouble and estrange you from your own family. (12:1) If you mean to do a kindness, choose the right person, then your good deeds will not be wasted. (2) Do good to someone devout, and you will be rewarded, if not by that person, then certainly by the Most High. (3) No good will come to one who persists in evil, or who refuses to give alms. (4) Give to the devout, do not go to the help of a sinner. (5) Do good to the humble, give nothing to the godless. Refuse him bread, do not give him any, it might make him stronger than you are; then you would be repaid evil twice over for all the good you had done him. (6) For the Most High himself detests sinners, and will repay the wicked with what they deserve. (7) Give to the good, and do not go to the help of a sinner.​

It is good advice. God himself says he will judge the wicked and condemn them. But if you are concerned that the passage speaks against showing mercy to repentant sinners or to those who are downtrodden then you are mistaken. I highlighted the words that speak to that issue in the passage and I underlined the words that capture the essence of the wicked in their determination to persist in evil.

 

[nephilimiyr]

I would say that the issue is not whether there are additional doctrines in those books. After all, you will find things in the Psalms that are not in Deuteronomy, and things in Isaiah that are not in Ruth. And you will find some things in Wisdom of Solomon that are not in Daniel, for example. The reason that those books are there is not because we nees them in order to prove certain doctrines. Rather, we have them for the same reason we have the rest of the Old Testament: they are part of Israel's collection of sacred writings. Just as parts of the 39 were written when Israel was in exile and in a language that was not Hebrew, many of these books were written when much of Israel was in diaspora and in a language that was not Hebrew.

This arguement doesn't seem to hold up well when you consider that there are many books that the Jews accepted as sacred writings but they're not in the Christian cannon. For instance, the Book of Enoch was held by a majority of the Jews as being holy Scripture. A verse from it is even quoted in the epistle of Jude, which strongly suggests that the author of Jude believed The Book of Enoch was holy scripture.
So, just because many Jews believed a book was holy scripture doesn't say much. In fact, it brings us back to the question, what doctrines are taught in these books that aren't taught in the 66 book cannon?

 

[Johnnz]

Biblical authors quoting other source must be treated cautiously. Paul quotes Greek poets and philosophies.

John
NZ

 

[nephilimiyr]

One speculates that a 65 book bible would still contain an adequate basis for the major doctrines of the faith. Remove the Gospel according to Luke and what major doctrine would disappear?

My reply in the earlier post is intended to provoke thought. Have you read the book called Wisdom? It starts thus:

Love uprightness you who are rulers on earth, be properly disposed towards the Lord and seek him in simplicity of heart; for he will be found by those who do not put him to the test, revealing himself to those who do not mistrust him.
​

Does this mean he doesn't reveal himself to those who do mistrust him? That's what this statement strongly suggests, and I couldn't disagree more strongly.

Perverse thoughts, however, separate people from God,

Oh it does? In what way? I believe God is always with us, He lives in us, no matter what we think. In fact it's the power of the Holy Spirit who always lives in us that will change us from thinking perverse thoughts to pure.

and power, when put to the test, confounds the stupid. Wisdom will never enter the soul of a wrong-doer,

Don't we all do wrong, whether we're christian or not? Some of us went over this here a few days ago.

nor dwell in a body enslaved to sin;

Not true, it's his indwelling Spirit that breaks the bonds, but this doesn't always happen over night. It may take many nights, but His Spirit still lives inside the person.

Is this passage teaching that we must first purify ourselves and make ourselves holy and sin free, before his Holy Spirit comes in and makes a home inside us? That sounds like straight up bad religion.

for the holy spirit of instruction flees deceitfulness, recoils from unintelligent thoughts, is thwarted by the onset of vice.

This passage makes the Holy Spirit sound like the whimpest kid on the block. "recoils from unintelligent thoughts"? I guess non-intelligent people have no hope. How about the mentally handicaped?

I don't have enough time to get through all of these opening passages.

Wisdom is a spirit friendly to humanity, though she will not let a blasphemer's words go unpunished; since God observes the very soul and accurately surveys the heart, listening to every word. For the spirit of the Lord fills the world, and that which holds everything together knows every word said. No one who speaks what is wrong will go undetected, nor will avenging Justice pass by such a one. For the schemes of the godless will be examined, and a report of his words will reach the Lord to convict him of his crimes. There is a jealous ear that overhears everything, not even a murmur of complaint escapes it. So beware of uttering frivolous complaints, restrain your tongue from finding fault; even what is said in secret has repercussions, and a lying mouth deals death to the soul. Do not court death by the errors of your ways, nor invite destruction through the work of your hands. For God did not make Death, he takes no pleasure in destroying the living. To exist -- for this he created all things; the creatures of the world have health in them, in them is no fatal poison, and Hades has no power over the world: for uprightness is immortal. (Wisdom 1:1-15)

Dispite the questions and disagreements I wrote here, it does look like a very good written book by a Jew, under law, and with no savior or understanding that the Holy Spirit is to come and indwell us. If anything it's a valuable book to read to perhaps get into the minds of the Jewsish people at that time to understand better how they thought.

​

 

[nephilimiyr]

Biblical authors quoting other source must be treated cautiously. Paul quotes Greek poets and philosophies.

John
NZ

But the quote is from a book that most Jews at the time considered to be a sacred writting.

 

[Knee V]

This arguement doesn't seem to hold up well when you consider that there are many books that the Jews accepted as sacred writings but they're not in the Christian cannon. For instance, the Book of Enoch was held by a majority of the Jews as being holy Scripture. A verse from it is even quoted in the epistle of Jude, which strongly suggests that the author of Jude believed The Book of Enoch was holy scripture.
So, just because many Jews believed a book was holy scripture doesn't say much. In fact, it brings us back to the question, what doctrines are taught in these books that aren't taught in the 66 book cannon?

I'm not necessarily trying to maintain that all books recognized by any pre-Christ group of Jews ought to be considered Scripture. I am simply disageeing that certain books were rejected by those Jews.

 

[nephilimiyr]

I'm not necessarily trying to maintain that all books recognized by any pre-Christ group of Jews ought to be considered Scripture. I am simply disageeing that certain books were rejected by those Jews.

Ah, ok, good.

Now here's the problem I have right now. Metal Minister basically says that these other books in the 72 book cannon were rejected by the Jews and he/she lists 3 reasons why. He/she says:
1) None of the books were written in Hebrew
2) None of the books claimed to be inspired
3) They were not acknowledged by the Jewish church (not taught or read from in the synagogues)

Now if Metal Minister is right, then I don't feel any discomfort in them not being in the OT now.

 

[Albion]

I'm not necessarily trying to maintain that all books recognized by any pre-Christ group of Jews ought to be considered Scripture. I am simply disageeing that certain books were rejected by those Jews.

Well, they were, knee-v. But not by all the Jews, which is the main part of the problem for Christians in deciding which way to go with those books.

 

[Knee V]

Ah, ok, good.

Now here's the problem I have right now. Metal Minister basically says that these other books in the 72 book cannon were rejected by the Jews and he/she lists 3 reasons why. He/she says:
1) None of the books were written in Hebrew
2) None of the books claimed to be inspired
3) They were not acknowledged by the Jewish church (not taught or read from in the synagogues)

Now if Metal Minister is right, then I don't feel any discomfort in them not being in the OT now.

1) There are parts of the "Hebrew Bible" that were not written Hebrew, yet people don't challenge those portions.

2) I don't know of any book that "claims to be inspired". Some books say "Thus sayeth the LORD", but few of them do.

3) Do we know that none of those books were read in rhe synagogues? Perhaps they weren't read in the Judean synagogues (but do we know that?), but a huge number of Jews were of the Diaspora and spoke Greek and used the Greek Scriptures, and weren't always under the direct influence of the Judean leaders.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Does this mean he doesn't reveal himself to those who do mistrust him? That's what this statement strongly suggests, and I couldn't disagree more strongly.


Oh it does? In what way? I believe God is always with us, He lives in us, no matter what we think. In fact it's the power of the Holy Spirit who always lives in us that will change us from thinking perverse thoughts to pure.


Don't we all do wrong, whether we're christian or not? Some of us went over this here a few days ago.


Not true, it's his indwelling Spirit that breaks the bonds, but this doesn't always happen over night. It may take many nights, but His Spirit still lives inside the person.

Is this passage teaching that we must first purify ourselves and make ourselves holy and sin free, before his Holy Spirit comes in and makes a home inside us? That sounds like straight up bad religion.


This passage makes the Holy Spirit sound like the whimpest kid on the block. "recoils from unintelligent thoughts"? I guess non-intelligent people have no hope. How about the mentally handicaped?

I don't have enough time to get through all of these opening passages.



Dispite the questions and disagreements I wrote here, it does look like a very good written book by a Jew, under law, and with no savior or understanding that the Holy Spirit is to come and indwell us. If anything it's a valuable book to read to perhaps get into the minds of the Jewsish people at that time to understand better how they thought.
​

One can offer similar critiques of passages in any of the protocanonical books. I wonder how much of the bible would be received by one who offered such criticisms of all of its books. One cannot help but remember the many passages that speak of atrocious actions of slaughter, expressed desires for vengeance, unqualified expressions of pleasure at the destruction of the wicked, and inscrutable apocalyptic visions capable of misuse to justify almost any cause or revolution against the powerful and the wealthy.

I cannot join you, my brother, in such a critique without challenging the inspiration of sacred scripture in all of the books of the bible with almost no exceptions.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

MoreCoffee, we may have our disagreements, but I love your username, and you can probably guess why.