The Apocrypha

[Jig]

The Canon was established at the Council of Hippo in 393 A.D. This Canon was confirmed in 397 A.D. at the Council of Carthage. This was more than 1100 years before Luther.

Martin Luther, in accord with his posture of supreme self-importance as restorer of Christianity, even presumed, inconsistently, to judge various books of the Bible, God's holy Word. Luther feels himself entirely able and duty-bound -- as a lone individual -- to judge the canonicity and even overall value of Old Testament and New Testament books which had been securely in the canon for over 1100 years.

Are you saying Martin Luther was a tool used by Satan and that God was not behind the Reformation?

 

[jckstraw72]

Are you saying Martin Luther was a tool used by Satan and that God was not behind the Reformation?

Im going to have to say God was def not behind the Reformation. Perhaps He inspired Luther to speak about corruption in the RCC, but not to invent new doctrines, a new canon, new churches, and a new mindset that has lead to discord in Christendom.

 

[BBAS 64]

Hi Sanctifym3. I have to disagree with you on that basis that your information is incorrect.

Actually The Canon used by the Catholic Church was established at the Council of Hippo in 393 A.D. This Canon was confirmed in 397 A.D. at another Church, the Council of Carthage. This was more than 1100 years before Luther.

Martin Luther, in accord with his posture of supreme self-importance as restorer of Christianity, even presumed, inconsistently, to judge various books of the Bible, God's holy Word. Luther feels himself entirely able and duty-bound -- as a lone individual -- to judge the canonicity and even overall value of Old Testament and New Testament books which had been securely in the canon for over 1100 years.

Your brother in Christ.

Good day, Ignatius

I must say I do love the way you discribe Lurther, he would be proud with your use of such launge to make a point.

Martin Luther represents the view of the church with in the time that he lived. He in his german translation included all inspired and non inspired books, see his German translation. Others that opposed Luther viewed the Apocrypha just like Luther, Cajetan was not Luther's best buddy.

Cajetan wrote a commentary on all the canonical books of the Old Testament which he dedicated to the pope. He stated that the books of the Apocrypha were not canonical in the strict sense, explaining that there were two concepts of the term 'canonical' as it applied to the Old Testament. He gave the following counsel on how to properly interpret the decrees of the Councils of Hippo and Carthage under Augustine:

Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome.

As to the assertion the Canon was known for 100 years, that is problematic in that there dobut and uncertainties, up untill Trent where the issue was resoled for those who hold to the Catholic type of "Faith"

Based on a time-honoured tradition, the Councils of Florence in 1442 and Trent in 1564 resolved for Catholics any doubts and uncertainties. Their list comprises 73 books, which were accepted as sacred and canonical because they were inspired by the Holy Spirit, 46 for the Old Testament, 27 for the New.36 In this way the Catholic Church received its definitive canon. To determine this canon, it based itself on the Church's constant usage. In adopting this canon, which is larger than the Hebrew, it has preserved an authentic memory of Christian origins, since, as we have seen, the more restricted Hebrew canon is later than the formation of the New Testament.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20020212_popolo-ebraico_en.html#1.%20In%20Judaism

Notice they do not point to Hippo, or Carthage as they were regional councils only.

For a RC to assert that there was a absolute knowledge with in the RCC Faith of what the Canon was before Trent is plain silly.

There is little doubt that Cajetan was an RC, and viewed the issue along the same line as Luther as did many others "historicly" with in the RC denomation.


Peace to u,

Bill

​

 

[PaladinValer]

They are entitled to their opinions on translational differences.

They are fully Scriptural.

What can I say they were wrong.

So the Apostles are wrong...

Alot of early Christians were confused. They continued to mix their old faiths with true Christianity. This is why Paul wrote so many letters. It is very possible that some of oral tradition and some early un-inspired writings contain errors. This is why I double check ALL taching with true inspired scripture.

I highly suggest you learn the history of Christian theology. What you say here is simply wrong.

8For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;

9not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Works in what sense?

2 Tim 1:9

9who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity,

Works in what sense?

Answer: Works of the Law.

Are you saying one of the most trusted Catholic english translations gives a bad translation here? (NAB) Go figure...

The NAB isn't a formal equivalence but a dynamic one.

And I'm not a Vatican Catholic.

This doesn't sound very Christ like....God loves even the worst sinner. Didn't Jesus say LOVE EVERYONE? Not just Christians.

You can despise a person while being compassionate at the same time.

I knew it. You have no proof. I can say there was a global flood. The evidence goes both ways. I tend to believe the Bible.

Sorry, but you are wrong geologically. And no, the evidence doesn't go both way; that's psuedoscience. I do not accept psuedoscience; I accept truth.

What about the other historcal error I pointed out...couldn't find a good explaination for that one?

Not the point now.

**takes all the Bibles in the world and shreds them**

According to Apostolic Christianity, the faith can continue. This is why I am Apostolic.

 

[IgnatiusOfAntioch]

Are you saying Martin Luther was a tool used by Satan and that God was not behind the Reformation?

Are you Trolling? That's against the rules.

Here is what I said (you can easily verify these facts if you care about the truth):

The Canon was established at the Council of Hippo in 393 A.D. This Canon was confirmed in 397 A.D. at the Council of Carthage. This was more than 1100 years before Luther.

Martin Luther, in accord with his posture of supreme self-importance as restorer of Christianity, even presumed, inconsistently, to judge various books of the Bible, God's holy Word. Luther feels himself entirely able and duty-bound -- as a lone individual -- to judge the canonicity and even overall value of Old Testament and New Testament books which had been securely in the canon for over 1100 years.


May the peace of Christ be with you.

 

[IgnatiusOfAntioch]

=Notice they do not point to Hippo, or Carthage as they were regional councils only.

None the less this is the Canon Confirmed by the Church and used unaltered for 1100 years prior to the point when Luther started fiddling with the Canon of Holy Scripture. As you undoubtedly know Trent only reaffirmed what had been in place for over a millenium.

Grace to you and the Peace of Our Lord Jesus Christ.


Yours in Christ.
​

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Who here has read the Apocrypha? Should it be included in scripture?

It is scripture.... who decided it wasn't?

 

[repentant]

FAITH FAITH FAITH FAITH FAITH!!!!

Nothing you can do will ever get you into Heaven. Saying that works plays a role is saying the what Jesus did on the cross is not enough.

Where is Paul not clear here? It is a gift!!!
Eph 2:8 For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God,
Eph 2:9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.

Paul and James do not disagree. James is simply arguing against the belief that a person cannot have faith without producing any good works. This is not to say you have to do xyz to go to Heaven. Just that if you are truly saved by faith in Christ then you WILL have good works in life. That your faith will produce good works not that your works will get you anything. Your works are a PRODUCT of your faith. To spin it to mean anything else is ridiculous.

I really think you should learn the history of the different Churches Paul wrote to, and why he said what he does to each one. Why do you think he said, "lest anyone should boast."?

I also don't believe you understand what it means everytime it is mentioned that we are not saved by OUR works. What is being stated is that nothing good we do comes from us but from God. It is prideful to assume that WE do the works. All good works come from God. That is what is meant by we are not saved by OUR works, because it is not OURS.

Let me ask you, how would Jesus look at this..let's say a homeless person comes up to you and asks you to buy him some food. Now you believe in Jesus and claim you are Christian, but you tell the man to get out of your face. How will Jesus look at that?

 

[Jig]

They are fully Scriptural.

Scriptural in the fact they used the Bible to 'prove' their point. I do the same. My answer's are none the less more or less scriptural then thiers. It becomes a translational discrepancy.

So the Apostles are wrong...

This is not even close to what I said. I said some of the early Christians and claimed church fathers could have errors in their written work. To say they learned from the apostles may be true, but to claim they themselves understood correctly would be an assumption. Many people Jesus taught still didn't get it. Alot people were taught by the apostles, not ALL understood. This, like I said earlier, is apparent with Pauls writtings. God knows people are fallacious by their own nature and tells us to cross examine teaching with scripture.

I highly suggest you learn the history of Christian theology. What you say here is simply wrong.

Works in what sense?



Works in what sense?

Answer: Works of the Law.

I think 1 Cor. 3:12-15 clears this issue up.

12Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw,
13each man's work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man's work.
14If any man's work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward.
15If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

Even with bad works one is saved. This is because it is not through works we find salvation. And this passage is clearly not talking about works of the Law.

You can despise a person while being compassionate at the same time.

Exactly, to deny a sinner is going against Jesus wishes. We may not like what they do, but we must love them all the same.

Sorry, but you are wrong geologically. And no, the evidence doesn't go both way; that's psuedoscience. I do not accept psuedoscience; I accept truth.

Thats a huge assumption. If your 'evidence' was so obviously clear, then why is there alot of highly educated biologists, biochemists, astronomers, meteorologists, geologists, chemists, and countless other scientists of many different fields that claim that your wrong? Are they stupid? The evidence obviously goes both ways.

www.anwsersingenesis.org is just one of many websites that holds my position.

Not the point now.

But when it was, you still ignored it.

 

[Jig]

Are you Trolling? That's against the rules.

Here is what I said (you can easily verify these facts if you care about the truth):

The Canon was established at the Council of Hippo in 393 A.D. This Canon was confirmed in 397 A.D. at the Council of Carthage. This was more than 1100 years before Luther.

Martin Luther, in accord with his posture of supreme self-importance as restorer of Christianity, even presumed, inconsistently, to judge various books of the Bible, God's holy Word. Luther feels himself entirely able and duty-bound -- as a lone individual -- to judge the canonicity and even overall value of Old Testament and New Testament books which had been securely in the canon for over 1100 years.


May the peace of Christ be with you.

I'm aware that it is against the rules to state that Satan is behind the Reformation, but if it wasn't it would be a safe guess you'd say he was.

I only asked that question because that is what your trying to say, just without saying it.

I believe I'm saved. I have faith in Jesus. I repent of my sins. Just because I'm not part of your supposed apostolic church doesn't mean nothing to God. Alot of people are saved today, because of what some of the reformers did back then, to say God had nothing to do with that is outlandish.

 

[mark53]

What?!?

Besides, the Bible does not contradict itself.
:
QUOTE]

Really?? What about who killed Goliath? It was Elhanan read 2 Sam 21:19.
The O T was made from a number of traditions which over time were added. This caused some problems when different traditions have different 'facts'. Like above!

 

[jckstraw72]

I believe I'm saved. I have faith in Jesus. I repent of my sins. Just because I'm not part of your supposed apostolic church doesn't mean nothing to God. Alot of people are saved today, because of what some of the reformers did back then, to say God had nothing to do with that is outlandish.

God is not the author of confusion, but of peace. Sola Scriptura is the author of confusion.

 

[jad123]

I really think you should learn the history of the different Churches Paul wrote to, and why he said what he does to each one. Why do you think he said, "lest anyone should boast."?

I also don't believe you understand what it means everytime it is mentioned that we are not saved by OUR works. What is being stated is that nothing good we do comes from us but from God. It is prideful to assume that WE do the works. All good works come from God. That is what is meant by we are not saved by OUR works, because it is not OURS.

Let me ask you, how would Jesus look at this..let's say a homeless person comes up to you and asks you to buy him some food. Now you believe in Jesus and claim you are Christian, but you tell the man to get out of your face. How will Jesus look at that?

That would be a sin my friend. But I sin everyday of my life as do you I am sure. That would not keep me out of heaven. Let me ask you this. What is a good work? Is helping an old lady across the street a good work? I spent 4 years as a volunteer paramedic, is that a good work. We seem to be saying almost the same thing. Without faith there are no good works. Good works come because of faith. BUT - even with my faith I sin, I slip up, I make mistakes, does this mean the Lord does not accept me? God allows us in His Kingdom because of Jesus and all we are asked to do is have faith and believe with all of our hearts. So many people today will tell you they are going to Heaven because they have lived a "good" life and try to do the right thing. I will say I am not one who believes that saying the so called sinners prayer gets you into Heaven and just becasue you say you accept Christ gets you into Heaven. You must fully accept Him and He knows if you have.
Your works come from your faith in Him but do not earn you a seat.

 

[ScottBot]

Who here has read the Apocrypha? Should it be included in scripture?

You mean books like:

The First Book of Adam and Eve
The Book of the Secrets of Enoch
The Testament of Reuben
The Gospel of Thomas
The Gospel of Mary

These books were never considered part of the canon of Scripture, even by the Jews. They may make for interesting reading, but have little to do with the inspired message of God.

However, if you are referring to:

The Book of Tobit
The Book of Judith
The Book of Baruch
The Book of Wisdom
The Wisdom of Sirach
The First Book of Maccabees
The Second Book of Maccabees

These books have always been considered inspired and part of the canon, and were included in the list of books at the councils of Hippo and Carthage, which determined the canon of scripture.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

You mean books like:

The First Book of Adam and Eve
The Book of the Secrets of Enoch
The Testament of Reuben
The Gospel of Thomas
The Gospel of Mary

These books were never considered part of the canon of Scripture, even by the Jews. They may make for interesting reading, but have little to do with the inspired message of God.

However, if you are referring to:

The Book of Tobit
The Book of Judith
The Book of Baruch
The Book of Wisdom
The Wisdom of Sirach
The First Book of Maccabees
The Second Book of Maccabees

These books have always been considered inspired and part of the canon, and were included in the list of books at the councils of Hippo and Carthage, which determined the canon of scripture.

1000 points to Scott!

 

[Jig]

God is not the author of confusion, but of peace. Sola Scriptura is the author of confusion.

There is little confusion when it comes to understanding why Jesus came. You also make it seem as if your apostolic church has no discrepancy amoung it's followers.

 

[Jig]

What?!?

Besides, the Bible does not contradict itself.
:
QUOTE]

Really?? What about who killed Goliath? It was Elhanan read 2 Sam 21:19.
The O T was made from a number of traditions which over time were added. This caused some problems when different traditions have different 'facts'. Like above!

It's a shame we no longer have the 'original' manuscripts that the apostles wrote themselves. All we have now is copies of copies of copies. God has allowed this process of duplication to be pretty darn precise. Though, I can't talk for God on why some translations vary slightly.

To believe the scriptures actually contradict is, of course, ridiculous. If you somehow find a contradiction, it would only be natural to think it was human error and not divine.

As to 2 Sam. 21:19...it appears the Bible is contradictive. It's sister verse in 1 Chronicles tells the same story with the true understanding. (1 Chron. 20:5) It was actually Goliath's brother.

Here is a decent explaination on how this could have happened: http://www.carm.org/diff/1Sam17_50.htm

 

[BBAS 64]

God is not the author of confusion, but of peace. Sola Scriptura is the author of confusion.

Good Day, Jckstraw72

Just goes to show how little you know about Sola Scriptura..

Here it is in a nut shell...

"For among the things that are plainly laid down in Scripture are to be found all matters that concern faith and the manner of life,to wit, hope and love, of which I have spoken in the previous book. After this, when we have made ourselves to a certain extent familiar with the language of Scripture, we may proceed to open up and investigate the obscure passages, and in doing so draw examples from the plainer expressions to throw light upon the more obscure, and use the evidence of passages about which there is no doubt to remove all hesitation in regard to the doubtful passages." - Augustine (On Christian Doctrine, 2:9)

All matters of 'Faith" are plainly laid out in Scripture, among other things.

Really simple

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[jckstraw72]

All matters of 'Faith" are plainly laid out in Scripture, among other things.

and yet theres so much disagreement.

 

[repentant]

That would be a sin my friend. But I sin everyday of my life as do you I am sure. That would not keep me out of heaven. Let me ask you this. What is a good work? Is helping an old lady across the street a good work? I spent 4 years as a volunteer paramedic, is that a good work. We seem to be saying almost the same thing. Without faith there are no good works. Good works come because of faith. BUT - even with my faith I sin, I slip up, I make mistakes, does this mean the Lord does not accept me? God allows us in His Kingdom because of Jesus and all we are asked to do is have faith and believe with all of our hearts. So many people today will tell you they are going to Heaven because they have lived a "good" life and try to do the right thing. I will say I am not one who believes that saying the so called sinners prayer gets you into Heaven and just becasue you say you accept Christ gets you into Heaven. You must fully accept Him and He knows if you have.
Your works come from your faith in Him but do not earn you a seat.

I may have kind of missunderstood what you are saying. I was thinking that you may have the views of most Protestants, but maybe not. This question should clear it up.

Can you be a true Christian, and yet not do any works? In other words, denying homeless people help or something like that. Let's say you just claim you believe in Jesus, yet nothing in your life shows it. I am not saying you neccasarily live an immoral life, but are a very cold person. Do you believe you will still be saved?

1 Timothy 2:9,10
"In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But with good works."