• 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.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Kenpo

Active Member
Mar 1, 2007
249
12
In my home
✟15,439.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I am sorry perhaps I could have been more clear. I realized that you are pointing out that many protestant churches do not accept the Apocrypha. That was not my point. That is not what I was referring to.

What I was trying to ask is where do you draw the line as to what is authoritative or not? What you quoted is not accepted as Scripture even by your Church. Why is it any different that anything else that may have been written at the time? You said yourself that you are free to "consider" it. But when a doctrine is built on something does that not give that writing the same authority as Scripture? If it does then why was this particular writing not also Scripture?
 
Upvote 0

OrthodoxyUSA

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jul 6, 2004
25,292
2,868
61
Tupelo, MS
Visit site
✟187,274.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican

Are you offended again? You seem to be tortured by just being here.

I just wanted you to know that written words are not proof of anything. You have faith, that's good enough.

Why do you kick against the pricks?

*OrthodoxyUSA offers prayers for HisBelovedMelody's peace of mind.*

Forgive me...
 
Upvote 0

HisBelovedMelody

Well-Known Member
Jan 3, 2006
9,102
327
✟10,896.00
Faith
Nazarene
Marital Status
Married
My peace of mind is fine..and thank you for the prayers..your sarcasm is duly noted...and yes, you are forgiven....
 
Upvote 0

Benedicta00

Well-Known Member
Jun 25, 2003
28,512
838
Visit site
✟55,563.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private

I see no contradictions between this and Matthew's very short version of the nativity. In fact it says the same thing, it just goes on and picks up where that left off.

But what I don't think is being understood here is that Mary was never to be Joesph wife conjugally. She was a consecrated virgin that he was to look after.
 
Upvote 0

Benedicta00

Well-Known Member
Jun 25, 2003
28,512
838
Visit site
✟55,563.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
OH please...ENLIGHTEN me...let me guess..you are going to quote some tradition??
can you loose the attitude please? I understand you are passionate in your skepticism but please calm down.

Timothy does not say that scripture is enough, if it does, then show us.
 
Upvote 0

OrthodoxyUSA

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jul 6, 2004
25,292
2,868
61
Tupelo, MS
Visit site
✟187,274.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican

It is not Holy Scripture... but it is authorative.

We know that St. James wrote it.

You need to ask... What was the purpose of gathering these books and making them canon? What did that mean to the men who were gathering them? Why did they want such a list? Was this "ALL" that they accepted as being true? To the exclusion of all the other document that were submitted?

In truth the books that were set aside as canon were done so, because they desired all "Liturgical Services" within the Chruches to be the same throughout the calendar year. From one church to the next scriptures would be read every week in the same exact order with the same exact explainations to go along with them.

Many books were rejected for being false. But please leave that up to the same authority that said which ones were and which were not. How is it that we, standing here 2000 years later have the audacity to suppose that we know better than The Churches (plural) that incorperated these books into canon in the first place.

As an example... "The protoevangelical of James" was always said to be true, meanwhile "The gnostic gospel of Barnabas" was always held to be false. There are other examples... such as The Didache, said to be true, and by the hands of the Apostles themselves... but they were not used in the Liturgical services of Church through the calendar year. Therefore they did not need to be included as canon.

The canon was not created for people to read... people couldn't read. The canon was created as a set of books to be used in common among all the Churches for Liturgical Services... thats all.

We tend to think that being part of the canon meant that these were the books that were true and anything outside this scope of books was false information. Not so.

Forgive me...
 
Upvote 0

HisBelovedMelody

Well-Known Member
Jan 3, 2006
9,102
327
✟10,896.00
Faith
Nazarene
Marital Status
Married
can you loose the attitude please? I understand you are passionate in your skepticism but please calm down.

Timothy does not say that scripture is enough, if it does, then show us.
and your quote above was from what??? NOT the Bible.

Yes, I am passionate about Truth. MY attitude?? Hmm...yeah. ANYWAY...

15and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
 
Upvote 0

Benedicta00

Well-Known Member
Jun 25, 2003
28,512
838
Visit site
✟55,563.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
No the "catholic denomination" didn't canonized the NT but the Catholic Church did.

This is a matter of public historical record, those people you claim who did, where Catholic bishops.
 
Upvote 0

OrthodoxyUSA

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jul 6, 2004
25,292
2,868
61
Tupelo, MS
Visit site
✟187,274.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
My peace of mind is fine..and thank you for the prayers..your sarcasm is duly noted...and yes, you are forgiven....

Sorry, but I was not being sarcastic. I believe you are suffering as Saul was suffering in ACTS 9, hence the reference to kicking against the pricks.

Peace and Love to you.

Forgive me...
 
Upvote 0

Benedicta00

Well-Known Member
Jun 25, 2003
28,512
838
Visit site
✟55,563.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
I don't see where it says "scripture is enough."
 
Upvote 0

a_ntv

Ens Liturgicum
Apr 21, 2006
6,329
259
✟56,513.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Celibate
From the Ascension of Isaiah chapter 11:

3. And he came into his lot. And when she was espoused, she was found with child, and Joseph the carpenter was desirous to put her away.
4. But the angel of the Spirit appeared in this world, and after that Joseph did not put her away, but kept Mary and did not reveal this matter to any one.
5. And he did not approach May, but kept her as a holy virgin, though with child.
6. And he did not live with her for two months.
7. And after two months of days while Joseph was in his house, and Mary his wife, but both alone.
8. It came to pass that when they were alone that Mary straight-way looked with her eyes and saw a small babe, and she was astonished.
9. And after she had been astonished, her womb was found as formerly before she had conceived.
10. And when her husband Joseph said unto her: "What has astonished thee?" his eyes were opened and he saw the infant and praised God, because into his portion God had come.
11. And a voice came to them: "Tell this vision to no one."
12. And the story regarding the infant was noised broad in Bethlehem.
13. Some said: "The Virgin Mary hath borne a child, before she was married two months."
14. And many said: "She has not borne a child, nor has a midwife gone up (to her), nor have we heard the cries of (labour) pains." And they were all blinded respecting Him and they all knew regarding Him, though they knew not whence He was. (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/ascension.html)

This apochriphal text is probably the only source about the birth of Jesus that is indipendent from the Gospels - very older than the ProtoGospel of James.
The chapters 6-11 date on about the 70ad for some scolars, according others (more probable) they date about the 120ad, surely before the 135ad.
 
Upvote 0

OrthodoxyUSA

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jul 6, 2004
25,292
2,868
61
Tupelo, MS
Visit site
✟187,274.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican

Jhn 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

Forgive me...
 
Upvote 0

Benedicta00

Well-Known Member
Jun 25, 2003
28,512
838
Visit site
✟55,563.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
I wonder why some ppl here reject this book out of hand just because the Church did not included it in the canon?

The Church that didn't include it is the same Church who says it is for our consideration?

So I'm confused... on what are we basing this rejection on?

The Church didn't verify the inspiration of this book but that does not mean that it is a book that is to be condemned. It is there for our consideration.

The Church never condemned it as she did the Gnostic books. And we agree with the Church's rule on those, but not this book? That it is for our consideration?

Again, I'm confused?
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.