- Jul 5, 2005
- 46,669
- 19,838
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
It's interesting that extrabiblical books largely mean the same things to everyone. Roman Catholics will point out spurious documents and heresy; so will Protestants.
I have no problem with the deuterocanon. It appears to be quoted multiple times in the New Testament, and that's sufficient reason for me to believe it has merit.
Jude contains extensive (uncredited) quotations from the pseudepigraphic Ethiopic Apocalypse of Enoch, but contextually, it appears the author does not approve its contents; quotations from the deuterocanon contain no such caveats.
Good thing the Church in Rome doesn't need to depend on the internet or modern books for its centuries-old documentation.
Tell me-- from 1200 to the Reformation, were there any Christians at all? Also, the Roman Church was around much earlier than the 1200s. Think of the Battle of Hastings. It is, in fact, the oldest denomination.
Then again, I'm neither Protestant nor Evangelical; I'm not even one of those confounded Roman Catholics.[/QUOTE
Rome depends upon itself and self contradicting itself throughout its history. Do some real study on its history and what they teach now. They have way off view of a saving gospel and have added dogmas over the centuries that they just made up. Read their catechism, just for starters they believe if your not baptized or take part of their mass and are not part of the catholic church you are anathema. They added the dogma that Mary was sinless and assumed into heaven and all her heretical views just in the 1950's which Rome will force you to believe in order to enter heaven. So start with their actual documents because I don't feel like taking the time to do it for you.
I see you haven't even begun to study the history of the church. As I stated before the Roman system wasn't in place until around the 1200's and the reformation didn't start with the reformers, they put a name to it. If I had time you could see the "reformed view from the apostles on. Augustine for one and he came a bit later. I could go on and on about the heretical roman system it just takes to long. I've studied plenty of Romes history, church history and if what they taught wasn't so sad it would be funny. So read the Roman catholic catechism and see for yourself if your not aligned with what rome says your anathema.
Even our own protestant cannon isn't entirely free from controversy.
sometimes I post verses from the Duterocononical books in the "post a bible verse" thread
shhhhhhhhhhh!
it's a secret!
I've honestly never really understood why some evangelicals dislikes Catholicism so much.
I guess the simple answer is...it's not in my bible. I've wanted to read the book of Enoch, but mostly for pleasure. If it was an inspired word, there would be no confusion over it.
lol HOW DID I MISS THIS THREAD!!!!!!!!!
just as a side note, some interesting facts about the Deuterocannon
Actually some (Tobit, Sirach and Barut) were found to have been originally written in Hebrew...it is believed that all of these books that are only in the Septuagint (the Deuterocanon) were first written in Greek by Jews living in different parts of the Ancient World
Actually the strictest hermeneutics concludes that neither Jesus nor the apostles quoted from the Deuterocanonical writings.remember, that the New Testament was written in Greek, so every time Jesus quotes from the Old Testament, it is from this Septuagint collection of Scriptures that would have contained the Deuterocanon
Their exclusion was not based on them being originally Greek as some were actually originally in Hebrew, it was more because ofafter the Christian religion started to spread he Pharisees blamed the popularity of Christianity on mixing of Greek philosophy in with Judaism, so the Jews got rid of the Septuagint and the books in it that were first written in Greek
Actually the strictest hermeneutics concludes that neither Jesus nor the apostles quoted from the Deuterocanonical writings.
Yes, but saying that only might seem to support the Deuterocanon in a way that is diminished when it is also mentioned that despite those writings being in there Jesus and the disciples did not quote from them at all. The point I'm making being that it's not as simple as saying it was part of Septuagint. It's a statement which can be twisted to support either side. Anyhow the quotation argument is rarely used because Jesus and the apostles never quoted from Esther either.I did not say that Jesus quoted from the Deuterocanon
there are many books in the OT that are never directly quoted in the NT
I said that the Translation of the OT that is quoted by Jesus and the Apostles is the Septuagint, the same Greek language collection that has the Deuterocanon