Aelred of Rievaulx
Well-Known Member
Yes but most biblical scholars, probably even Orthodox ones, would see the two as different figures.
Upvote
0
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.
Yes but most biblical scholars, probably even Orthodox ones, would see the two as different figures.This is all highly debateable. The Orthodox and most Patristic figures regarded St. John the Apostle as being St. John of Patmos, with some exceptions (hence the controversy about its inclusion).
Yes but most biblical scholars, probably even Orthodox ones, would see the two as different figures.
I noticed a similarity between the Sadducees only accepting the Pentateuch as "inspired" and rejecting the prophets who prophesied a New Covenant to come which would put them out of business and those Protestants who reject the Apocrypha which contains prayers for the dead in 2 Maccabees and that's waaaaaay too Catholic for them.
Each group rejected what they thought was a challenge to their theology.
Probably not important
"... we know that the ancients speak of prayer for the dead, which we do not prohibit; but we disapprove of the application ex opere operato of the Lord's Supper on behalf of the dead."[28]
<Snip>
But, to them the final nail in the coffin is the fact that, even King James himself thought that the Apocrypha was a "joke" and was definitely not God inspired, and only ordered it in the King James Bible for the sake of completeness and for Christians to discern for themselves whether or not the Apocrypha was God breathed or not. While, he believed that the bible should be whole and pure, and gave people this option, he made his own opinions definitively clear. He didn't agree with the Apocrypha AT ALL.
<Snip>
When authority over the Church is given to a Monarch, and the Church becomes locally politicized, no good ever comes of it. Personally, I see the "State Churches" established following the reformation as having become and continuing to be more "humanistic" than "theological".
When authority over the Church is given to a Monarch, and the Church becomes locally politicized, no good ever comes of it. Personally, I see the "State Churches" established following the reformation as having become and continuing to be more "humanistic" than "theological".
When authority over the Church is given to a Monarch, and the Church becomes locally politicized, no good ever comes of it. Personally, I see the "State Churches" established following the reformation as having become and continuing to be more "humanistic" than "theological".
I find this somewhat peculiar coming from a Lutheran whose founder used the power of the state and encouraged it mightily. I come from a very long line of dissenters who have usually been on the wrong side when it comes to persecution from state churches. I agree entirely with your observations. Thank you.
Luther disliked social chaos and even unnecessary reform (he assosciated it with works-righteousness). Christ didn't command people to set up mini theocratic regimes in cities, but that is what many of the "fanatics" favored. At the time the proto-Anabaptists were spreading teachings perceived by Luther and other reformers as promoting chaos and anarchy.
The Anabaptist ethic is frankly unrealistic and therefore, unethical, making the Gospel into a new Law. As Reinhold Niebuhr pointed out in his theology, in a fallen world such as ours, we often have to settle for justice instead of pure love and meekness. That's unfortunate but it is also paradoxically the ethical thing to do. If we want to go beyond this, then we must personally take up our cross and sacrifice, but nobody can bind anybody else's conscience to this, it must be an unconditioned expression of love as part of our vocation or calling from God - else it would be an obligation, and not love.
Yet Anabaptists and Neo-Anabaptists (Shane Claiborne being a good example) believe in a dichotomy between the Church and "the world". If you aren't a member of the pure elect set apart from the world, somehow you are part of an "evil system" and are therefore unredeemed. I find this sort of idea strange. Jesus didn't condemn the centurion for being a soldier, and he didn't condemn tax collectors for being tax collectors and working for the state.
Thanks for your agreement. The fact that it happened does not make it right; yet God may have seen is a appropriate at the time. It's above my pay scale.
Points well made.
The apocrypha was originally in the KJV, but was removed in its final edition in the 1700s.
http://www.davince.com/download/kjvbiblea.pdf
.
Since most of the theological changes that happened in the 1700s were wrong, I tend to think of the removal of the apocrypha as an extension of that.
.
I think this may be a good hint at the change in attitude towards scripture when sola scriptura began to become solo scriptura in application.
That's only because the Lord Jesus Christ did not recognize this group of writings as Scripture, nor the apostles, and neither did Jerome who wrote the Vulgate, nor the translators of the Authorized Version (even though they included it in 1611). The 24 books of the Hebrew Tanakh are quite sufficient, but those who simply wish to read the Apocrypha as literature are free to do so.It seems like the only Christian tradition that takes a hard stance against the apocryphal books is the Reformed tradition.
The New Testament comes from the Holy Spirit, not the Church.The New Testament come from the Church, not the Church from the New Testament.
In that case don't use the term *deuterocanonical* (second canon). Simply call it the Apocrypha. There are some interesting legends in there.Well put. I remain quite unconvinced of the divine inspiration of the deuterocanonical books.
You're repeating the line of thought that has been imparted to you by members of certain denominations
The Apocryphal books are not like the rest of the Bible and, although placed with the Old Testament, were not accepted as scripture by the Jews of the early Christian era. It's from them that we Christians get most of our Bible, you know.
And these books don't teach any essential doctrine of Christians although some fleeting images from the Apocrypha have been used to prop up some doctrines derived mainly through legend and tradition.
In the 16th Century, the Reformers made clear that these books are not inspired as the rest of the Bible is...but they continued in use and are still read in the worship services of many Protestant churches. The Catholic Church, meanwhile, ALSO expelled some of the Apocrypha on its own. To start off with the notion that they always were seen as being inspired in the way that Christians believe the Gospels are is a mistake.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?