The Bible

[theophilus3213]

The Bible
​

1. The Bible is a collection of 66 book's; written by about 40 different authors; over a period of about 1600 year's. It's main theme is Jesus Christ. And is "living and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit."(Heb 4:12).

It contains the mind of God, the state of man, the way of salvation, the doom of sinner's, and the happiness of believer's, and a history of Israel. It's doctrine's are holy, it's precept's are binding, it's decision's are immutable. Read it to be wise, believe it to be safe, and practice it to be holy. It contains light to direct you, food to support you, and comfort to cheer you. It is the traveler's map, the pilgrim's staff, the pilot's compass, the solder's sword, and the Christians charter. Here paradise is restored, Heaven opened, and the gate's of hell disclosed. Christ is it's grand subject, our good the design, and the glory of God it's end. It should fill the memory, rule the heart, and guide the feet. Read it slowly, frequently, and prayerfully. It is a mine of wealth, a paradise of glory, and a river of pleasure. It is given to you in life, will be opened at the judgment, and be remembered forever. It involves the highest responsibility, and will condemn all who trifle with it's sacred content's". (from pocket NT)

The Bible contains the word's of God;(Ex 3:4,5-10; Mt 3:17;etc);Satan (Job 1:7,9-11, 2:2,4-5, Mt 4:3,5-6,8-9, etc.); Angel's (Daniel 9:21-27, 10:4-21, Mt 1:20-21, etc.); Demon's (Mk 5:2-13, Lk 8:27-33, Acts 19:15, etc.); men, (Gen 3:10,12, Acts 23:14-30, etc.); and women (Gen 3:2 etc.) It is completely accurate only as it was originally recorded by the inspired men in their native tongues. (i.e. Heb. and Grk.) The prophecies in the Bible are not "clever fable's"; but "holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." (II Pet 1:20-21). Many prophecies have already been fulfilled. Therefore we can be certain that those which have not been fulfilled, will be in the future.

I believe that "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. That the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped, for every good work." (II Tim 3:16-17). Hence the Bible is the finale authority on all religious doctrine and practice. In so far as any Denomination, pastor, teacher, book, evangelist, prophet, etc.; Rightly divide’s and practice's the commandment's, concept's, precept's, and instruction's of the Bible; I am in agreement with them. But in so far as anyone deviate's from; nullifies; twist's; ignores, or in any other way abuses the Word of God: To the same degree, I oppose them! The Bible should be studied with an open mind! And with a prayerful attitude of "Farther, teach me the truth's that you have given to us in your word; so that I might conform my life to them; and give me your power and strength to understand and obey your word." We should be careful to examine all of the scripture's that pertain to a subject, before coming to conclusion's as to what the Bible teaches on any given subject. We must examine the Heb. and Grk. word's and phrase's of the text's. The passage's must be interpreted literally unless the text dictate's otherwise. The passage's must be interpreted in the context of the passage it is written in: The context of what the rest of scripture's teach on the subject; and the context of the culture that the text was written to/in. Obscure passage's in scripture must be understood (if it is possible) in the light of clearer passage's. If we hold to an interpretation of one passage, that does not square with something in another passage; one or both of the passage's are being interpreted incorrectly! The Holy Spirit doe's not disagree with Himself! Don't ever build a doctrine on a single obscure or unclear text! Above all, it is only through the revelation of the Holy Spirit that we come to truly understand the Word of God! (I Cor 2:6-16).

God bless

 

[Scotth1960]

The Bible
​

1. The Bible is a collection of 66 book's; written by about 40 different authors; over a period of about 1600 year's. It's main theme is Jesus Christ. And is "living and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit."(Heb 4:12).

Dear Friend, I believe there are 76 books in the Bible. 49 in the OT, and 27 in the NT. So the Bible as I understand the Bible has the books in it that not all Christian accept. There are 10 books missing from some versions of the Bible, which were in the original Greek Old Testament. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington



It contains the mind of God, the state of man, the way of salvation, the doom of sinner's, and the happiness of believer's, and a history of Israel. It's doctrine's are holy, it's precept's are binding, it's decision's are immutable. Read it to be wise, believe it to be safe, and practice it to be holy. It contains light to direct you, food to support you, and comfort to cheer you. It is the traveler's map, the pilgrim's staff, the pilot's compass, the solder's sword, and the Christians charter. Here paradise is restored, Heaven opened, and the gate's of hell disclosed. Christ is it's grand subject, our good the design, and the glory of God it's end. It should fill the memory, rule the heart, and guide the feet. Read it slowly, frequently, and prayerfully. It is a mine of wealth, a paradise of glory, and a river of pleasure. It is given to you in life, will be opened at the judgment, and be remembered forever. It involves the highest responsibility, and will condemn all who trifle with it's sacred content's". (from pocket NT)

The Bible contains the word's of God;(Ex 3:4,5-10; Mt 3:17;etc);Satan (Job 1:7,9-11, 2:2,4-5, Mt 4:3,5-6,8-9, etc.); Angel's (Daniel 9:21-27, 10:4-21, Mt 1:20-21, etc.); Demon's (Mk 5:2-13, Lk 8:27-33, Acts 19:15, etc.); men, (Gen 3:10,12, Acts 23:14-30, etc.); and women (Gen 3:2 etc.) It is completely accurate only as it was originally recorded by the inspired men in their native tongues. (i.e. Heb. and Grk.) The prophecies in the Bible are not "clever fable's"; but "holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." (II Pet 1:20-21). Many prophecies have already been fulfilled. Therefore we can be certain that those which have not been fulfilled, will be in the future.

I believe that "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. That the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped, for every good work." (II Tim 3:16-17). Hence the Bible is the finale authority on all religious doctrine and practice. In so far as any Denomination, pastor, teacher, book, evangelist, prophet, etc.; Rightly divide’s and practice's the commandment's, concept's, precept's, and instruction's of the Bible; I am in agreement with them. But in so far as anyone deviate's from; nullifies; twist's; ignores, or in any other way abuses the Word of God: To the same degree, I oppose them! The Bible should be studied with an open mind! And with a prayerful attitude of "Farther, teach me the truth's that you have given to us in your word; so that I might conform my life to them; and give me your power and strength to understand and obey your word." We should be careful to examine all of the scripture's that pertain to a subject, before coming to conclusion's as to what the Bible teaches on any given subject. We must examine the Heb. and Grk. word's and phrase's of the text's. The passage's must be interpreted literally unless the text dictate's otherwise. The passage's must be interpreted in the context of the passage it is written in: The context of what the rest of scripture's teach on the subject; and the context of the culture that the text was written to/in. Obscure passage's in scripture must be understood (if it is possible) in the light of clearer passage's. If we hold to an interpretation of one passage, that does not square with something in another passage; one or both of the passage's are being interpreted incorrectly! The Holy Spirit doe's not disagree with Himself! Don't ever build a doctrine on a single obscure or unclear text! Above all, it is only through the revelation of the Holy Spirit that we come to truly understand the Word of God! (I Cor 2:6-16).

God bless

 

[theophilus3213]

My dear friend,

You must be refering to the catholic bible which includes the apocrapha books as part of their bible. All protastant bibles omit the apocrapha books from them. (I have read the apocrapha books and I see very good reasons for keeping them out of the cannon.) So what I said is accurate in referance to the protestant bibles that the vast majority of religious people use.

 

[Guap]

The Bible
​

Dear Friend, I believe there are 76 books in the Bible. 49 in the OT, and 27 in the NT. So the Bible as I understand the Bible has the books in it that not all Christian accept. There are 10 books missing from some versions of the Bible, which were in the original Greek Old Testament. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington


God bless

Raises the question of who decides what books are in the Bible.
If I'm not mistaken in the Greek Orthodox church there is no absolute list of books - there is no definition of the 'bible'. What is important, for them, is the teaching of the church.

 

[francisdesales]

My dear friend,

You must be refering to the catholic bible which includes the apocrapha books as part of their bible. All protastant bibles omit the apocrapha books from them. (I have read the apocrapha books and I see very good reasons for keeping them out of the cannon.) So what I said is accurate in referance to the protestant bibles that the vast majority of religious people use.

The problem here is in 'definitions'. Most non-Catholic/Orthodox Christians have forgotten the meaning of "Apocrypha".

"Apocrypha" is a term given to "hidden books". Books like "the Acts of Peter". A book supposedly given as secret revelations, not unlike the Book of Mormon. Very few of these books were considered Scriptures by anyone of Orthodox (not Greek, but pre-Great Schism) Christianity.

"Deuteroncannonicals" refers to "second law", or books that were disputed at one time or another, but eventually were entered into the canon. There are examples of this in the OT AND the NT. James and Hebrews are JUST AS MUCH Deuterocannonical as Wisdom and Sirach (many accepted the latter before the former...!) I am wondering HOW non-Catholic Christians can justify omiting the later, but including the former...

Thus, when you say you "read the Apocrypha", we are left not knowing what you are refering to - The Acts of Peter or the Gospel of Thomas? Or are you refering to Wisdom or James?

Regards

 

[Eventide]

Raises the question of who decides what books are in the Bible.

Couple ways to look at this perhaps..

From a Heavenly perspective.. "Thy word is for ever settled IN HEAVEN"..

From an earthly perspective.. Romans 3 tells us that the JEWS were entrusted with the oracles of God.

 

[francisdesales]

Couple ways to look at this perhaps..

From a Heavenly perspective.. "Thy word is for ever settled IN HEAVEN"..

From an earthly perspective.. Romans 3 tells us that the JEWS were entrusted with the oracles of God.

The Church (whatever your definition) "decides" what is sacred to it. This applies to any religious body. They determine whether the Koran or the OT or the NT or the Book of Mormon is sacred. Those within that group/body will follow those writings as sacred scriptures. God doesn't come down and point out the canon to us irrefutably. We (Catholics) believe the Bible is the Word of God based upon the faith that God established a divinely-led body of men to make such decisions (bind and loosen...) I cannot answer for non-Catholic Christians.

Being "oracles" has nothing to do with determining the canon, since there was no official Jewish canon until after the fall of Jerusalem and after Paul wrote to the Romans. There were a variety of canons during the time of Jesus. It is crystal clear that Paul didn't rely on the Jews to determine the content of Christian faith, to include the contents of sacred writings (to include Paul's own writings, undoubtedly not approved by those "oracles".)

And certainly, Peter didn't need the Jews to tell him that Paul's writings were sacred Scriptures... ;)

Regards

 

[theophilus3213]

The

problem here is in 'definitions'. Most non-Catholic/Orthodox Christians have
forgotten the meaning of "Apocrypha".


"Apocrypha" is a term
given to "hidden books". Books like "the Acts of Peter". A
book supposedly given as secret revelations, not unlike the Book of Mormon.
Very few of these books were considered Scriptures by anyone of Orthodox (not
Greek, but pre-Great Schism) Christianity.


"Deuteroncannonicals"
refers to "second law", or books that were disputed at one time or
another, but eventually were entered into the canon. There are examples of this
in the OT AND the NT. James and Hebrews are JUST AS MUCH Deuterocannonical
as Wisdom and Sirach (many accepted the latter before the former...!) I am
wondering HOW non-Catholic Christians can justify omiting the later, but
including the former...


Thus, when you say you "read
the Apocrypha", we are left not knowing what you are refering to - The
Acts of Peter or the Gospel of Thomas? Or are you refering to Wisdom or James?
Regards

Here is the definition of the word apocrapha as given by mirriam websters dict and thesaurous:
Definition of APOCRYPHA
1: writings or statements of dubious authenticity
2 capitalizeda: books included in the Septuagint and Vulgate but excluded from the Jewish and Protestant canons of the Old Testament — see bible table
b: early Christian writings not included in the New Testament

Origin of APOCRYPHA
Medieval Latin, from Late Latin, neuter plural of apocryphus secret, not canonical, from Greek apokryphos obscure, from apokryptein
to hide away, from apo- + kryptein to hide — more at crypt
First Known Use: 14th century
apocrypha,
(from Greek apokryptein, “to hide away”), in biblical literature, works outside an accepted canon of scripture. The history of the term’s usage indicates that it referred to a body of esoteric writings that were at first prized, later tolerated, and finally excluded. In its broadest sense apocrypha has come to mean any writings of dubious authority. A brief treatment of apocrypha follows. For full treatment, see biblical literature: Apocryphalhttp://www.britannica.com/EBchecked...literature/73333/Apocryphal-writings#toc73333
writings
.
There are several levels of dubiety within the general concept of apocryphal works in Judeo-Christian biblical writings. Apocrypha per se are outside the canon, not considered divinely inspired but regarded as worthy of study by the faithful.Pseudepigrapha are spurious works ostensibly written by a biblical figure. Deuterocanonical works are those that are accepted in one canon but not in all.
The apocraphal books that are in the catholic bible are: Tobit, Judith, 1 Maccabees, 2
Maccabees, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus/Sirach, and Baruch. I have read these books and I can easily see why our forfathers left them out of the 'cannon.'

It is interesting that you equate these books with the book of Morman. I suppose that this is an adapt analogy as the book of morman has been proven to be a hoax!
The mormans paid an archeologist to go around and try to find the cities mentioned in the book of morman and authentic them. This archeologist worked for over thirty years and then wrote his finale report to the Morman church. Then he resinged! In his report he stated that 90% of the cities that the book of morman mentions do not exist and never have existed! of the 10% of the cities that they did find, he discovered that they came into existance hundreds of years earlier then when the book of morman says they came into existance. Hence this archaeologist proved that the book of morman was not true! Thus it has no spiritual authorship! So while it may make for interesting reading, it belongs in the fiction section of the library! The apocraphal books are interesting to read, but just like the book of morman,
they are not divinely inspired, and they have no place in the cannon of scripture.

You see, when the men who put together the 'cannon' of scripture did so they did not operate out of a vacuum. The 'holy' books were well known at the time. The jews had separated there writings into several categories, and the Christians had their epistles and gospels clearly defined. All they did was to separate the divinely inspired books from the ones that were not devinely inspired. And I believe that they did this under the direct direction of the Holy Spirit.
God has preserved for us the books that are important to Him that we should have. The 66 books of the protestant bible has all of the necessary doctrines in them to give us the gospel of God. The information is sufficient to tell us how to have an intimate relationship with
God. We do not need any other books other than the 66 books that He has given too us.

May God richly bless you as you serve Him in spirit and in truth!

 

[theophilus3213]

I found this on the web at: Why the Apocrypha Isn't in the Bible.

<div align="left">Why the Apocrypha Isn't in the Bible.


Catholics will tell you, "You Protestants are missing part of the Bible. We have the rest of it." This can throw people off, but it no longer has to. These false Catholic additions to the Bible are commonly called the Apocrypha or sometimes the Deuterocanonical books. This is a
short treatise on WHY these books are not in the Bible.

[SIZE=+2]What is the Apocrypha anyway?[/SIZE]

The Apocrypha is a collection of uninspired, spurious books written by various individuals. The Catholic religion considers these books as scripture just like a Bible-believer believes that our 66 books are the word of God, i.e., Genesis to Revelation. We are going to examine some
verses from the Apocrypha later in our discussion.

At the Council of Trent (1546) the Roman Catholic religion pronounced the following apocryphal books sacred. They asserted that the apocryphal books together with unwritten tradition are of God and are to be received and venerated as the Word of God. So now you have the Bible, the Apocrypha and Catholic Tradition as co-equal sources of truth for the Catholic. In reality, the Bible is the last source of truth for Catholics. Catholic doctrine comes primarily from tradition stuck together with a few Bible names. In my reading of Catholic materials, I find notes like this: "You have to keep the Bible in perspective." Catholics do not believe that the Bible is God's complete revelation for man.

The Roman Catholic Apocrypha

Tobit
Judith
Wisdom
Ecclesiasticus
Baruch
First and Second
Maccabees
Additions to Esther and Daniel

Apocryphal Books rejected by the Catholic Religion:

First and Second Esdras
Prayer of Manasses
Susanna*

*A reader says: "Susanna is in the Roman Catholic canon. It is Daniel
13."
​

[SIZE=+2]Why the Apocrypha Isn't in the Bible.[/SIZE]

1. Not one of the apocryphal books is written in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.
2. All Apocryphal books are in Greek, except one which is extant only in Latin.
3. None of the apocryphal writers laid claim to inspiration.
4. The apocryphal books were never acknowledged as sacred scriptures by the Jews, custodians of the Hebrew scriptures (the apocrypha was written prior to the New Testament). In fact, the Jewish people rejected and destroyed the apocrypha after the overthow of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.
5. The apocryphal books were not permitted among the sacred books during the first four centuries of the real Christian church (I'm certainly not talking about the Catholic religion which is not Christian).
6. The Apocrypha contains fabulous statements which not only contradict the "canonical" scriptures but themselves. For example, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in three different places.
7. The Apocrypha includes doctrines in variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead. The following verses are taken from the apocrypha translation by Ronald Knox dated 1954:
   
   Basis for the doctrine of purgatory:
   
   2 Maccabees 12:43-45, 2.000 pieces of silver were sent to Jerusalem for a sin-offering...Whereupon he made reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin.
   ​
   Salvation by works:
   
   Ecclesiasticus 3:30, Water will quench a flaming fire, and alms maketh atonement for sin.
   Tobit 12:8-9, 17, It is better to give alms than to lay up gold; for alms doth deliver from death, and shall purge away all sin.
   ​
   Magic:
   
   Tobit 6:5-8, If the Devil, or an evil spirit troubles anyone, they can be driven away by making a smoke of the heart, liver, and gall of a fish...and the Devil will smell it, and flee away, and never come again anymore.
   ​
   Mary was born sinless (immaculate conception):
   
   Wisdom 8:19-20, And I was a witty child and had received a good soul. And whereas I was more good, I came to a body undefiled.
   ​
8. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assasination and magical incantation.
9. No apocryphal book is referred to in the New Testament whereas the Old Testament is referred to hundreds of times.
10. Because of these and other reasons, the apocryphal books are only valuable as ancient documents illustrative of the manners, language, opinions and history of the East.

[SIZE=+2]Wasn't the Apocrypha in the King James?[/SIZE]

The King James translators never considered the Apocrypha the word of God. As books of some historical value (e.g., details of the Maccabean revolt), the Apocrypha was sandwiched between the Old and New Testaments as an appendix of reference material. This followed the format that Luther had used. Luther prefaced the Apocrypha with a statement:

"Apocrypha--that is, books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriputres, and yet are profitable and good to read."
King James Version Defended page 98.
​

In 1599, TWELVE YEARS BEFORE the King James Bible was published, King James said this about the Apocrypha:

"As to the Apocriphe bookes, I OMIT THEM because I am no Papist (as I said before)..."
​

King James Charles Stewart
Basilicon
Doron
, page 13

In his A Premonition to All Most Mightie Monarches," King James said this--

"...Is it a small corrupting of the Scriptures to make all, or the most part of the Apocrypha of equall faith with the canonicall
Scriptures...?"
​

Not only this, but the sixth article of the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England (1571 edition--the church of England published the
Authorized (King James) Version) states that the Old and New Testaments are the Bible and the apocrypha is not:

In the name of the Holy, we do vnderstande those canonical bookes of the olde and newe Testament, of whose authoritie was never any doubt in the Churche...
​

Now concerning the apocrypha it states,

And the other bookes, (as Hierome sayeth), the Churche doth reade for example of life and instruction of manners: but yet doth it not applie them to establish any doctrene.

Philip Schaff, Creeds of Christendom. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1977, Vol. III, pp. 489-491.
​

The Hampton Court Document came as a result of the famous Hampton Court Conference of 1604 when King James authorized the translation of the Bible that would one day bear his name. Concerning the apocrypha and the Church of England, it states--
<blockquote>The Apocrypha, that hath some repugnancy to the canonical scriptures, shall not be read...

Shalom

 

[francisdesales]

Here is the definition of the word apocrapha as given by mirriam websters dict and thesaurous:
Definition of APOCRYPHA
1: writings or statements of dubious authenticity
2 capitalizeda: books included in the Septuagint and Vulgate but excluded from the Jewish and Protestant canons of the Old Testament — see bible table
b: early Christian writings not included in the New Testament

Agree. The Apocrypha is of dubious authenticity. That is why the Deuterocanonicals are not considered "Apocrypha" by those knowledgeable on the subject. The term "apocrypha" was misappropriated by the first Protestants during the 16th century. That is why I point out the difference in meaning. Now, of course definition number 2 is included in your dictionary because of its wide - and incorrect - useage of the term.

Origin of APOCRYPHA
Medieval Latin, from Late Latin, neuter plural of apocryphus secret, not canonical, from Greek apokryphos obscure, from apokryptein
to hide away, from apo- + kryptein to hide — more at crypt
First Known Use: 14th century

This is flat-out incorrect. The term is MUCH older than the 14th century... During discussion on the canon during the 4th and 5th century, the term was being used to identify spurious writings. Note carefully, the Deutercanonicals, such as James and Sirach, were not considered Apocrypha by these men. Only much later Protestants changed the meaning of the term.

There are several levels of dubiety within the general concept of apocryphal works in Judeo-Christian biblical writings. Apocrypha per se are outside the canon, not considered divinely inspired but regarded as worthy of study by the faithful.Pseudepigrapha are spurious works ostensibly written by a biblical figure. Deuterocanonical works are those that are accepted in one canon but not in all.
The apocraphal books that are in the catholic bible are: Tobit, Judith, 1 Maccabees, 2
Maccabees, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus/Sirach, and Baruch. I have read these books and I can easily see why our forfathers left them out of the 'cannon.'

That's because you have already been theologically trained to deny what is found there. Explain to me what you find in Wisdom or Sirach that makes it so obvious that they should be left out of the canon???

YOUR forefathers left them out because they already had decided on the doctrine of salvation by faith alone, which is denied by the Sacred Scriptures. They wanted to a priori remove the "barnicles" of the Catholic faith, Marian and saint veneration, the doctrine of Purgatory, etc.


It is well-known that 2 Maccabees gives very strong evidence of a third state of existence after death. Luther did not desire to maintain this belief and the scandal surrounding the misappropriation of funds towards the building of St. Peter's. Luther found his means of eliminating this book (2 Maccabees) by claiming that because it was not in Hebrew Scriptures, it should be left out. Thus the ENTIRE OT Deuterocanonicals were sacrificed on the altar of "Luther said so". What IS fortunate is that Melanchthon stopped the bleeding caused by Luther and PREVENTED the heretic from going further and eliminating Hebrews, James, and Revelation. To be perfectly consistent with Luther's mindset, Protestants would have eliminated ALL disputed books of the Catholic Bible.

Revelation, Hebrews, 2 and 3 John, James, Jude.

But because they didn't, it becomes perfectly clear why only SOME of the Deuterocanonicals were removed. Because Protestants, a priori, dismissed the idea of purgatory. Looking at the faith through a secondary (and false one, at the end of the day) as the PRIME teaching of Christianity - salvatoin by faith alone - anything that appeared to dispute that must be eliminated. Thus, Luther's "throw James into the fire" talk.

Clearly, Luther thought he was the "prophet" and that all Christians must view worship of God through his particulars. This sort of arrogance, in of itself, shows he was not a servant of God.

It is interesting that you equate these books with the book of Morman. I suppose that this is an adapt analogy as the book of morman has been proven to be a hoax!

I find it interesting that you misinterpret what I wrote!!!

Where did I say the Deuterocanonicals were comparable to the book of Mormon? I said the ENTIRE CANON is dependent upon a community of people. That would include the PROTOCANONICALS. That was the entire gist of my writing. A body of "xxx" determines the body of their Sacred Scriptures.

Thus, the first Christians, Catholics, determined their Scriptures. Jews determined theirs. Mormons and Protestants have their body of Scriptures derived from Catholicism. Hindus and Muslims have their scriptures.

You see, when the men who put together the 'cannon' of scripture did so they did not operate out of a vacuum. The 'holy' books were well known at the time. The jews had separated there writings into several categories, and the Christians had their epistles and gospels clearly defined. All they did was to separate the divinely inspired books from the ones that were not devinely inspired. And I believe that they did this under the direct direction of the Holy Spirit.

That's the claim, that around 400 AD, the Christians got together and officially documented what was already universally accepted among the catholic (universal Christian) church. The writers of the second century were very comfortable citing Sirach and Wisdom and Isaiah in the same sentence and refering to those citations as "Sacred Scriptures". The canonization was merely a formal recognition of what already had happened through constant useage of the Fathers.

God has preserved for us the books that are important to Him that we should have.

Again, that's the CLAIM. Muslims and Hindus and Jews make the same claim. By FAITH, we believe our canon is correct, and that God didn't change His mind 1500 years later on the whim of an arrogant man.

The 66 books of the protestant bible has all of the necessary doctrines in them to give us the gospel of God. The information is sufficient to tell us how to have an intimate relationship with
God. We do not need any other books other than the 66 books that He has given too us.

May God richly bless you as you serve Him in spirit and in truth!

Clearly, that is a huge assumption. The massive Christian publishing companies would disagree with you. There are dozens of commentaries on each book of the Bible. Each has slight differences, and some are dramatic. It should be obvious that the Bible does not interpret itself, nor does it contain all of the "necesssary doctrines" that are readily perceived by people reading it. If so, we would not have so many Protestant denominations, now, would we. All would agree.

And of course, the Bible NOWHERE says that it is the sole source of our faith or that everything we need to know is found within the Bible. That is a tradition of man.


Regards

 

[francisdesales]

[SIZE=+2]Why the Apocrypha Isn't in the Bible.[/SIZE]

1. Not one of the apocryphal books is written in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.

So what? Neither was any book of the New Testament. This is a manufactured requirement, invented by people who already decided to remove certain books and looking for an excuse. In addition, modern scholars are finding that several of the Deuterocanonicals were written in Hebrew, such as Sirach.

1. All Apocryphal books are in Greek, except one which is extant only in Latin.

See above. Some were written in Aramaic. Some were later written in Hebrew. The entire NT is written in Greek, thus, we must eliminate it, by these standards. We must expect the Bible to be written ENTIRELY in Hebrew, to make such a requirement worthy of consideration.

1. None of the apocryphal writers laid claim to inspiration.

Most of the OT writings do not claim to be inspired by God. Only REVELATION in the NT claims to be inspired by God.

1. The apocryphal books were never acknowledged as sacred scriptures by the Jews, custodians of the Hebrew scriptures (the apocrypha was written prior to the New Testament). In fact, the Jewish people rejected and destroyed the apocrypha after the overthow of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

Is this the direction we are going? Incredibly silly logic? wow...

The Jews ALSO considered the Gospels as "apocrypha". Toss it in the garbage, according to Samuel...

After the Temple was destroyed, the Pharisaical Jews were the only remaining Jews of note. The Essenes and Sadducees were completely destroyed. BEFORE the destruction of Jerusalem, the Jewish canon did not exist. There was a variety of accepted writings considered inspired by God, some that are not found even in the Septuagint. Once Jerusalem was destroyed, only two sects of Judaism remained - Pharisaical Judaism and Christianity. Naturally, the Jews who did not believe Christ was the Messiah wanted to consolidate their faith and traditions, rejecting all other notions of what was Scriptures by ruling that only their "version" was the correct one. Thus, the ENTIRE NT was ruled as "apocrypha" by the Jews.

Using your author's logic, we must cast aside the New Testament, since the Jews of the late first century disapproved of it...

1. The apocryphal books were not permitted among the sacred books during the first four centuries of the real Christian church (I'm certainly not talking about the Catholic religion which is not Christian).

Non sequitar, because the Deuterocanonicals were not apocrypha.

And Catholicism is very much Christian, there is no point in denying that with such silly statements. History is quite clear on that and no amount of hand-wringing will change that.

1. The Apocrypha contains fabulous statements which not only contradict the "canonical" scriptures but themselves. For example, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in three different places.

Again, the author is confusing the apocrypha with the Deuterocanonicals. There is not anything any more "fabulous" in them then the Resurrection or the variety of miracles cited in the Gospels. As to "contradictions", there are dozens of apparent ones found in the Protocanonicals...

1. The Apocrypha includes doctrines in variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead.

That is a matter of a priori opinion. If they are considered part of the Bible, there is no variance with the bible, only variance with what you already have dictated theologically.

In other words, some confused Protestants believe in "faith alone". Even when James says otherwise. This Protestant is conditioned to believe there is no need of sanctification in the after life if we die and have not been completely perfected, because they falsely presume that the works of Jesus completely cover them (which denies the entire need of being sanctified at ALL...) Thus, when they have this false mindset, and read about prayers for the dead, they cannot understand it.

"WHY do I need someone to pray for me after I die, Jesus covers me!!!"

And so, because they have been falsely taught, they see no need for a "pious and holy action" done well before the Son of God came in the flesh and the first Christians practiced in the catacombs of the first and second century...

1. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assasination and magical incantation.

It doesn't teach them anymore than the protocanonicals teach that worshiping a golden calf or committing adultery is OK... As any other historical writing, they relate what was done without condoning a sinful practice.

No apocryphal book is referred to in the New Testament whereas the Old Testament is referred to hundreds of times.

Every book of the OT is not mentioned in the NT. As a matter of fact, almost 1/3 of the "Protestant OT" is not mentioned.

All of these tired old excuses do not stand the test of logic. Any free thinking person will see through these excuses for what they are.

Lame attempts to justify ripping apart the Sacred Scriptures to suit one man's opinions of the Word of God. Not only did this man have the audacity to remove entire chunks of Scriputres, he had no qualms at all with even changing NT Scriptures, such as Romans 3:28. Scriptures clearly note that following such a man's opinions is dangerous and can lead to perdition.

Regards

 

[Eventide]

The Church (whatever your definition) "decides" what is sacred to it.

I don't have a definition of the church of God although the Lord certainly does as He teaches in His living and powerful word. It's the future bride of the Lamb and consists of those who do believe that Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of the living God, and God alone knowing the heart baptizes each and every one into the body of Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit.

This applies to any religious body. They determine whether the Koran or the OT or the NT or the Book of Mormon is sacred. Those within that group/body will follow those writings as sacred scriptures. God doesn't come down and point out the canon to us irrefutably. We (Catholics) believe the Bible is the Word of God based upon the faith that God established a divinely-led body of men to make such decisions (bind and loosen...) I cannot answer for non-Catholic Christians.

There's nothing in the scriptures (which throughly equip the man of God) which teach that the church of God established the bible.. it's actually the other way around.. each and every person was born again by the incorruptible word of God which lives and abides for ever..

Furthermore, if your basis for believing that the bible is the word of God depends upon men, then I can't see how you were ever born again by its incorruptible seed in the first place.. Never a man spake like this man.. when a person does believe in God it's because they hear His voice in the scriptures speaking to them in a living and powerful way.

Being "oracles" has nothing to do with determining the canon, since there was no official Jewish canon until after the fall of Jerusalem and after Paul wrote to the Romans. There were a variety of canons during the time of Jesus. It is crystal clear that Paul didn't rely on the Jews to determine the content of Christian faith, to include the contents of sacred writings (to include Paul's own writings, undoubtedly not approved by those "oracles".)

And certainly, Peter didn't need the Jews to tell him that Paul's writings were sacred Scriptures... ;)

Regards

Well, sorry, I'll stick with the word of God which DOES teach us that the oracles of God were entrusted to the Jews.. and this is one very powerful reason as to why the Apocrapha is not considered the word of God because they don't acknowledge it as the word of God..

You can't separate Christianity from its Jewish roots no matter how hard you try.. it is built upon the foundation of the Apostles and the prohpets.. the entire OT entrusted to the Jews is God's testimony concerning His Son just as the NT is.. and it foretells that same story over and over again.. not in some static lifeless way but in a very real living and powerful way.

 

[francisdesales]

I don't have a definition of the church of God although the Lord certainly does as He teaches in His living and powerful word. It's the future bride of the Lamb and consists of those who do believe that Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of the living God, and God alone knowing the heart baptizes each and every one into the body of Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit.

My friend, it wasn't my intent for you to define "Church" in that specific manner. The point is that any community of people who follow <insert religious viewpoint> is the "church", by their definition. That body of followers of <insert religious viewpoint> determine what is Scriptures for them. Church = body of believers in <insert religious viewpoint> for this conversation.

The Muslim "church" defines the Muslim Scriptures. They witness to Mohemmed giving them the Koran.

The Jewish "church" defines the Old Testament Torah, witnessing to Moses giving them the Torah.

The Christian "church" defines the Scriptures for them, witnessing to the Apostles giving them that body of work, the New Testament and their useage of the Greek Old Testament.

The Mormon "church" defines the Scriptural additions that are "from God" by witnessing to Joseph Smith's giving of the Book of Mormon.

As you can see, the body of believers define what is from God and that is accepted based upon faith that it is from God. By faith, they believe that a particular men/man has given them God's Word.

There's nothing in the scriptures (which throughly equip the man of God) which teach that the church of God established the bible..

It is self-evident. The authors of the bible are from the Christian Church. In addition, the body of believers came before the NT Bible was ever written.

None of the writers of what WE call "scriptures" intended on writing a larger body of work, called "the Bible" by later Christians. Paul did not get a memo to write "chapter 1 of the Christian Bible" from the "Pope" or even Jesus Himself... There is no direction to write to Ephesus, except that Paul was responding to the issues at Ephesus. It was later Christians who identified the writings of Paul to Ephesus (and so forth) as divinely inspired because of their content was in line with what they had been taught, believing that God's Spirit dwelled in a special way in the first members of the Church and that the same Spirit moved them in the same way. They treasured those writings from beloved men who spoke to them what they had been taught, orally and in written form.

it's actually the other way around.. each and every person was born again by the incorruptible word of God which lives and abides for ever..

As I told you before, you are confused between the Word of God, Jesus, and the Bible as relating the Word of God spoken to the prophets and apostles. The book itself is not "incorruptible". People have indeed "corrupted" the Bible with false translations. Ever read John 1:1 of the JW bible??? The Bible doesn't "live and abide forever". God's Word, in this case, is the Son of God Who SPEAKS AS THE WORD HIMSELF.

Furthermore, if your basis for believing that the bible is the word of God depends upon men, then I can't see how you were ever born again by its incorruptible seed in the first place..

The Word of God's content depends upon the Spirit of God inspiring men to tell us the contents of this Bible. Nowhere does the Bible give us an inspired Table of Contents.

In addition, God has ALWAYS worked through men to bring us His Word in the first place!!!! Each and every time, God works through a prophet. And men believe that this prophet heard God's Word. Clearly, when God spoke to Jeremiah, Jeremiah was speaking for God - but that had to be accepted by the community at large. The Spirit of God moves the people to accept that the writings of Jeremiah are legitimately the Word of God. But at the end of the day, that Word comes through Jeremiah - God does not (but could) give us these divine writings to us directly.

As to my "not being born again", I would refrain from such talk, the Mods are getting tired of such judgmental talk. Keep it on the subject without trying to appear superior or feeling the need to put me down.

Never a man spake like this man.. when a person does believe in God it's because they hear His voice in the scriptures speaking to them in a living and powerful way.

I agree - which is why I said the community makes those decisions, the community being an authoritative body in each case. (there is no "church-wide" vote). God's Spirit enables the community to accept sacred Scriptures. In Christianity, it is those who have the power to bind and loosen that have been given, by God (according to the Scriptures) that power to bind Christians to the content of Scriptures. Thus, Paul writes to the Galatians that even if an angel of light would tell them something different, they are to ignore it and heed Paul's words.

Well, sorry, I'll stick with the word of God which DOES teach us that the oracles of God were entrusted to the Jews..

So you, too, are for destroying the New Testament, because that's what YOUR "oracles" have suggested we do with them...

I am not Jewish, so I don't care what the Jewish authorities judge as what is the contents of the Word of God today. They didn't get who the Messiah was, so their opinions do not matter to me. If they did, I would become Jewish.

and this is one very powerful reason as to why the Apocrapha is not considered the word of God because they don't acknowledge it as the word of God..

Are you that dull that you don't see that this refutes the New Testament, as well? Have you really thought this out, or is this the standard canned response you've been trained to give?

You can't separate Christianity from its Jewish roots no matter how hard you try.. it is built upon the foundation of the Apostles and the prohpets.. the entire OT entrusted to the Jews is God's testimony concerning His Son just as the NT is.. and it foretells that same story over and over again.. not in some static lifeless way but in a very real living and powerful way.

Oh, I certainly am not separating my Jewish roots from Christianity. Far from it, I am currently reading a Messianic Jewish NT. But my faith follows that of the Apostles when the Apostles and Jewish teachings diverge, such as the content of Scriptures, or whether a man named Jesus rose from the dead... Are you Jewish, also, and fail to believe that??? If so, I can understand not wanting to follow the Apostles...

The Apostles cite the Septuagint 80% of the time, not the Hebrew text. Thus, even in the first century, the Septuagint was the accepted version of the OT used by the Apostles and by the majority of Jews throughout the world. That Septuagint INCLUDES the OT Deuterocanonicals - but not Jewish Pseudographia. In addition, the content of the OT was not established until after the fall of Jerusalem. There were numerous books that NEITHER of us would consider "inspired" by God, but were by a variety of Jews during the time of Jesus. Consult the Dead Sea Scrolls for further evidence of that...

The Christian Church continued to use the Greek OT even more so as time moved on, and the writings found within it were considered sacred, to include the Deuterocanonicals. I can post many examples of that, if you like, that show men like Irenaeus citing Isaiah and Sirach in the same sentence to show how "SCRIPTURES" proves his point. Christianity, thus, has always seen the Deuterocanonicals as inspired, minus a few exceptions. The councils of the 4th century merely formalize what was already done for 400 years.

Regards

 

[Eventide]

My friend, it wasn't my intent for you to define "Church" in that specific manner. The point is that any community of people who follow <insert religious viewpoint> is the "church", by their definition. That body of followers of <insert religious viewpoint> determine what is Scriptures for them. Church = body of believers in <insert religious viewpoint> for this conversation.

The Muslim "church" defines the Muslim Scriptures. They witness to Mohemmed giving them the Koran.

The Jewish "church" defines the Old Testament Torah, witnessing to Moses giving them the Torah.

The Christian "church" defines the Scriptures for them, witnessing to the Apostles giving them that body of work, the New Testament and their useage of the Greek Old Testament.

The Mormon "church" defines the Scriptural additions that are "from God" by witnessing to Joseph Smith's giving of the Book of Mormon.

As you can see, the body of believers define what is from God and that is accepted based upon faith that it is from God. By faith, they believe that a particular men/man has given them God's Word.

The only definition that matters is what is stated in the living and powerful word of God.. and there the church of God is wonderously described for us in many ways.

It is self-evident. The authors of the bible are from the Christian Church. In addition, the body of believers came before the NT Bible was ever written.

They're all JEWS.. every one of them.. save Luke perhaps.. some believe he is Gentile.. I never thought much about it. All the Apostles.. JEWS.. and the prophets.. JEWS.. and once again, if you're willing to believe the truth of God's word.. the oracles of God were entrusted to them and to them alone..

And this is marvelous when you think about it.. the nation of Israel which is blinded in part was entrusted with the oracles of God, scripting them, copying them, and preserving them.. and the gospel story is there from the beginning pages of Genesis all the way through.. and this is exactly how Paul preached Christ.. for in the volume of the book it is written of Him.

I'd say it's pointless to go on if you're led to believe that your church gave us the word of God.. because that isn't found anywhere in the holy scriptures which are word of God, but rather in the words of men.

If you received a letter from the President would you believe that every word he says is authoritive and that it will be acted upon in accordance with his office.. ? Of course we would.. how can the scriptures be looked at any differently.. they're for ever settled in Heaven according to Him.. and I believe Him by faith which is the substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things unseen..

 

[francisdesales]

The only definition that matters is what is stated in the living and powerful word of God.. and there the church of God is wonderously described for us in many ways.

You are avoiding the obvious. Men who claimed to be moved by God tell "us" the content of the "Scriptures", depending upon who "us" is.

God doesn't directly tell us a Table of Contents.

They're all JEWS.. every one of them.. save Luke perhaps.. some believe he is Gentile.. I never thought much about it. All the Apostles.. JEWS.. and the prophets.. JEWS.. and once again, if you're willing to believe the truth of God's word.. the oracles of God were entrusted to them and to them alone..

I will again repeat what you ignored in my last post...

So you, too, are for destroying the New Testament, because that's what YOUR "oracles" have suggested we do with them...

Those "Jews" wrote their own Scriptures. They used the GREEK OT most of the time. Not the Hebrew OT.

And this is marvelous when you think about it.. the nation of Israel which is blinded in part was entrusted with the oracles of God, scripting them, copying them, and preserving them.. and the gospel story is there from the beginning pages of Genesis all the way through.. and this is exactly how Paul preached Christ.. for in the volume of the book it is written of Him.

That's the belief given to us by men - that the Bible is the Word of God for the Jews and those who believe that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah.

I'd say it's pointless to go on if you're led to believe that your church gave us the word of God.. because that isn't found anywhere in the holy scriptures which are word of God, but rather in the words of men.

Where does the Bible list the Table of Contents of the Bible? Which chapter and verse? Where does Paul tell us what is the Bible? Note carefully, that the Apostles use the GREEK OT for the most part, which does include a large list of writings, to include the Deuterocanonicals. The more you push this argument, the more you undercut your point of view that the Deuterocanonicals should be left out. The "oracles", the apostles, used the Greek OT, the Jews who hated the Christians used THEIR version of the Hebrew OT. Currently, you follow the version of men who hated Christians.

If you received a letter from the President would you believe that every word he says is authoritive and that it will be acted upon in accordance with his office.. ?

No, I wouldn't. Every word from the President is not authoritative.

how can the scriptures be looked at any differently.. they're for ever settled in Heaven according to Him..

Where does the Bible say this? Please give me a citation that tells us which books belong in the Bible and which do not.

Show me where the Bible says "Philemon" is Scriptures.

Heck, show me where the Gospels are part of the Bible, according to the inspired word of the Bible...

It's time to pony up and provide some actual evidence to back up your statements, rather than tired old cliches and wishful thinking. Here is the fact of the matter, whether you accept it or not:

Authoritative men of a particular community determine the Canon. Whether they are Mormons, Catholics, Lutherans, Jews, Muslim, Hindus, whatever. They make the claim for their community that their "scriptures" are sacred. Some communities mentioned consider their Scriptures as exclusive and only theirs are from God. But that is a matter of faith.

Regards

 

[Eventide]

It's time to pony up and provide some actual evidence to back up your statements, rather than tired old cliches and wishful thinking. Here is the fact of the matter, whether you accept it or not:

Authoritative men of a particular community determine the Canon. Whether they are Mormons, Catholics, Lutherans, Jews, Muslim, Hindus, whatever. They make the claim for their community that their "scriptures" are sacred. Some communities mentioned consider their Scriptures as exclusive and only theirs are from God. But that is a matter of faith.

Regards

I think that this IS the bottom line here.. and if you believe that the word of God is the word of God because men say that it is.. then imo you're missing the forest for the trees so to speak because that's not the evidence that makes a Christian know that they are the word of God, but rather that each and every Christian was born again by its incorruptible nature.. just as the parable of the sower shows.. and just like certain men in the scriptures testified to.. that 'Never a Man spake like this Man".. men hear the voice of God in the scriptures and claim it to be God's word on THAT basis.. not because a group of men told them that it is..

 

[francisdesales]

I think that this IS the bottom line here.. and if you believe that the word of God is the word of God because men say that it is.. then imo you're missing the forest for the trees so to speak because that's not the evidence that makes a Christian know that they are the word of God, but rather that each and every Christian was born again by its incorruptible nature.. just as the parable of the sower shows.. and just like certain men in the scriptures testified to.. that 'Never a Man spake like this Man".. men hear the voice of God in the scriptures and claim it to be God's word on THAT basis.. not because a group of men told them that it is..

Wonderful. So when you read "Philemon", you hear the voice of God - or is it that a man/men told you that "Philemon" is part of the Bible, part of the Word of God? There is noting in Philemon to tell me it is from God independent of any Church or body of authoritative men.

I subscribe to reality. Let's get real... If we relied on the "burning in our bosom" as the only means of determining the Word of God, we'd have to accept the Book of Mormons and the Koran, since some men also get that "burning in the bosom" when reading it. And note that some men reject your burning in the bosom.

It just doesn't seem to work, does it...

We believe that the Bible is the Word of God, its entire contents, because we trust in the witness given to us by the Apostles, given to us by the Church. We trust that God inspired men. Bottom line. Don't confuse what you have been told by men with "God told me this is the Bible". You have picked up a book called "the bible" and was told by men that the "bible" is the Word of God. God didn't tell you that.

Regards

 

[Eventide]

Wonderful. So when you read "Philemon", you hear the voice of God - or is it that a man/men told you that "Philemon" is part of the Bible, part of the Word of God? There is noting in Philemon to tell me it is from God independent of any Church or body of authoritative men.

I subscribe to reality. Let's get real... If we relied on the "burning in our bosom" as the only means of determining the Word of God, we'd have to accept the Book of Mormons and the Koran, since some men also get that "burning in the bosom" when reading it. And note that some men reject your burning in the bosom.

It just doesn't seem to work, does it...

We believe that the Bible is the Word of God, its entire contents, because we trust in the witness given to us by the Apostles, given to us by the Church. We trust that God inspired men. Bottom line. Don't confuse what you have been told by men with "God told me this is the Bible". You have picked up a book called "the bible" and was told by men that the "bible" is the Word of God. God didn't tell you that.

Regards

Then you'll simply need to rest in your belief of what men have told you, and I have no problem with that.. but if you're telling me that I can't tell that it's the word of God by its very nature, then I'll just disagree and leave it at that.. if you can't hear His voice in the scriptures.. then I can't help you.

 

[francisdesales]

Then you'll simply need to rest in your belief of what men have told you, and I have no problem with that.. but if you're telling me that I can't tell that it's the word of God by its very nature, then I'll just disagree and leave it at that.. if you can't hear His voice in the scriptures.. then I can't help you.

I didn't really expect a cognizant response from you, and you didn't disappoint. Just the "stock" response from a self-anointed spiritual person. "I just know it is"...

Let me know when you can give me a rational response to my question and recognize that other people "here God's voice" in their own Scriptures. Tell me how you know that the Book of Mormon is not the Word of God, vs. THEIR claims that it "moves one in the bosom of their heart". Calvin's means of determining the Scripture contents is ludicrous - but many people still think it is "truth".

But for something easy, how about you telling me why "Philemon" is God's Word based upon Philemon alone...??? What verse is CLEARLY telling us it is God's Word???

Regards

 

[Eventide]

I didn't really expect a cognizant response from you, and you didn't disappoint. Just the "stock" response from a self-anointed spiritual person. "I just know it is"...

And I wouldn't expect you to understand.. and I'm sorry that men had to tell you what the word of God is.