Books Outside the Bible

[BreadOfLife]

I point again to always listening to the Holy Ghost.

Unfortunately - MANY people claim to do this - to the tune of tend of thousands of disjointed and perpetually-splintering Protestant sects - ALL teaching different doctrines yet ALL claiming they were "led" there by the Holy Spirit.

Jesus left a Church to teach the world - NOT a book or the different opinions or feelings of individuals.

 

[bbyrd009]

still on that "perpetually-splintering" trip, huh
you know that's not going to work much longer,
their "church" is melting just like yours is Bo

Nowhere did I "admit" that the Catholic Church is into "Sol worship".

dunno why not, Constantine was pretty obvious about it i guess. But i see you believe this to be like salvational or something, maybe i'm condemning Constantine, when i don't mean that; the Apostles didn't understand either i guess

 

[Mayflower]

Thank you for your response. Since my friend ByGrace has informed me that I was rude to you – I apologize. I certainly didn’t mean to come off that way.

First of all – the 7 Books that are not included in Protestant Bibles are referred to as the “Deuterocanonical Books” (second canon) – NOT part of the “Apocrypha” (hidden). Apocryphal works include the Gospel of Judas, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Gospel of Thomas, etc. The Deuterocanonical Books include Sirach, Baruch, Wisdom, Tobit, Judith, 1 & 2 Maccabees, and portions of Daniel and Esther.
As a matter of fact, there are some 200 or so quotes, references, and allusions on the pages of the New Testament.

Now - your source cites an HUGE error when it states: “The Old Testament canon was completed with the Book of Malachi and closed around the year 425 B.C.”

The OT Canon was NOT closed until AFTER the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. As a matter of fact – the Babylonian Talmud actually QUOTES and refers to Deuterocanonical Books as “Scripture”. The Deuterocanonical Books were part of the OPEN Jewish Canon before and DURING the life of Christ. It wasn’t until AFTER His death, resurrection and Ascension and AFTER the destruction of the Temple that the Jewish Canon was CLOSED.

- The Canon of Scripture was first officially declared in 382 AD at the Council of Rome.
- It was reiterated at the Council of Hippo in 393 AD.
- It was again reiterated at the Council of Carthage in 397 AD.
- In 405 AD, Pope Innocent listed the same books established by the Council of Rome in a letter to Exsuperius, the Bishop of Toulouse.
- At the 2nd Council of Nicaea in 787 AD, The Canon of Scripture was again formally ratified.
- In 1441 at the Council of Florence, this list was once again ratified.
- Finally – at the Council of Trent in 1546 AD – the Canon was officially CLOSED. By then, the Protestant Rebels had done their damage to future Protestant generations.

Unfortunately, the OT Canon of Scripture that you and your Protestant brethren adhere to was decided on by a Jewish rabbinical school LONG after Jesus ascended to the Father – by men who HATED Him . . .

Well thank you. Your bolded words can come off that way, but it is hard to tell with typing. I try not to be too sensitive to it, but my defenses do start going up. especially when I learn something a certain way.

But as far as the history of this, Id have to really dig into it, because it is a different world. Are you saying these were supposed to be part of the Bible, but were not added? Is it more Jewish history then anything? I am very interested in Judaism since Jesus was born Jewish and my sister married and converted to Judaism. I do pray she will believe Christ as the Messiah for sure! But I think Ill really have to dig into the history and understand before I start reading other books. I did find that first paet of Enoch very interesting, and it.definitely makes sense with the Nephilim. But I would also say that The Book of Mormon made a lot of sense to me, has a lot of the Bible says, but at the same time changes what the Bible says. This is why I want to be careful of in the sense I use to study scripture.

I am curious how many here see these books as scripture...for me, the Bible has always proven to be true. Has these other books also proven to be true to you all?

 

[BreadOfLife]

still on that "perpetually-splintering" trip, huh
you know that's not going to work much longer,
their "church" is melting just like yours is Bo

Does the truth hurt you that much??

I’ll tell you what: When you can show me that Protestantism is NOT constantly and continually splintering - I’ll STOP saying that it is.

Until then, however – I’m just the messenger . . .

dunno why not, Constantine was pretty obvious about it i guess. But i see you believe this to be like salvational or something, maybe i'm condemning Constantine, when i don't mean that; the Apostles didn't understand either i guess

Once again, bbyrd – your foot got stuck in your mouth.

You make the most asinine claims – like the one in RED – and you NEVER seem to be able to substantiate them or even weasel your way out.

You never disappoint though.
Your ignorance and dishonesty is legendary . . .

 

[bbyrd009]

continually splintering - I’ll STOP saying that it is.

ah why, i think it's cute, and reveals you to boot

 

[Enoch111]

Jesus left a Church to teach the world...

Could that have been the Orthodox Church, which also got a little mixed up?

... NOT

a book or the different opinions or feelings of individuals.

Is Scripture today not a book?
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 perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. (2 Tim 3:16,17)

Since opinions and feelings should be excluded, that should include the pope's opinions also.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Well thank you. Your bolded words can come off that way, but it is hard to tell with typing. I try not to be too sensitive to it, but my defenses do start going up. especially when I learn something a certain way.
But as far as the history of this, Id have to really dig into it, because it is a different world. Are you saying these were supposed to be part of the Bible, but were not added? Is it more Jewish history then u? I am very interested in Judaism since Jesus was born Jewish and my sister married and converted to Judaism. I do pray she will believe Christ as the Messiah for sure! But I think Ill really have to dig into the history and understand before I start reading other books. I did find that first paet of Enoch very interesting, and it.definitely makes sense with the Nephilim. But I would also say that The Book of Mormon made a lot of sense to me, has a lot of the Bible says, but at the same time changes what the Bible says. This is why I want to be careful of in the sense I use to study scripture.
I am curious how many here see these books as scripture...for me, the Bible has always proven to be true. Has these other books also proven to be true to you all?

To answer your question in RED – these Books have ALWAYS been part of the Bible. It wasn’t until Luther decided to go with the Jewish Canon that was closed AFTER Jesus ascended and the Temple was destroyed.

As a matter of fact – Luther didn’t want to stop there. He also wanted to remove the NEW Testament Books like James, Hebrews, Jude and Revelation because they were too “Catholic” for his tastes. Had it NOT been for the arguments of his contemporaries like Philip Melanchton – YOUR Protestant Bible would have been a lot thinner than it already is . . .

If you want to read a good book on how we got the Bible – read “Where We Got The Bible” by Rev. Henry Graham – a Protestant, who converted to the Catholic Church after writing this book.


PS – Enoch and the Book of Mormon were NEVER part of the Canon.

 

[Mayflower]

To answer your question in RED – these Books have ALWAYS been part of the Bible. It wasn’t until Luther decided to go with the Jewish Canon that was closed AFTER Jesus ascended and the Temple was destroyed.

As a matter of fact – Luther didn’t want to stop there. He also wanted to remove the NEW Testament Books like James, Hebrews, Jude and Revelation because they were too “Catholic” for his tastes. Had it NOT been for the arguments of his contemporaries like Philip Melanchton – YOUR Protestant Bible would have been a lot thinner than it already is . . .

If you want to read a good book on how we got the Bible – read “Where We Got The Bible” by Rev. Henry Graham – a Protestant, who converted to the Catholic Church after writing this book.


PS – Enoch and the Book of Mormon were NEVER part of the Canon.

See that is why I got to be careful and follow the Holy Spirit's leading. Because sheep just want to hear the voice of the Shepherd and follow Him. Sheep are also lead astray quite a bit. Curiosity kills cats and sheep.

 

[Willie T]

Well thank you. Your bolded words can come off that way, but it is hard to tell with typing. I try not to be too sensitive to it, but my defenses do start going up. especially when I learn something a certain way.

But as far as the history of this, Id have to really dig into it, because it is a different world. Are you saying these were supposed to be part of the Bible, but were not added? Is it more Jewish history then anything? I am very interested in Judaism since Jesus was born Jewish and my sister married and converted to Judaism. I do pray she will believe Christ as the Messiah for sure! But I think Ill really have to dig into the history and understand before I start reading other books. I did find that first paet of Enoch very interesting, and it.definitely makes sense with the Nephilim. But I would also say that The Book of Mormon made a lot of sense to me, has a lot of the Bible says, but at the same time changes what the Bible says. This is why I want to be careful of in the sense I use to study scripture.

I am curious how many here see these books as scripture...for me, the Bible has always proven to be true. Has these other books also proven to be true to you all?

Why do the only books one reads have to be "scriptural?" We would not have very much of an idea of the geography of the Holy Land if we did not get it from non-biblical sources. Nor would we have any understanding of various customs and traditions if we relied on only biblical books to give us that information.
Even the books that tell us to read scripture, were not, themselves, scripture when the words we read were written. They were often just letters written to friends. They only became "scripture" after some early Catholics decided they should be.

 

[Enoch111]

Are you saying these were supposed to be part of the Bible, but were not added? Is it more Jewish history then anything?

In order to understand why the Catholic and Orthodox churches accept more books into their canon, you would have to look into the history of the Septuagint (LXX), which was a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, along with a great deal of corruption (from the second century BC).

After the Babylonian captivity (c 600 BC), many Jews remained and settled outside Palestine, and Greek became their primary language. Thus they sought a Greek translation of the Tanakh, and there is quite a bit of legend attached to the LXX. The bottom line is that they included many non-canonical books (the OT Apocrypha)in their Greek *Bible* .

Those books are: III & IV Kings,Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, Epistle of Jeremy, Prayer of Azarias, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, I & II Maccabees, 1 Esdras, Prayer of Manasses, III & IV Maccabees.

Out of these, the Roman Catholic Church decided to retain seven so-called *Deuterocanonical Books* (over the objections of Catholic scholar Jerome). You will find them in Jerome's Latin Vulgate and the Douay-Rheims Bible. These are seven: Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), Baruch, and I & II Maccabees. Since they do not belong in the Hebrew Tanakh, the Reformers and Protestants rejected them as *Scripture*.

The Orthodox Bibles also added most of these books, plus some others from the OT Apocrypha. Since the Latin and Greek theologians were not familiar with Hebrew, they decided to go along with the Septuagint, and it was only Jerome who knew both Hebrew and Greek and recognized the difference between the OT canon and the Apocryphas.

 

[Willie T]

Want to have some fun?
The Ethiopic Bible contains 81 books in its Old Testament, while the Orthodox Bible has 51 books, compared to the Protestant Bible, (such as the King James), which has 39 books. The Catholic Bible contains 46 books. Add 27 books of the New Testament to each for the total. (Just snagged this off Wikipedia, so I have no idea how accurate it is. Nor do I care.)

 

[Mayflower]

Why do the only books one reads have to be "scriptural?" We would not have very much of an idea of the geography of the Holy Land if we did not get it from non-biblical sources. Nor would we have any understanding of various customs and traditions if we relied on only biblical books to give us that information.
Even the books that tell us to read scripture, were not, themselves, scripture when the words we read were written. They were often just letters written to friends. They only became "scripture" after some early Catholics decided they should be.

I think Ill stick to "textbook" like books for my information...and to the Bible as the Word of God.

 

[Mayflower]

Want to have some fun?
The Ethiopic Bible contains 81 books in its Old Testament, while the Orthodox Bible has 51 books, compared to the Protestant Bible, (such as the King James), which has 39 books. The Catholic Bible contains 46 books. Add 27 books of the New Testament to each for the total. (Just snagged this off Wikipedia, so I have no idea how accurate it is. Nor do I care.)

I have to be honest. Though I love writing, Ill collect books and not read them. Bahaha

 

[Hidden In Him]

One of the reasons I disagree with sola scriptura is because after attended dozens of different churches, I've never actually met a Christian who actually just used the Bible. There's always the matter of interpretation, extended context, etc, whether or not the person realizes it.

For me, the simple solution is simply to always keep a prayer in your heart and verifying things with the source of all Truth: God.

I would regard this one as one of your more insightful responses, Mayflower. I originally set out trying to interpret scripture through scripture alone. But I quickly found out it doesn't work, especially when you get to books which rely heavily on Jewish tradition, such as the Book of Jude for instance. If you want anything resembling an explanation of what is being described, you have to start digging into extra-biblical writings. And then, just as Jane Doe stated (and despite what Bread of Life teaches), you have to rely on the Holy Spirit to lead you into all truth on the matter. Even when you dig into Jewish and early church traditions, you will still be required to discern whose is the most authoritative account, since many of them will differ from one another. But the more you pray to the Lord for wisdom and accurate understanding of the word, the more it will come to you, regardless of what vehicles the Lord has to use to get it over to you.

Want to have some fun?
The Ethiopic Bible contains 81 books in its Old Testament, while the Orthodox Bible has 51 books, compared to the Protestant Bible, (such as the King James), which has 39 books. The Catholic Bible contains 46 books. Add 27 books of the New Testament to each for the total. (Just snagged this off Wikipedia, so I have no idea how accurate it is. Nor do I care.)

And this is precisely why the Lord sent the Spirit to lead us into all truth. People would go batty worrying about what is and what isn't scripture if that were the sole criteria for knowing the truth or not knowing it. Jude quoted the Book of Enoch and obviously regarded it as inspired prophecy. Does anyone in our time likewise regard it as scripture? Not that I know of (I do actually, but I don't know anyone else who does). But you trust your senses. I don't say trust your senses if they have not been trained to discern things, so you need to begin praying for greater wisdom and understanding and keep doing so faithfully throughout the rest of your life. But if you will do this, the Lord will begin to increasingly open your eyes, because you have sought the One in whom all wisdom dwells, asking Him to do so.

 

[Helen]

I would regard this one as one of your more insightful responses, Mayflower. I originally set out trying to interpret scripture through scripture alone. But I quickly found out it doesn't work, especially when you get to books which rely heavily on Jewish tradition, such as the Book of Jude for instance. etc etc

I think you will find that you are responding to the wrong person..as it was @Jane_Doe22 that you quoted here...
For a moment you got me confused there...( which is not hard to do!)
....

 

[Mayflower]

I would regard this one as one of your more insightful responses, Mayflower. I originally set out trying to interpret scripture through scripture alone. But I quickly found out it doesn't work, especially when you get to books which rely heavily on Jewish tradition, such as the Book of Jude for instance. If you want anything resembling an explanation of what is being described, you have to start digging into extra-biblical writings. And then, just as Jane Doe stated (and despite what Bread of Life teaches), you have to rely on the Holy Spirit to lead you into all truth on the matter. Even when you dig into Jewish and early church traditions, you will still be required to discern whose is the most authoritative account, since many of them will differ from one another. But the more you pray to the Lord for wisdom and accurate understanding of the word, the more it will come to you, regardless of what vehicles the Lord has to use to get it over to you.


And this is precisely why the Lord sent the Spirit to lead us into all truth. People would go batty worrying about what is and what isn't scripture if that were the sole criteria for knowing the truth or not knowing it. Jude quoted the Book of Enoch and obviously regarded it as inspired prophecy. Does anyone in our time likewise regard it as scripture? Not that I know of (I do actually, but I don't know anyone else who does). But you trust your senses. I don't say trust your senses if they have not been trained to discern things, so you need to begin praying for greater wisdom and understanding and keep doing so faithfully throughout the rest of your life. But if you will do this, the Lord will begin to increasingly open your eyes, because you have sought the One in whom all wisdom dwells, asking Him to do so.

Are you talking about Jane's quote? Responding to her?

I think I will study the Bible, and if a question comes up on understanding something more, I may check it out. I know Esther is my favorite book of the Bible, so a second Esther does peak my interest...

 

[Jane_Doe22]

Unfortunately - MANY people claim to do this - to the tune of tend of thousands of disjointed and perpetually-splintering Protestant sects - ALL teaching different doctrines yet ALL claiming they were "led" there by the Holy Spirit.

Jesus left a Church to teach the world - NOT a book or the different opinions or feelings of individuals.

I actually don't find the two ideas (listening to the Holy Spirit and a formalized church teaching system) to be incompatible at all. Rather, ideally they should always both being used, providing two different routes of confirmation. Of course, to determine which formalized church teaching system is most correct, I would refer to consulting the Holy Spirit rather than men.

 

[Mayflower]

I can't stop reading this second book of Esther. It is as inspiring to me as the first book. ** I can see why it is not counted as Canon, because of the types, but Esther's prayer and how she had an amiable appearance, but had that fear and anguish standing before the king, even fainting...it is very inspiring. How often do I desire to serve God, but have this sort of anxiety. But Esther is known as woman of virtue and had a very close walk with God.

 

[Hidden In Him]

I think you will find that you are responding to the wrong person..as it was @Jane_Doe22 that you quoted here...
For a moment you got me confused there...( which is not hard to do!)
....

Are you talking about Jane's quote? Responding to her?

LoL. I was quoting Jane but addressing the post to Mayflower...

I was wondering if that might confuse someone.

 

[Uisdean]

As I understand it, the ORIGINAL King James Translation included the deuterocannonical books like Tobit.

And, yes, the historical record is that Luther did toss out any Scripture that the Jews did not cannonize.

Actually, @BreadOfLife is right about the time table. And @Willie T is right about depending on scripture out of scriptural context.
...So...
Do not think that these deuterocannonical books are heretical. They were accepted by The One And Only Church for many centuries. You can read them. However, you are under the Authority of your Bishop/Elder and if they say that these are not cannon, accept that. Read them like you would read Charles Spurgeon or C. S. Lewis. And I pray that in reading you will be blessed.