Books Outside the Bible

[epostle]

perhaps we have an opportunity to learn something --

let's take your view of the RCC during the dark ages... what do you think they did "inconvenience 5 people at dinner one day"??

Is that what happened at the St. Bartholomew's Massacre, or is that what happened to the Waldenses that Pope Frances apologized for -- what exactly do you imagine when it comes to actual history?

What exactly is the view that you have of it? This should be helpful to all.

You want to hold Catholics today accountable for sins centuries ago, but refuse to hold Protestants of today accountable for the sins of their past.
That makes you a phony.
Protestant Inquisitions: "Reformation" Intolerance & Persecution

or just another ignorant anti-Catholic bigot.

Catholics and Protestants today are not accountable for the sins of the past. It's a nowhere discussion. Get that through your thick skull.

​

 

[Prayer Warrior]

Yeh I think I am sticking with concordance. If these other books going to be a headache, the Bible had never steered me wrong. I got lost on this discussion a long time ago. The Holy Spirit is who leads me into all Truth. He will show me everything I need to know. Man cannot.

Mayflower, I think you're wise in this. I just listened to a long lecture explaining why our Bible contains the books that it does. There's a good reason for it! And You're absolutely right to say that it's the Holy Spirit who guides us into all truth!

 

[Prayer Warrior]

The Absurdity of the Romanist Position on Tradition ( by Brian Schwertley)

The Roman Catholic position on tradition requires Romanists to believe in something that is incredible and absurd. The Romanist position is that the whole oral revelation of Christ and the apostles was entrusted to the church hierarchy. This large deposit of truth is just as important, authoritative and binding as the written word of God. This doctrinal position raises a few questions. First, how does this huge volume of material pass from one generation to the next? Obviously, no normal person could memorize or master such a huge deposit of oral teaching. Is it transferred mystically from one generation of bishops to the next by the laying on of hands? Is it stored in the subconscious? Is it miraculously transferred to the conscious mind by the power of the Holy Spirit? Remember, we are talking about a virtual library of material. The Roman Catholic doctrine of an authoritative oral tradition requires a greater miracle than even the divine inspiration of Scripture itself.

Second, if the church hierarchy is in possession of this vast unwritten body of inspired truth from the very beginning then why dole it out in little snippets over a period of almost two thousand years? Keep in mind there was only one Christ and twelve apostles. Even if we include Paul and the inspired evangelists the oral tradition would at most only include a few dozen men. The papal church has had dozens of popes and literally thousands of bishops. Why not simply write down the whole inspired oral tradition and have it printed so the whole church could benefit from it? Why not put it all out in the open so that all may drink from this well of inspired wisdom? Why wait until A.D. 1079 to tell the church that God required the celibacy of the priesthood? Just think of all those poor priests who were sinning by getting married because the earlier popes and bishops didn’t share the oral tradition on this matter. Why wait until A.D. 1854 to tell the church about the immaculate conception of Mary? This oral tradition could have helped all those earlier generations in their adoration of the blessed virgin. Why wait until the1960’s to tell the laity to read the Bible in their own language?

The truth of the matter is that there will never, ever come a time when all the supposed oral traditions will be written down. Why? Because the Romanist fiction of authoritative tradition that resides with the popes and bishops gives the church hierarchy incredible power. If the oral tradition were written down for all to examine then the pope and bishops would lose all their flexibility. They would no longer be able to make up new doctrines and ordinances. They, just like everyone else, would be forced to submit to an objective written standard. With an unwritten, unverifiable, evolving, changing standard a new doctrine or practice can be made up and imposed on the people for more power or to increase the popularity of the church officials. This gives the Roman Catholic hierarchy a cult-like power over their flock.

Third, why would the God of infinite wisdom commit some of His revelation to writing and the rest to oral tradition? While written revelation is easily preserved from corruption, oral tradition is easily corrupted and lost. Charles Hodge writes,

It is of course conceded that Christ and his Apostles said and did much that is not recorded in the Scriptures; and it is further admitted that if we had any certain knowledge of such unrecorded instructions, they would be of equal authority with what is written in the Scriptures. But Protestants maintain that they were not intended to constitute a part of the permanent rule of faith to the Church. They were designed for the men of that generation. The showers, which fell a thousand years ago, watered the earth and rendered it fruitful for men then living. They cannot now be gathered up and made available for us. They did not constitute a reservoir for the supply of future generations. In like manner the unrecorded teachings of Christ and his Apostles did their work. They were not designed for our instruction. It is as impossible to learn what they were, as it is to gather up the leaves, which adorned and enriched the earth when Christ walked in the garden of Gethsemane.

This impossibility arises out of the limitations of our nature, as well as its corruption consequent on the fall. Man has not the clearness of perception, the retentiveness of memory, or the power of presentation, to enable him (without supernatural aid) to give a trustworthy account of a discourse once heard, a few years or even months after its delivery. And that this should be done, over and over from month to month for thousands of years, is impossibility. If to this be added the difficulty in the way of this oral transmission, arising from the blindness of men to the things of the Spirit, which prevents their understanding what they hear, and from the disposition to pervert and misrepresent the truth to suit their own prejudices and purposes, it must be acknowledged that tradition cannot be a reliable source of knowledge of religious truth. This is universally acknowledged and acted upon, except by Romanists. No one pretends to determine what Luther and Calvin, Latimer and Cranmer, taught, except from contemporaneous written records. Much less will any sane man pretend to know what Moses and the prophets taught except from their own writings.​

Further, when a pope or the bishops come up with a new doctrine from the supposed trough of unwritten apostolic tradition, how are we to determine whether or not they simply made it up out of their own imagination? Are we supposed to simply accept their word on it? Is this not a blind faith in the words of men? When the apostles first delivered the inspired teachings in the generation after the death of Christ they backed up the new revelations with miracles, signs and wonders (2 Cor. 12:12; Ac. 14:3; Heb. 2:3-4; cf. Ex. 4:5; 1 Ki. 17:24; Jn. 10:25). The Roman Catholic Church offers no verification at all.

 

[Mayflower]

And it is Christ Himself who confirmed and established the OT canon while EXCLUDING the non-canonical books. According to God this is the Hebrew canon (which corresponds to out Old Testament):
Torah = the Law of Moses = 5 books
Nebiim = the Prophets = 8 books
Kethubim = the Psalms = 11 books
TOTAL = 24 books in the Hebrew Tanakh.

Is there scripture confirming this? Are the books in the Tanakh the regular OT? And what about the New Testament?

 

[Mayflower]

Mayflower, I think you're wise in this. I just listened to a long lecture explaining why our Bible contains the books that it does. There's a good reason for it! And You're absolutely right to say that it's the Holy Spirit who guides us into all truth!

This long lecture wouldn't happen to be on YouTube would it?

 

[Jane_Doe22]

Is there scripture confirming this? Are the books in the Tanakh the regular OT? And what about the New Testament?

That question is something you'll get a million opinions on.
As to my $0.02: again, I've never met a Christian who's studies actually came just from the Bible (however many books you think should be in it). There's always stuff like historical context, other people's writings on passages, other theological statements/thoughts etc.

 

[Enoch111]

Is there scripture confirming this? Are the books in the Tanakh the regular OT? And what about the New Testament?

See Luke 24.

 

[BreadOfLife]

What exactly do you think is in Hebrews 6:13-17??

And there is not a single verse of the NT that looks like Wis 5:17-20
Wisdom 5:17-20
17 He shall take his zeal for armor
and arm creation to requite the enemy,
18 Shall put on righteousness for a breastplate,
wear sure judgment for a helmet,
19 Shall take invincible holiness for a shield,
20 and sharpen his sudden anger for a sword.
The universe will war with him against the foolhardy;

more Bible - less making stuff up

Looks like some of the verses got transposed.

If you read my ORIGINAL listing of these verses in post #503 – you will see the correct listing:
Eph. 6:13-17 follows the – armor, helmet, breastplate, sword, and shield of God described in Wis. 5:17-20.
Heb. 11:35 – Paul teaches about the martyrdom of the mother and her sonsdescribed in 2 Macc. 7:1-42.

You can try ALL day long but you won’t be able to debunk this because it is Scriptural FACT . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Until you read the actual Bible and find not one reference to anyone in purgatory in Matt 5:25-26
Not one reference to anyone in purgatory in 1 Cor. 3:12-15
Not one reference to anyone in purgatory in Matt. 18:32-35, Luke 12:58-59

And after having read the actual Bible - we also find
Not one reference to anyone in purgatory in 2 Macc 42-46

In no case above do you have someone dying then being tortured/tormented before entering heaven. That doctrine is one of many that have been "made up".

Thank you for that extremely ignorant perversion of Purgatory.

First of all – Purgatory isn’t necessarily a place of torment – but a state of final purification.
The process described in 1 Cor. 3:12-15 is descriptive and revealing . . .

a. This is NOT Heavenbecause suffering is involved – and there is NOsuffering in Heaven (Rev. 21:4).

b. This is NOT Hellbecause the person WILL BE SAVED – and there isNO salvation in Hell.

c. This passage is describing a THIRD STATE– a state of purgation and purification whereby the person will ultimately make it to Heaven.

Now - let’s see what Scriptural acrobatics you need to perform to dance your way out of this . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

And it is Christ Himself who confirmed and established the OT canon while EXCLUDING the non-canonical books. According to God this is the Hebrew canon (which corresponds to our Old Testament):
Torah = the Law of Moses = 5 books
Nebiim = the Prophets = 8 books
Kethubim = the Psalms = 11 books
TOTAL = 24 books in the Hebrew Tanakh.

And this is nonsense.

The Books of Job and Ruth are NEITHER Prophets NOR Psalms yet they are canonical.
The OLDEST Talmud – the Babylonian Talmud lists the Deuterocanonical Books as “SCRIPTURE”.
WHY is that?? Can you explain this??

WHY is it that there are some 200 quotes, references andallusions to these Books on the ages of the NT??
Can you explain that??

 

[BreadOfLife]

As regards the Apocryphal books, they are sometimes known as the Deuterocanonical books, and the word Deutero- canonical means, outside the canon of Scripture.

Thank you for once again proving that you are totally incapable of telling the truth . . .

"Deutero" means SECOND - not "outside".
Don't you EVER tire of being proven wrong??

 

[BreadOfLife]

oxymoron.

1. sinless people do not need a Savior from sinlessness.
2. Sinful people do. period.

The sinless angels of heaven do not refer to Christ as "their" savior from sin.


1 Mary was not sinless - Christ was her Lord and Savior
2. Mary was not born from a sinless womb of immaculate conception
3. Stephen - "full of grace" - also was not sinless
4. When someone attempted the "blessed be Mary the mother of Jesus" idea out on Jesus - His response was "ON THE CONTRARY - blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it.” - Luke 11:27-28

Christ Himself gave us the perfect response to that scenario

And this post is an exercise in logical stupidity.

If Mary is sinless – SOMEBODY made her that way. Uhhhh, that would be her Savior.

There is no “oxymoron” here – just simple logic . . .

 

[Enoch111]

The Books of Job and Ruth are NEITHER Prophets NOR Psalms yet they are canonical.

"Prophets" and "Psalms" were the titles of the groupings of the OT books. Here is how they were grouped:

TORAH (the Law of Moses) = 5 books
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy
Hebrew Titles: Bereshith, Shemoth, Vayikra, Bemidbar, Devarim

NEBIIM or NEVIIM (the Prophets) = 8 books
Joshua, Judges, Samuel (1 book), Kings (1 Book), Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, The Twelve (1 book) -- [Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi]
Hebrew Titles: Yehoshua, Shophtim, Shemuel, Mèlakhim, Yeshaayahu, Yirmeyah, Yechezqel, Hoshea, Yoel, Amos, Obhadhyah, Yonah, Mikhayah, Nahum, Habhaqquq, Sephanyah, Haggai, Zekharyah, Malakhi.

KETHUBIM or KETUVIM (the Psalms) = 11 books
Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Megilloth (Five Scrolls) [Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther], Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah (1 book), Chronicles ( 1 book).
Hebrew Titles: Tehillim, Mishle, Iyyobh, Shir Hashiryim, Ruth, Eikhah, Qoheleth, Ester, Daniel, Ezra-Nechemia, Divre Hayamim.

 

[BreadOfLife]

"Prophets" and "Psalms" were the titles of the groupings of the OT books. Here is how they were grouped:

TORAH (the Law of Moses) = 5 books
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy
Hebrew Titles: Bereshith, Shemoth, Vayikra, Bemidbar, Devarim

NEBIIM or NEVIIM (the Prophets) = 8 books
Joshua, Judges, Samuel (1 book), Kings (1 Book), Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, The Twelve (1 book) -- [Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi]
Hebrew Titles: Yehoshua, Shophtim, Shemuel, Mèlakhim, Yeshaayahu, Yirmeyah, Yechezqel, Hoshea, Yoel, Amos, Obhadhyah, Yonah, Mikhayah, Nahum, Habhaqquq, Sephanyah, Haggai, Zekharyah, Malakhi.

KETHUBIM or KETUVIM (the Psalms) = 11 books
Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Megilloth (Five Scrolls) [Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther], Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah (1 book), Chronicles ( 1 book).
Hebrew Titles: Tehillim, Mishle, Iyyobh, Shir Hashiryim, Ruth, Eikhah, Qoheleth, Ester, Daniel, Ezra-Nechemia, Divre Hayamim.

So, you have to ask yourself – WHICH Jews were right?

a. The Saducees rejected ALL of the first 5 Books (Torah) as Scripture.

b. The Pharisees and the rest of Judaism accepted the other Books –INCLUDING the 7 Deuterocanonical Books in the OPEN Canon prior to the 2nd century.

c. The Jews AFTER Jesus ascended to the Father and AFTER the destruction of the Temple got rid of the Deuterocanonical Books.

Sooooo, tell me: WHICH group of Jews had the correct Canon??
WHY were they correct?

This are questions that ALL Protestants need to ask themselves . . .

 

[farouk]

This long lecture wouldn't happen to be on YouTube would it?

Might be a useful video for reference.

 

[farouk]

Thank you for once again proving that you are totally incapable of telling the truth . . .

"Deutero" means SECOND - not "outside".
Don't you EVER tire of being proven wrong??

The canon of Scripture is one; there aren't two Bibles...

 

[BreadOfLife]

The canon of Scripture is one; there aren't two Bibles...

Nobody said there was. There ARE 2 Canons, however: OT & NT

 

[farouk]

Nobody said there was. There ARE 2 Canons, however: OT & NT

The usual word is Testament, for Old and New Testaments.

 

[farouk]

Yeh I think I am sticking with concordance.

PS:

Here is a good one:

You know how there are various editions of Bible concordances, all good. Young's Concordance, Strong's Concordance, Cruden's Concordance and Wigram's Concordance.

And so: Young's for the young.

Strong's for the strong.

Cruden's for the crude.

Wigram's for the bigwigs...

 

[bbyrd009]

^HA!

Is there scripture confirming this? Are the books in the Tanakh the regular OT? And what about the New Testament?

it is at least worth considering imo that Paul meant something diff than we do @ "Scripture"
in "all Scripture is given for" etcetc. Today we think "Bible," but Paul likely did not, as his writings indicate
lots of Stoicism, etc