Books Outside the Bible

[Jane_Doe22]

It's not only MY belief - it's a Biblical teaching.
However - I realize that others don't accept that teaching - and that's fine with me.

I only object to those who LIE about what the Church teaches and practices.

Then why in the world are you getting on my case? I hadn't even mention Catholics until you specifically brought it up, and then I stated my respect for many things Catholics. I have not Catholic bashed or lied/misrepresented Catholic beliefs (I very much object to both of those actions).

 

[BreadOfLife]

Then why in the world are you getting on my case? I hadn't even mention Catholics until you specifically brought it up, and then I stated my respect for many things Catholics.

If that was not your intent - I apologize.
Your post came of as being antagonistic - but apparently, I was mistaken.

 

[BreadOfLife]

My copy of the Jerusalem Bible contains an epistle called "Jude" and in it I find a reference to the Book of Enoch and The Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs. Neither of these books are listed in the canon. The fact that Jude references them is not proof that they should be listed in the canon. However, and this is crucial to me, the canon must be decided by the concensus of the Elders. For one Elder to toss out a document that had been included in the canon just because he does not like it causes me serious concern. I think it would be really productive to study the reasons Luther did not want the 'deuterocanonical' documents before passing final judgment. Regardless of his reasons, I believe that the Elders of the Church, in concencus, should have the final say.

Therefore, whichever side you pick, you must be in error: since the schisms of the Church have made concensus impossible. So, in order to keep sane in this insane world, follow the ruling of those in spiritual authority over you.

Finally, @BreadOfLife has make a very good point in post #63: many of the New Testament images and ideas come from these documents. I find his passion sometimes/frequently irritating but he is passionate about his beliefs. And if you can get past that, you will find that he does say some interesting and useful things. I can say that about a number of you: especially those of you who make me scream in frustration because what you say makes no sense to me.

I think BoL would do better to find a way to gently and kindly point our our mistaken ideas than to call them "lies". Obviously, we don't know what we are talking about if we don't understand Roman Church thought!!! I once had a sales manager who told me that I needed to learn how to tell people to "go to Hell and make them look forward to the trip".

And I would be MORE than happy to do that if they were NOT presented as historical "facts".
When somebody presens an untruth as "fact" - then they are lying or at the very LEAST, they are perpetuating lies.

2+2=5 is a "mistake".
Stating that Jerome rejected the Deuterocanonicals is a LIE.

BIG difference . . .

 

[ScottA]

Soooo - you call them out when they spread lies about the Catholic Church??

Funny - I don't seem to remember even ONE instance where you came too the defense of the Catholic Church during one of these tirades of lies.
WHY is that, Scott??

The fact is that anti-Catholicism has become the last acceptable prejudice . . .

Just because you are blinded by your owe prejudice and have missed my comments of fairness and including them, does not mean I did not do it, as you say. You are wrong. I did, and do.

Not funny at all.

You complain of prejudices, but have become prejudice yourself. If you want to fix the problem - don't do what they do.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

If that was not your intent - I apologize.
Your post came of as being antagonistic - but apparently, I was mistaken.

No I was never antagonistic. May I suggest that not everyone is out to attack Catholics at all? There are many prejudices out there, not just anti-Catholic. By learning to look past prejudice, we can better love and understand each other, and better serve as Christ would have us do.

 

[Willie T]

BOL is close to impossible to reason with.

The Catholic churches established in many towns took $$$ in return for promised "indulgences." Period.
You can make all the claims of "abuse" that you want to, but it boils down to this simple fact.... that even he agrees with: Parishioners all over the place gave their priests money thinking, and being told, they were buying "indulgences" for both themselves and/or for the dead.

Crying, "You don't have a piece of paper proving the Pope ordered it." doesn't change one thing about the whole fiasco.

 

[BreadOfLife]

No I was never antagonistic. May I suggest that not everyone is out to attack Catholics at all? There are many prejudices out there, not just anti-Catholic. By learning to look past prejudice, we can better love and understand each other, and better serve as Christ would have us do.

You can “suggest” whatever you like – but it doesn’t make it the truth.

To say that nobody here attacks the Catholic Church “at all” is an even bigger lie than what some of them are posting.

Remember Jane – it’s not the object of prejudice who needs to look past the prejudice and hatred – but the one with the prejudice . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

BOL is close to impossible to reason with.

The Catholic churches established in many towns took $$$ in return for promised "indulgences." Period.
You can make all the claims of "abuse" that you want to, but it boils down to this simple fact.... that even he agrees with: Parishioners all over the place gave their priests money thinking, and being told, they were buying "indulgences" for both themselves and/or for the dead.

Crying, "You don't have a piece of paper proving the Pope ordered it." doesn't change one thing about the whole fiasco.

And to say the CHURCH sold indulgences remains a lie that YOU are perpetuating . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Just because you are blinded by your owe prejudice and have missed my comments of fairness and including them, does not mean I did not do it, as you say. You are wrong. I did, and do.

Not funny at all.

You complain of prejudices, but have become prejudice yourself. If you want to fix the problem - don't do what they do.

I only expose lies - I don't perpetuate them.
BIG difference, my sanctimonious friend . . .

 

[Jane_Doe22]

You can “suggest” whatever you like – but it doesn’t make it the truth.

To say that nobody here attacks the Catholic Church “at all” is an even bigger lie than what some of them are posting.

Remember Jane – it’s not the object of prejudice who needs to look past the prejudice and hatred – but the one with the prejudice . . .

Dude: I said not everyone is out to attack Catholics.

Please acknowledge what I actually said.

 

[ScottA]

I only expose lies - I don't perpetuate them.
BIG difference, my sanctimonious friend . . .

And again you have exposed your self.

 

[Philip James]

The Catholic churches established in many towns took $$$ in return for promised "indulgences." Period.

Wow... Just wow

 

[Willie T]

And to say the CHURCH sold indulgences remains a lie that YOU are perpetuating . . .

You can keep on claiming that sad excuse "The priests and church officials are the ones who actually did it, not "the Church", itself." all you want.... but that doesn't change the truth of what we both know was an ongoing practice, for years, of fleecing the people.

 

[Uisdean]

And I would be MORE than happy to do that if they were NOT presented as historical "facts".
When somebody presens an untruth as "fact" - then they are lying or at the very LEAST, they are perpetuating lies.

2+2=5 is a "mistake".
Stating that Jerome rejected the Deuterocanonicals is a LIE.

BIG difference . . .

I won't argue the definition of "lie" at this point. Let's stick to the thread:
Why are the documents that Jude references not canon and yet other documents referenced in Holy Scripture included in canon?

My point is that you are not convincing me. I may be Protestant, but I do think the original set of documents was founded by concensus through the Holy Spirit. You are undermining the Truth with your zealousness. Why should I listen to you when your attitude is so irritating? You are not 'stomping out lies'. If I can't accept what you say and I--partially--agree with you, what makes you think you are "making disciples" and promoting the Word of God? You give me cause to think they may be right!

 

[Uisdean]

You can keep on claiming that sad excuse "The priests and church officials are the ones who actually did it, not "the Church", itself." all you want.... but that doesn't change the truth of what we both know was an ongoing practice, for years, of fleecing the people.

What's really sad is that most of them truly believed this. And today we have the same problem: the "Prosperity Gospel" preachers may not be selling documents of salvation, but they sure are fleecing their followers. When we denounce Indulgences we should also include them.

 

[BobRyan]

So I have heard about the Book of Enoch, the Book of Wisdom, and Book of Macabees. They are from the Apocrypha right?

Do those who read this see it as "God breathed?" Like the Bible. Or.does it just provide more wisdom and insight. Do these books add or take away anything from what is in the Bible or just considered different books?

I am leery to read anything apart from the Bible, because I don't want to be lead astray. But where do these books come from if not divinely inspired?

I have read and studied about Bible Canon. But those books that were not included in the Bible, I am just curious if they are worth reading and for what purpose. Is it just for history and inspiration? Or are there different theologies the Bible doesn't speak of that can confuse. If not for my church family, I probably would have completely dug further into the Book of Mormon. But this is why I am cautious to read anything that isn't God's Word now.

I am just curious of yalls thoughts.

Those books were written by non-Christian Jews before the time of Christ and are not inspired text. Jerome when translating from Greek to create the Latin Vulgate - noted that they are not part of the canon of scripture.

Josephus in the first century A.D. also agrees with this noting that the scriptures were not changed at all for at least 400 years prior to his day.

 

[BobRyan]

Same time I want to be careful not to be reading sources that can.confuse my understanding of God's Word. I will pray carefully of anything I decide to check out.

I wonder what guidelines I should make. It would all be to understand what is written in the Bible better.

A lot of books that are not inspired - are interesting to read, and that is also true of the Apocrypha. Just remember the wise words of Jerome - they are not scripture.

 

[Willie T]

What's really sad is that most of them truly believed this. And today we have the same problem: the "Prosperity Gospel" preachers may not be selling documents of salvation, but they sure are fleecing their followers. When we denounce Indulgences we should also include them.

Actually all these comments haven't been about "denouncing" the selling of ANY spiritual expectation to suckers. I think it is agreed by all here that such stuff is bogus con crap.
I am, and have been, saying that the Catholic Church allowed that mess to go on back then, just as we Protestants today accept the Prosperity Preaching continuing right on. And our friend, BOL, seems to want to say that since the Church didn't issue a specific decree, it never happened in the name of the church...….. despite the fact that it was the local churches, condoned and supported by the larger "Church", doing the selling.

 

[BobRyan]

You can “suggest” whatever you like – but it doesn’t make it the truth.

To say that nobody here attacks the Catholic Church “at all” is an even bigger lie than what some of them are posting.

Remember Jane – it’s not the object of prejudice who needs to look past the prejudice and hatred – but the one with the prejudice . . .

I can't tell if you are talking about the infallible counsel of LATERAN IV calling for the "extermination of heretics and Jews" or not. What exactly is this about??

Don't get me wrong on that infallability thing - I am not saying they are never right about something. For example when Clement XIV decreed the abolishing "forever" of the Jesuit order "by all the fullness of the apostolic succession" power available to the Pope at the time - the reasons he gave for it may indeed have been valid.

 

[BreadOfLife]

And again you have exposed your self.

No, I've exposed YOU . . .