Missing books in Bible?

[Dodo_David]

Folks, this particular dispute won't be settled on this side of eternity until the Messiah returns.

I am more concerned about the books that everyone agrees are Scriptures than with disputed books..

Anyway, the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) has a right to dictate the canon used by its members.

Christians not in the RCC are free not to use the RCC's canon.

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

No, the doctrine of Purgatory does not come from the "apocryphal" books.

.
Purgatory


Prayer for the dead (Judaism)


A record of Jewish prayer and offering of sacrifice for the dead at the time of the Maccabees is seen being referred to in 2 Maccabees, a book written in Greek, which, though not accepted as part of the Jewish Bible, is regarded as canonical by Eastern Christianity and the Roman Catholic Church:

 

[Mungo]

.
Purgatory

Prayer for the dead (Judaism)

A record of Jewish prayer and offering of sacrifice for the dead at the time of the Maccabees is seen being referred to in 2 Maccabees, a book written in Greek, which, though not accepted as part of the Jewish Bible, is regarded as canonical by Eastern Christianity and the Roman Catholic Church:

There is one quote (singular) from one book (singular) from the deuterocanonicals that is used to support Purgatory.

I use over 20 quotes from non deuterocanonical books to support Purgatory. I rarely bother with the Maccabees quote.

Therefore to suggest that Purgatory comes from the deuterocanonical books (plural) is incorrect.

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

There is one quote (singular) from one book (singular) from the deuterocanonicals that is used to support Purgatory.

I use over 20 quotes from non deuterocanonical books to support Purgatory. I rarely bother with the Maccabees quote.

Therefore to suggest that Purgatory comes from the deuterocanonical books (plural) is incorrect.

Sheesh !!!!!! go back and read my posts .... it was not about purgatory .... OK ?????

 

[Quantrill]

No it wasn't closed until into the second century. At the time of Jesus there were disputes about what was accepted. There wasn't even one version of Judaism but many sects. The Sadducees only accepted the first 5 books - the Torah.

Most Jews did not read Hebrew. The Septuagint was the most commonly read version.

Jesus told them to listen to what the Scribes and Pharisees taught not to read books. You see the Jews were not sola scriptura - another Protestant error. Jesus told them to listen to those who had authority to teach.

It was up to the Christian Church to decide which books it accepted into its canon.

The Septuagint and it's books were accepted from the beginning but the earliest formal canonisation we have was at the Council of Rome (382) when Pope Damasus issued a decree listing all the books that we (Catholics) accept now - OT & NT. They were all approved at the Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397 & 419) as well.

Pope Damasus asked Jerome to make a Latin translation that became know as the Vulgate, published in 405 AD. That is the version that Martin Luther inherited. He removed some of the OT books, and even tried to remove some of the NT books that had been accepted as canonical, calling James an "epistle of straw" because it contradicted his "faith alone" belief

Again, Second century b.c. maybe.

There were no disputes in Jesus day over what Scriptures were inspired and what were not.

Jesus acknowleded the Jews acceptance of the Old Testament when He said they, the religious leaders of the Jews, sit in Moses seat. Which answered your question as to why should we believe the Jews since they rejected Christ.

No, the Church didn't come into existance until after the Old Testament canon was sealed. The Church was responsible for the New Testament.

But there is no proof that the apocryphal books were part of the Septuigent until the 4th century.

Jerome translated what the Pope wanted. That didn't make the apocryphal books inspired by God. Jerome himself rejected the apocrypha.

Quantrill

Folks, this particular dispute won't be settled on this side of eternity until the Messiah returns.

I am more concerned about the books that everyone agrees are Scriptures than with disputed books..

Anyway, the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) has a right to dictate the canon used by its members.

Christians not in the RCC are free not to use the RCC's canon.

So what? Its a forum for discussion and debate.

No, the Roman Church does not have the right to add or take away from Scripture. God gives no one that 'right'. In fact, He gives a severe warning against such action.

Quantrill

 

[Mungo]

Again, Second century b.c. maybe.

There were no disputes in Jesus day over what Scriptures were inspired and what were not.

Jesus acknowleded the Jews acceptance of the Old Testament when He said they, the religious leaders of the Jews, sit in Moses seat. Which answered your question as to why should we believe the Jews since they rejected Christ.

No, the Church didn't come into existance until after the Old Testament canon was sealed. The Church was responsible for the New Testament.

But there is no proof that the apocryphal books were part of the Septuigent until the 4th century.

Jerome translated what the Pope wanted. That didn't make the apocryphal books inspired by God. Jerome himself rejected the apocrypha.

Quantrill

You are wrong on every point you make. And as you are just recycling old unproven claims that I have already answered I see no point in continuing.

You need to read some history

 

[Dodo_David]

You are wrong on every point you make. And as you are just recycling old unproven claims that I have already answered I see no point in continuing.

You need to read some history

Mungo, suppose that someone else were to say to you what you say in your above-quoted statement. How would you react?

 

[Mungo]

Mungo, suppose that someone else were to say to you what you say in your above-quoted statement. How would you react?

I'd try and backup so,me of the claims I make.

And don't ask why I don't do that myself. Quantrill was first into this exchange.

For example:
"The apocyphal books were rejected by the Jews whose canon was closed by the time of Christ. The Old Testament was closed."

When was it closed? Who closed it? What evidence is there that it was closed?

It always seems to be Catholics that have to prove anything they say. Protestants just state things as though that was evidence enough.

I could for example give evidence that it was not closed but why should the onus be on me? Quantrill made the claim that it was closed.

 

[Sweet Pea]

^ To quote Cousin Eddie from the timeless classic that is Christmas Vacation: "Bingo."

The Eastern Orthodox (EO) Church would arguably be the oldest branch of the three, so if you base your argument on tradition it would be the logical end of trying to find the closest thing to how Christianity was likely practiced in the first centuries of this side of Christ's birth. So yes, EO would be the closest thing to the early practices of Christianity in one sense.

However, it would be different from the very first instances in the church in the Bible in that there were obviously house churches and small gatherings of persecuted believers.

With that said, expression of Christianity in worshipping the Father in both spirit and truth would not be limited to a particular style of worship. Likewise, the canon of Scripture diverges for the three branches. One is safest sticking to the common denominator (IMHO) and only treating the other books as not quite the same all the way to not divinely inspired. I do not believe our Lord would muddy the waters with an unclear canon.

What about the Messianic Jews? Wouldn't they be the oldest? Did I ask that already?

The Jews did not close the canon until sometime in the second century. That the Jews rejected some of the books that were already accepted by Christians does not mean that Christians should then reject them. Remember the Jews rejected Christ so of what value are their decisions? The Jews do not decide the Christians Bible.

It was not up to Jerome to decide the Canon. The canon of the OT was decided before Jerome did his translation.

I thought they were rejected because of all the historical errors?

Folks, this particular dispute won't be settled on this side of eternity until the Messiah returns.

I am more concerned about the books that everyone agrees are Scriptures than with disputed books..

Anyway, the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) has a right to dictate the canon used by its members.

Christians not in the RCC are free not to use the RCC's canon.

I agree. I was hoping to get some info, but I'm afraid I've started an argument, and I apologize. I really wish I knew that answer to this, but I think I can only go by what I know. The fact that there are historical errors is enough to make me think they should not have been included.

 

[Suhar]

I have tried to read other books that did not make the bible... The book of Enoch for example and did not get anything out of them interesting.

Actually it explains some things that are still debated. It explains who "sons of God are" very well. It explains who demons are.

 

[Mungo]

I thought they were rejected because of all the historical errors?

The reformers like Luther were not interested in historica accuracy. Moreover at the time of the Reformation they would not have known whether they were historically accurate or not.

I just read on a website that they are full of errors and that is why they are not included today.

What errors?

I suspect that is just Protestant propaganda.

 

[Sweet Pea]

That someone died a death three different ways and another person was around for an event, but somewhere else it said they died a hundred ? years earlier. Stuff like that.

 

[SolaGratia]

Moreover at the time of the Reformation they would not have known whether they were historically accurate or not.

Perhaps the Reformers just took Jerome's word for for it that they (the books of the Apocrypha) were dubious in nature.

 

[Mungo]

That someone died a death three different ways and another person was around for an event, but somewhere else it said they died a hundred ? years earlier. Stuff like that.

Try googling BIble Errors and you will find dozens of links to lists of errors in the Bible - scientific, historical and contradictions between different books. (for example http://www.extremelysmart.com/insight/mistaken/Bible_errors.php

One I found somehwere (& I can't be bothered to refind it) meant that a king's son was born two years before his father. And I'm referring to books we all agree on,

Why people expect there to be no such errors I don't know. The writers were not modern scientists or historians with all the wealth of information we have now. Such errors or contradictions do not matter. The writers of scripture were writing about God, and man's relationship with God, about how we came to be in the state we are, and what God has done/ is doing about it. There were not writing an Encyclopedia.

If you point out such errors to Bible literalists they will find some convoluted (and very unconvincing) ways of explaining some of these errors.


.

Perhaps the Reformers just took Jerome's word for for it that they (the books of the Apocrypha) were dubious in nature.

Why would they do that unless they were already looking for an excuse to chop the books out?

Why for example would Luther take the Bible the Church had been using for 1500 years, the one he had been using for years, and suddenly say "Oh, this guy Jerome, 1,000 years ago didn't like these books so I'll discard them)"? It makes no sense.

Anyway the excuse was that the Jews after Christ, and after the Church had adopted them, decided to reject them.

 

[Dodo_David]

What errors?

I suspect that is just Protestant propaganda.

As opposed to Roman Catholic propaganda? j/k