What Do You Think Would Have Happened If...

[tom55]

The apocryphal books were never considered by the KJV as part of the canon. In early Protestant Bibles they were placed in a section of their own and labeled as not being fit to establish doctrine but could be read.

Jerome always stated that the apocrypha were not canonical. When was his 'Vulgate' translated? And, I like the King James Version.

What Septuagint? Do you have a copy of it? Where did authors quote from the Septuagint? If the 'Septuagint' included the apocrypha as Scripture, then it was wrong. Where is the proof that the apocrypha was considered Scripture in the so called Septuagint?

Stranger

I see you keep dodging and refuse to answer the very hard questions I have asked you. I suspect it is because if you were to answer them you would see how you have made a mistake in accepting a bible that has translational errors (KJV) and lacks all the inspired scripture given to us by God.

You use Jerome as one of the reasons you accept your fallacious belief, however, as we know from his own writings that in his later years he did indeed accept the Deuterocanonical books of the Bible. In fact, he wound up strenuously defending their status as inspired Scripture.

But let us pretend that Jerome did not defend them. Why would you ignore the dozens of other Church Fathers that did accept them? Why agree with Jerome and not all the other Church Fathers? Possibly because of your bias?

The authority to define the canon of Scripture for Christians has been given to Christ's Church, not the Jews. You accept what a certain Jewish sect has defined as canonical. I accept what the Christian Church has defined as canonical for the last 1600+ years.

Why did God allow the Christian Church to accept those 7 books as canon for sooooo long and then after the Reformation change his mind? Is God confused or is man confused?

 

[Stranger]

I see you keep dodging and refuse to answer the very hard questions I have asked you. I suspect it is because if you were to answer them you would see how you have made a mistake in accepting a bible that has translational errors (KJV) and lacks all the inspired scripture given to us by God.

You use Jerome as one of the reasons you accept your fallacious belief, however, as we know from his own writings that in his later years he did indeed accept the Deuterocanonical books of the Bible. In fact, he wound up strenuously defending their status as inspired Scripture.

But let us pretend that Jerome did not defend them. Why would you ignore the dozens of other Church Fathers that did accept them? Why agree with Jerome and not all the other Church Fathers? Possibly because of your bias?

The authority to define the canon of Scripture for Christians has been given to Christ's Church, not the Jews. You accept what a certain Jewish sect has defined as canonical. I accept what the Christian Church has defined as canonical for the last 1600+ years.

Why did God allow the Christian Church to accept those 7 books as canon for sooooo long and then after the Reformation change his mind? Is God confused or is man confused?

I believe I did answer all your questions. If not, point it out and I will try and answer.

Where do you find that Jerome later defended the Apocryphal books as inspired Scripture?

Christ's Church didn't start till Pentacost. The Old Testament was in existance long before that. It would be the Jews in Israel that were responsible for the Old Testament Canon. And that Canon does not include the Apocrypha.

I ignore any Church 'fathers' who accept the Apocrypha as Scripture because the Old Testament was already complete. And the Apocryphal books were not in it.

The Apocryphal books were not declared Scripture by the Catholic Church until the Council of Trent in 1546. It wasn't that they were in the process of determining the canonization of Scripture that they declared them so. They declared them so in response to the Reformation. They needed these extra books to combat Luthor.

So, no books were ever taken out of Scripture. Roman Catholicism added books to Scripture. Thus Catholicism created the confusion you speak of.

Stranger

 

[tom55]

I believe I did answer all your questions. If not, point it out and I will try and answer.

Where do you find that Jerome later defended the Apocryphal books as inspired Scripture?

Christ's Church didn't start till Pentacost. The Old Testament was in existance long before that. It would be the Jews in Israel that were responsible for the Old Testament Canon. And that Canon does not include the Apocrypha.

I ignore any Church 'fathers' who accept the Apocrypha as Scripture because the Old Testament was already complete. And the Apocryphal books were not in it.

The Apocryphal books were not declared Scripture by the Catholic Church until the Council of Trent in 1546. It wasn't that they were in the process of determining the canonization of Scripture that they declared them so. They declared them so in response to the Reformation. They needed these extra books to combat Luthor.

So, no books were ever taken out of Scripture. Roman Catholicism added books to Scripture. Thus Catholicism created the confusion you speak of.

Stranger

Scroll back thru my responses to you and you will find the questions you did not answer.

If I was to quote Jerome you would not accept it. Find his writings yourself, like I did, and then don't accept what he said instead of me finding it for you and not accepting what he said.

You accept what the Jews have decided in canonical for Christians? Interesting!

Your statement "Christ's Church didn't start till Pentacost" is not even logical.

You ignore any Church Father that disagrees with you because you are biased HOWEVER if you read the Church Fathers you would see they overwhelmingly support Catholic theology and beliefs.

The Reformation tried to change 1500 years of Christian history and took canonized books out of the Bible.Because of the Reformation The Council of Trent infallibly reiterated what the Church had long taught regarding the canons of the Old and New Testaments which is a historical FACT.

 

[Stranger]

Scroll back thru my responses to you and you will find the questions you did not answer.

If I was to quote Jerome you would not accept it. Find his writings yourself, like I did, and then don't accept what he said instead of me finding it for you and not accepting what he said.

You accept what the Jews have decided in canonical for Christians? Interesting!

Your statement "Christ's Church didn't start till Pentacost" is not even logical.

You ignore any Church Father that disagrees with you because you are biased HOWEVER if you read the Church Fathers you would see they overwhelmingly support Catholic theology and beliefs.

The Reformation tried to change 1500 years of Christian history and took canonized books out of the Bible.Because of the Reformation The Council of Trent infallibly reiterated what the Church had long taught regarding the canons of the Old and New Testaments which is a historical FACT.

The Reformation took Christianity back to the Bible. Catholicism added the Aprocyphal books to the Bible at the council of Trent in 1546 due to the Reformation. This was years after the Reformation began. The Old Testament was created and canonized by the Jews in Israel. They reject the Apocryphal books. And so does Protestant Christianity. As they should.

Stranger

 

[tom55]

The Reformation took Christianity back to the Bible. Catholicism added the Aprocyphal books to the Bible at the council of Trent in 1546 due to the Reformation. This was years after the Reformation began. The Old Testament was created and canonized by the Jews in Israel. They reject the Apocryphal books. And so does Protestant Christianity. As they should.

Stranger

Your theory is that the bible Martin Luther accepted should be THE BIBLE. And the Catholic Church came in several years later at the Council of Trent and ADDED books. That is historically and factually not true, false, a lie or what ever other word you want to add including dishonest. If you took 7 apples from me and I came and got them back and then you accuse me of stealing the apples that would be a lie. That is called changing the facts. Since you agree with the Jews on what us Christians should believe do you agree with Luther on what books he wanted to remove from the NT also?

If "The Reformation took Christianity back to the Bible" then why do so many Churches today not practice the same beliefs or doctrines that were espoused by the Reformation?

The Reformers did not teach that the Eucharist was a metaphor.

The Reformers did not teach that baptism was a public symbol of your faith.

The Reformers did not teach that grape juice can replace wine.

The Reformers did not teach that Mary lost her virginity.

The Reformers did not disavow The Trinity.

I can go on and on but you get the point. Satan got his foot in the door at the Reformation and is now, 500 years later, in the house.

 

[Stranger]

Your theory is that the bible Martin Luther accepted should be THE BIBLE. And the Catholic Church came in several years later at the Council of Trent and ADDED books. That is historically and factually not true, false, a lie or what ever other word you want to add including dishonest. If you took 7 apples from me and I came and got them back and then you accuse me of stealing the apples that would be a lie. That is called changing the facts. Since you agree with the Jews on what us Christians should believe do you agree with Luther on what books he wanted to remove from the NT also?

If "The Reformation took Christianity back to the Bible" then why do so many Churches today not practice the same beliefs or doctrines that were espoused by the Reformation?

The Reformers did not teach that the Eucharist was a metaphor.

The Reformers did not teach that baptism was a public symbol of your faith.

The Reformers did not teach that grape juice can replace wine.

The Reformers did not teach that Mary lost her virginity.

The Reformers did not disavow The Trinity.

I can go on and on but you get the point. Satan got his foot in the door at the Reformation and is now, 500 years later, in the house.

No, what I said was the Reformation took Christianity back to the Bible. Instead of being only in Latin and left only to the priests to interpret, the Bible was translated into the language of the people and the country they lived. It was a start. It wasn't the finished product.

No, Satan had the believers locked up in a slave system. Luthor and the Reformers opened that door and freed many.

Stranger

 

[tom55]

No, what I said was the Reformation took Christianity back to the Bible. Instead of being only in Latin and left only to the priests to interpret, the Bible was translated into the language of the people and the country they lived. It was a start. It wasn't the finished product.

No, Satan had the believers locked up in a slave system. Luthor and the Reformers opened that door and freed many.

Stranger

That theory is not true either.

Prior to the Reformation the bible had been translated into Greek, French, German, English, Hungarian, Syriac, Coptic, Old Nubian, Ethiopic, Georgian and Valencian.

So your statement "The Reformation took Christianity back to the Bible" is utterly false or it is just your opinion and opinions can't be false; they can only be uneducated.

 

[Stranger]

That theory is not true either.

Prior to the Reformation the bible had been translated into Greek, French, German, English, Hungarian, Syriac, Coptic, Old Nubian, Ethiopic, Georgian and Valencian.

So your statement "The Reformation took Christianity back to the Bible" is utterly false or it is just your opinion and opinions can't be false; they can only be uneducated.

Really. Give me the name of the translators and the year their translation was made and it's distribution.

" Here was one of Luther's major achievements. His was by no means the first translation from the Bible into German. However none other either before or later equalled it in dignity and felicity of expression. He endeavoured to make the apostles and prophets speak to the Germans as though they had been natives of the country. His version became the cherished possession of the nation and did much to standardize the literary language. It had an even more profound effect upon German than did the King James version of the Scriptures upon English. This emphasis upon the Bible and the influence of the book were typical of Protestants. To be sure, the Roman Catholic Church had cherished the Scriptures,but its fear of unauthorized interpretation had made it hesitant in circulating it widely among the laity. Luther, and with him other Protestants, stressed the primacy of the word of God as contained in the Scriptures and, holding to the priesthood of all believers, insisted not only that all Christians read the Bible but also on their competence, guided by the Holy Spirit, to understand it aright. "
(A History of Christianity, vol 2, Kenneth Scott Latourette, 2005, p.719)

Concerning Denmark: " In 1534 a son of Frededrick, a convinced Lutheran, who seems to have been won by the impression made on him as a lad of eighteen by the great reformer at the Diet of Worms, came to the throne as Christian III and reigned until 1559. Under him Denmark became fully Lutheran....A liturgy was compiled, the Bible was translated into Danish, and eventually the Augsburg Confession, with modifications, was adopted. The translation of the Bible was the work of Christiern Pedersen, and was a literary masterpiece which by some has been deemed worthy of comparison with Luther's German version. "
(A History of Christianity, vol 2, Kenneth Scott Latourette, 2005, Prince Press, p.734)


Concerning Iceland: " By 1540 Lutheranism was penetrating Iceland through German merchants and youths who had travelled or studied in Norway, Denmark, or Germany. The New Testament was translated into Icelandic and published....Lutheranism made progress by more peaceable means, especially under Gudbrand Thorlaksson, the son of a priest, who, appointed by the king, was bishop from 1570 to his death in 1627, at the advanced age of eighty-three. He prepared a hymnal and published a translation of the Bible, both in Icelandic. "
(A History of Christianity, vol 2, Kenneth Scott Latourette, 2005, Prince Press, p. 735-736)


Concerning Sweden: " Changes in the Church of Sweden proceeded apace but did not lead to as wide a departure from those of the Roman Catholic Church as in much of Lutheran Germany. The incomes and powers of the bishops were greatly reduced. Marriage of priests, monks, and nuns was permitted. Preaching of the word of God was enjoined on the clergy. The Bible was translated into Swedish....Olavus Petri especially had an important place in the creation of literature. He shared in the translation of the Bible, wrote voluminously, prepared hymnals in Swedish for the use of congregations, and brought out a Swedish mass. "
(A History of Christianity, vol 2, Kenneth Scott Latourette, 2005, Prince Press, p.738)


Concerning Finland: " For centuries much of Finland had been subject to Sweden. It was to be expected that the Reformation would be carried there by Swedes. Gustavus Vasa was Chiefly responsible for introducing and furthering it....Through him church attendance was enforced, the quality of the clergy was improved, education was advanced, a university founded, and a Finnish translation of the Bible was printed. "
(A History of Christianity, vol 2, Kenneth Scott Latourette, 2005, Prince Press, p.739)


Concerning Hungary and Transylvania: In Hungary and Transylvania several factors facilitated the spread of Protestantism. Here as in so much of Europe, in the fifteenth century the Catholic Church was suffering from corruption in both clergy and laity. The Hussite movement found sympathizers, a Hungarian translation of the Bible was made by two priests who adhered to it, and there may have been traces of the Waldenses. "
(A History of Christianity, vol 2, Kenneth Scott Latourette, 2005, Prince Press, p. 740)

As you can see, the Reformation took Christianity back to the Bible. Not only giving it to people in their own language, but giving it primacy over the Church.

Stranger

 

[mjrhealth]

can go on and on but you get the point. Satan got his foot in the door at the Reformation and is now, 500 years later, in the house.

satan got His foot in the door when Christ said " it is finished", ever since that day satan has had men in servfitude or bondage to men and there religions. God is not religious, men are, it is men who cretae their religions who deterine their doctrines who determine there traditions, whom make their rules and laws that put chains around the feet of men, who stop their ears to teh truth that is in Christ jesus, who keep God at arms length and make Him a puppet to dance to their tunes. But God will have no part of mens religions, it is an abomination in His site, it had made Him to be that which he is not, yet men flock to religion like vutures to a dead carcass. You can try justfy your religion all you like it will never stand up to Gods viewing or judgement..

 

[heretoeternity]

MJR you care correct about the different denominations being the work of satan, his divide and conquer mentality. However satan got his "foot in the door" when he deceived Eve, and Adam in the garden at creation.

 

[tom55]

Really. Give me the name of the translators and the year their translation was made and it's distribution.

" Here was one of Luther's major achievements. His was by no means the first translation from the Bible into German. However none other either before or later equalled it in dignity and felicity of expression. He endeavoured to make the apostles and prophets speak to the Germans as though they had been natives of the country. His version became the cherished possession of the nation and did much to standardize the literary language. It had an even more profound effect upon German than did the King James version of the Scriptures upon English. This emphasis upon the Bible and the influence of the book were typical of Protestants. To be sure, the Roman Catholic Church had cherished the Scriptures,but its fear of unauthorized interpretation had made it hesitant in circulating it widely among the laity. Luther, and with him other Protestants, stressed the primacy of the word of God as contained in the Scriptures and, holding to the priesthood of all believers, insisted not only that all Christians read the Bible but also on their competence, guided by the Holy Spirit, to understand it aright. "
(A History of Christianity, vol 2, Kenneth Scott Latourette, 2005, p.719)

Concerning Denmark: " In 1534 a son of Frededrick, a convinced Lutheran, who seems to have been won by the impression made on him as a lad of eighteen by the great reformer at the Diet of Worms, came to the throne as Christian III and reigned until 1559. Under him Denmark became fully Lutheran....A liturgy was compiled, the Bible was translated into Danish, and eventually the Augsburg Confession, with modifications, was adopted. The translation of the Bible was the work of Christiern Pedersen, and was a literary masterpiece which by some has been deemed worthy of comparison with Luther's German version. "
(A History of Christianity, vol 2, Kenneth Scott Latourette, 2005, Prince Press, p.734)

Concerning Iceland: " By 1540 Lutheranism was penetrating Iceland through German merchants and youths who had travelled or studied in Norway, Denmark, or Germany. The New Testament was translated into Icelandic and published....Lutheranism made progress by more peaceable means, especially under Gudbrand Thorlaksson, the son of a priest, who, appointed by the king, was bishop from 1570 to his death in 1627, at the advanced age of eighty-three. He prepared a hymnal and published a translation of the Bible, both in Icelandic. "
(A History of Christianity, vol 2, Kenneth Scott Latourette, 2005, Prince Press, p. 735-736)

Concerning Sweden: " Changes in the Church of Sweden proceeded apace but did not lead to as wide a departure from those of the Roman Catholic Church as in much of Lutheran Germany. The incomes and powers of the bishops were greatly reduced. Marriage of priests, monks, and nuns was permitted. Preaching of the word of God was enjoined on the clergy. The Bible was translated into Swedish....Olavus Petri especially had an important place in the creation of literature. He shared in the translation of the Bible, wrote voluminously, prepared hymnals in Swedish for the use of congregations, and brought out a Swedish mass. "
(A History of Christianity, vol 2, Kenneth Scott Latourette, 2005, Prince Press, p.738)

Concerning Finland: " For centuries much of Finland had been subject to Sweden. It was to be expected that the Reformation would be carried there by Swedes. Gustavus Vasa was Chiefly responsible for introducing and furthering it....Through him church attendance was enforced, the quality of the clergy was improved, education was advanced, a university founded, and a Finnish translation of the Bible was printed. "
(A History of Christianity, vol 2, Kenneth Scott Latourette, 2005, Prince Press, p.739)

Concerning Hungary and Transylvania: In Hungary and Transylvania several factors facilitated the spread of Protestantism. Here as in so much of Europe, in the fifteenth century the Catholic Church was suffering from corruption in both clergy and laity. The Hussite movement found sympathizers, a Hungarian translation of the Bible was made by two priests who adhered to it, and there may have been traces of the Waldenses. "
(A History of Christianity, vol 2, Kenneth Scott Latourette, 2005, Prince Press, p. 740)

As you can see, the Reformation took Christianity back to the Bible. Not only giving it to people in their own language, but giving it primacy over the Church.

Stranger

How dishonest. I see you selectively chose what languages the bible WAS NOT translated into until the Reformation. You mistakenly put the Hungary paragraph in your list. As we know the Hussite Bible was the first Hungarian Bible and it dates back to about 1439 which was before the Reformation. The earliest known and still available German version of the Bible is the fourth century Gothic translation of Wulfila which was before the Reformation. So out of the 6 languages you mentioned as your "proof" you can throw out 2 of them (German and Hungary) which takes you down to four. opcorn:

What truly matters is that scholars have copies of or references to the originals from which they can date so they can date WHEN a translation was made not necessarily always by WHO.


I think we can both agree it was translated or written in Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew and Latin first but we don't know the names of those original translators/writers.

4 Languages

Written in Gothic in the 4th Century by Wulfila.

5 Languages

Mesrop Mashtots in the 5th Century translated it into Armenian.

6 Languages

Into Syriac probably in the 2nd Century with Thomas of Harqel translation in the early 600's.

7 Languages

Georgian language in the 5th Century and copies from the 12th Century (Vani Gospels) still exist.

8 Languages

The complete Bible was translated into Old French and Czech in the late 13th and early 14th century respectfully.

10 Language's

From 990AD a version of the four Gospels in idiomatic Old English appeared, in the West Saxon dialect (Wessex Gospels)

11 Lanuages

I could give many more examples but you must do your own homework (not the homework mistakes you provided above) at some point, throw away your bias and stop believing lies.

 

[Stranger]

How dishonest. I see you selectively chose what languages the bible WAS NOT translated into until the Reformation. You mistakenly put the Hungary paragraph in your list. As we know the Hussite Bible was the first Hungarian Bible and it dates back to about 1439 which was before the Reformation. The earliest known and still available German version of the Bible is the fourth century Gothic translation of Wulfila which was before the Reformation. So out of the 6 languages you mentioned as your "proof" you can throw out 2 of them (German and Hungary) which takes you down to four. opcorn:

What truly matters is that scholars have copies of or references to the originals from which they can date so they can date WHEN a translation was made not necessarily always by WHO.


I think we can both agree it was translated or written in Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew and Latin first but we don't know the names of those original translators/writers.

4 Languages

Written in Gothic in the 4th Century by Wulfila.

5 Languages

Mesrop Mashtots in the 5th Century translated it into Armenian.

6 Languages

Into Syriac probably in the 2nd Century with Thomas of Harqel translation in the early 600's.

7 Languages

Georgian language in the 5th Century and copies from the 12th Century (Vani Gospels) still exist.

8 Languages

The complete Bible was translated into Old French and Czech in the late 13th and early 14th century respectfully.

10 Language's

From 990AD a version of the four Gospels in idiomatic Old English appeared, in the West Saxon dialect (Wessex Gospels)

11 Lanuages

I could give many more examples but you must do your own homework (not the homework mistakes you provided above) at some point, throw away your bias and stop believing lies.

You wern't paying attention. That there may have been other translations before the Reformation is not the only point. That these translations were made available to the common people is. See the 1st paragraph again that I quoted form Latourette. The Reformation brought the Church back to the Bible. Not only in translation of language, but in giving it primacy over the Church. Wouldn't you agree the Bible has primacy over the Church? Of course you will.

Stranger

 

[tom55]

You wern't paying attention. That there may have been other translations before the Reformation is not the only point. That these translations were made available to the common people is. See the 1st paragraph again that I quoted form Latourette. The Reformation brought the Church back to the Bible. Not only in translation of language, but in giving it primacy over the Church. Wouldn't you agree the Bible has primacy over the Church? Of course you will.

Stranger

Your original statement was "The Reformation took Christianity back to the Bible. Instead of being only in Latin and left only to the priests to interpret, the Bible was translated into the language of the people and the country they lived. It was a start. It wasn't the finished product."

I then destroyed your theory by showing you how the bible was in MANY different languages BEFORE the Reformation. Now you are accusing ME of not paying attention? Now you are AGREEING with me that there were other translations before the Reformation? You are confusing me.

The bible has primacy over the Church? Who gave us the bible?

BTW....It's ok to admit you were wrong in your theory that the bible was only in Latin until after the Reformation.

 

[Stranger]

Your original statement was "The Reformation took Christianity back to the Bible. Instead of being only in Latin and left only to the priests to interpret, the Bible was translated into the language of the people and the country they lived. It was a start. It wasn't the finished product."

I then destroyed your theory by showing you how the bible was in MANY different languages BEFORE the Reformation. Now you are accusing ME of not paying attention? Now you are AGREEING with me that there were other translations before the Reformation? You are confusing me.

The bible has primacy over the Church? Who gave us the bible?

BTW....It's ok to admit you were wrong in your theory that the bible was only in Latin until after the Reformation.

Indeed, the translation of the Bible into the common language of the people whose country they were from was a major part of the Reformation. I asked you about the distribution of these translatons you speak of. Because, as I indicated, they were not always available to the people because of the Catholics fear of the laity interpreting the Bible.

The Bible was not accessible to the common man due to it not being in the language of the people of the country where it existed. If ever a translation was made it was not made available to the people but only to the Church. Thus everyone was dependent upon the priests to tell them what the Scripture says and means

My belief is that the Catholic Church does not want the Bible in the hands of the common people. They want to be the 'sole' understanders of what the Bible says. They want everyone to be dependent on them as to what the Bible says. The many translations that resulted due to the Reformation, destroyed their efforts. Thus the Bible took primacy over the Church. Wouldn't you agree?

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

tom55

You ask who gave us the Bible. God did.

Stranger

 

[mjrhealth]

You ask who gave us the Bible. God did

Are you so sure, is God teh author of confusoin???

 

[OzSpen]

tom55

You ask who gave us the Bible. God did.

Stranger

Does that include Judith, Bel and the Dragon, Tobit, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Peter, and Gospel of Judas? If not, why not?

 

[Stranger]

Does that include Judith, Bel and the Dragon, Tobit, 1 & 2 Maccabees, Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Peter, and Gospel of Judas? If not, why not?

No. Because they were not received by the Jews in Israel.

Stranger

 

[OzSpen]

No. Because they were not received by the Jews in Israel.

Stranger

Since when was a condition of being in the canon of the NT dependent on being received by Jews in Israel?

 

[Stranger]

Since when was a condition of being in the canon of the NT dependent on being received by Jews in Israel?

In asking that you are acknowledging that the Jews in Israel rejected the Apocrypha. Correct?

Stranger