GoodSamaritan Posted June 18, 2004 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 7 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 146 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/10/2004 Status: Offline Author Share Posted June 18, 2004 (edited) The Old Testament is the Scriptures of the Hebrew people. If they don't accept the seven books why should we? You keep saying that the apostles used these books but have not given us one example of their use in Scripture. 2/3 of the quotations from the Apostles that are in the NT are from the Septuagint--the OT containing all 46 books. What more proof do you need? Here's an example for you: Wisdom 2:12-20, reads in part, "For if the just one be the son of God, he will defend him and deliver him from the hand of his foes. With revilement and torture let us put him to the test that we may have proof of his gentleness and try his patience. Let us condemn him to a shameful death; for according to his own words, God will take care of him." This passage was clearly in the minds of the Synoptic Gospel writers in their accounts of the Crucifixion: "He saved others; he cannot save himself. So he is the king of Israel! Let him come down from the cross now, and we will believe in him. He trusted in God; let Him deliver him now if he wants him. For he said, I am the Son of God'" (cf. Matthew 27:42-43). Similarly, St. Paul alludes clearly to Wisdom chapters 12 and 13 in Romans 1:19-25. Hebrews 11:35 refers unmistakably to 2 Maccabees 7. And more than once, Christ Himself drew on the text of Sirach 27:6, which reads: "The fruit of a tree shows the care it has had; so too does a man's speech disclose the bent of his mind." Notice too that the Lord and His Apostles observed the Jewish feast of Hanukkah (cf. John 10:22-36). But the divine establishment of this key feast day is recorded only in the deuterocanonical books of 1 and 2 Maccabees. It is nowhere discussed in any other book of the Old Testament. In light of this, consider the importance of Christ's words on the occasion of this feast: "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'? If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came - and the Scripture cannot be broken - what about the One Whom the Father set apart as His very own and sent into the world?" Jesus, standing near the Temple during the feast of Hanukkah, speaks of His being "set apart," just as Judas Maccabeus "set apart" (ie. consecrated) the Temple in 1 Maccabees 4:36-59 and 2 Maccabees 10:1-8. In other words, our Lord made a connection that was unmistakable to His Jewish hearers by treating the Feast of Hanukkah and the account of it in the books of the Maccabees as an image or type of His own consecration by the Father. That is, He treats the Feast of Hanukkah from the so-called "apocryphal" books of 1 and 2 Maccabees exactly as He treats accounts of the manna (John 6:32-33; Exodus 16:4), the Bronze Serpent (John 3:14; Numbers 21:4-9), and Jacob's Ladder (John 1:51; Genesis 28:12) - as inspired, prophetic, scriptural images of Himself. We see this pattern throughout the New Testament. There is no distinction made by Christ or the Apostles between the deuterocanonical books and the rest of the Old Testament. Well the Catholic church was not always lead by God. They were not always lead by God's Spirit, they through out time taught many things against the 66 books which are in The bible. Can you give us an example? That's quite an assertion to make with no Scripture to back it up... Now just where do you think the Bible came from? Luther and his removal of 7 books didn't happen until 1540, yet we had a full 73 book Bible until then--where did it come from? Answer: The Catholic Church. Either you accept the authority of the Catholic Church or you deny it and also deny that the books you find in your Bible are inspired. As for the Church not always being led by God, i'd disagree and so would Scripture. Jesus said His Church would be guided by the Holy Spirit. Have there been bums in teh Catholic Church? Of course. Jesus, however, said to do what the spiritual authorities tell you, not create a new Church, set of beliefs, or go your own spiritual way. Jesus knew there'd be bad humans in His Church and he prepared for this. Don't forget he named Judas as an apostle for a reason. And, for a reason, Jesus says in Matthew: "But if he refuses to hear even the Church let him be as a heathen and the publican (a tax collector for the Roman Empire)." He KNEW there'd be rotten men in His Church, sinful men, yet he tells us to STAY unified and assures us that the Holy Spirit will be with His Church (Jn 14). Anyone who thinks they are saved by a religious institution or a few hocus-pokus rituals is going to be surprised on the day of Judgement. Looks like a swipe at the Church. Again, it's really easy to make uninformed and baseless statements like that but given your alarming lack of Scripture, Tradition, or both, it amounts to no more than an uninformed and malicious remark. In the area of the 900's to 12 or 1300's there were popes that controlled governments and actions of governments. Many of the crusades were started by leaders of countries who were being pressured by the pope. The Church had plenty of influence on the world stage, without a doubt. If you'd like to discuss the Crusades, we can. I'm sure you'll judge them as unprovoked aggression against a morally and culturally superior Muslim race and I'd disagree. The Church, in many way, preserved the existence of the European continent during these years. Again, this is peripheral to the question of authority given by Christ to construct His Written Word. Once again, I wish Good Samaritan that you could choose to accept your brothers and sisters in Christ. These things you put forth as fact without being able to give direct quotes of Scripture to back them up does nothing but divide the brethren. I accept all people as Children of God. But to say that we're here to make everyone feel like their personally determined 'truths' are OK i'd have to disagree. with. Did Jesus ever compromise? No, He said that His coming would pit brother against father and mother against daughter. Just out of curiosity, what Scripture would you like from me? That the Bible defines itself as the sole authority over us? Well, that doesn't exist--in fact, Paul says the Church is the pillar and foundation of the Truth. How about Scripture that says the books herein are the right ones...Again, doesn't exist. What it DOES say is to 'hold fast to the traditions you have received from us either by word of mouth or by letter.' Why must you continue to try to make your church better or somehow more authoritative than those of other Christian brothers and sisters on this forum? All i asked was a simple question--WHO gave us the Bible, on what authority, and do we have the authority to alter it in any way? This isn't about what church is better, it's about where did you get the book you consider the sole authority regarding Truth. Another thing that bothered me when I "found out" about 66 vs 73 is the number 66 itself. I don't like that number. That is a peculiar coincidence, isn't it? Revelations says '66' is the number of man, not of God. Now i don't put much stock in this but it's a funny sidenote. A third thing that bothers me is the timing. If 73 were the accepted norm thruout church history, and the 7 were tossed out during the reformation, I have to wonder if the 7 were tossed for legitmate, sincere reasons or for political reasons. Is there something in those 7 books that nullify Luther's teachings or something that nullifies the entire reformation? Well, Macabees talks about the doctrine of purgatory and penance which directly conflicted with Luther's justification theories. Of course, he had no problem with them while he was a Catholic monk, he just declared them uninspired when he realized they disproved his new theory on justification. What's ironic is that when the Jews closed their OT canon NOT using these 7 books, it was precisely because they were anti-Christian and looked on us as a cult. They ripped the Church/Apostles and declared ALL NT writings in error, then excluded the 7 books from the OT precisely because the Christians DID include them in theirs. Considering Luther's blatant and repugnant anti-Semitism and his devotion to the early Church, it's odd that he suddenly chose the Jewish OT canon. BTW, the 'closed' OT canon of the Jews is not really closed. Ethiopian Jews and others still use the 7 books in their worship. When deciding on which books were canonical, the OT was accepted "as is" because the jewish people recognized it as scripture. The "extra 7" books were written before the New Testament and could have been chosen as biblical by the jews before there was a church.....but they were not even considered! Do you think there was a reason for this? Christianity was considered a cult by the Jews. They excluded the books precisely because their greatest enemies, the people who were evangelizing all their people, DID include the 7 books. Don't believe me? Here's some reading material.. http://www.catholic-convert.com/Portals/57...r%20Website.doc I apologize if I've ruffled any feathers here. I'm searching for Truth, just like you. But these boards are here to discuss issues like this in an open, honest, and charitable way. Jesus wanted His Church to be unified in mind and spirit. If we're all dedicated to God's purpose and not our own, we can honor his prayer. May God Bless! GS Edited June 18, 2004 by GoodSamaritan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Strservant Posted June 18, 2004 Share Posted June 18, 2004 The Old Testament is the Scriptures of the Hebrew people. If they don't accept the seven books why should we? You keep saying that the apostles used these books but have not given us one example of their use in Scripture. 2/3 of the quotations from the Apostles that are in the NT are from the Septuagint--the OT containing all 46 books. What more proof do you need? Here's an example for you: Wisdom 2:12-20, reads in part, "For if the just one be the son of God, he will defend him and deliver him from the hand of his foes. With revilement and torture let us put him to the test that we may have proof of his gentleness and try his patience. Let us condemn him to a shameful death; for according to his own words, God will take care of him." Once again, I wish Good Samaritan that you could choose to accept your brothers and sisters in Christ. These things you put forth as fact without being able to give direct quotes of Scripture to back them up does nothing but divide the brethren. I accept all people as Children of God. But to say that we're here to make everyone feel like their personally determined 'truths' are OK i'd have to disagree. with. Did Jesus ever compromise? No, He said that His coming would pit brother against father and mother against daughter. Just out of curiosity, what Scripture would you like from me? That the Bible defines itself as the sole authority over us? Well, that doesn't exist--in fact, Paul says the Church is the pillar and foundation of the Truth. How about Scripture that says the books herein are the right ones...Again, doesn't exist. What it DOES say is to 'hold fast to the traditions you have received from us either by word of mouth or by letter.' Why must you continue to try to make your church better or somehow more authoritative than those of other Christian brothers and sisters on this forum? All i asked was a simple question--WHO gave us the Bible, on what authority, and do we have the authority to alter it in any way? This isn't about what church is better, it's about where did you get the book you consider the sole authority regarding Truth. When deciding on which books were canonical, the OT was accepted "as is" because the jewish people recognized it as scripture. The "extra 7" books were written before the New Testament and could have been chosen as biblical by the jews before there was a church.....but they were not even considered! Do you think there was a reason for this? Christianity was considered a cult by the Jews. They excluded the books precisely because their greatest enemies, the people who were evangelizing all their people, DID include the 7 books. Don't believe me? Here's some reading material.. http://www.catholic-convert.com/Portals/57...r%20Website.doc I apologize if I've ruffled any feathers here. I'm searching for Truth, just like you. But these boards are here to discuss issues like this in an open, honest, and charitable way. Jesus wanted His Church to be unified in mind and spirit. If we're all dedicated to God's purpose and not our own, we can honor his prayer. May God Bless! GS Good Samaritan, Brother, we just disagree. The seven extra books are never DIRECTLY quoted from by Jesus or any of the other apostles. Secondly, Christianity though a new movement had many foundations in Israel and the Old Testament. What I mean by this is the same God as well as other things. The Old Testament was accepted as it was because it was the Scripture of the Jewish people. It taught us of our God's dealings with Israel. The seven books you are referring to were written at a time after nearly every book in the Old Testament and was not accepted as Scripture. Again, to say that they have always been accepted up until the time of Luther is a falsehood. I don't wish to argue this point with you but there are times when we must consider the fact that we are confusing people more than lifting them up. If you want to believe these beliefs by all means do so. However, there are places in the seven extra books that are flat out wrong in fact of historical events. What does this do with the Bible being the Word of God? If that can be wrong then what else is? If God lied to us here then is any of the Bible trustworthy? Again, I'm not trying to be offensive either but the tone of your posts have been what has made me respond. Your posts make it sound as if you believe that if you are not of the Catholic Church then you will go to hell. Not just looking at this thread's posts but others which you know I have been debating you on. I would be getting on any person no matter what their denomination if they were seeming to espouse these same ideas. Again, I am not accusing you of this just saying your posts seem to indicate that this is your belief. Can you see how this could be offensive to your brothers and sisters in Christ? Respectfully, Strservant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest yod Posted June 19, 2004 Share Posted June 19, 2004 Anyone who thinks they are saved by a religious institution or a few hocus-pokus rituals is going to be surprised on the day of Judgement. Looks like a swipe at the Church. Again, it's really easy to make uninformed and baseless statements like that but given your alarming lack of Scripture, Tradition, or both, it amounts to no more than an uninformed and malicious remark. You have misinterpreted what I said then.... Anyone who puts faith in an institution or ritual for their salvation is not saved. Period. I wasn't speaking of any particular denomination..but if the shoe fits.... Do you still consider that uninformed and baseless? Are you saying that a religious institution and/or rituals can save someone? What "alarming" lack of scripture are you talking about? That is quite biblical. All i asked was a simple question--WHO gave us the Bible, on what authority, and do we have the authority to alter it in any way? God did. He entrusted it to the jewish people (Romans 3:1) If they rejected the Apocrypha then it's good enough for me. We can't "alter" something that never was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevehut Posted June 20, 2004 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 26 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 3,216 Content Per Day: 0.43 Reputation: 43 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/24/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 05/16/1962 Share Posted June 20, 2004 My understanding is the 66 Books were canonized, by the Catholic church in the time of constantine Huh? At the time of Constantine, there was no such thing as a Catholic church. (Of course, any devoted Catholic will take exception to this.) There was basically only one Christian church at the time (not counting the obvious heretics, such as the Gnostics). The books of the Bible were chosen by people who were students of the Apostles, or students of those guys. I can scarcely imagine any better authority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllforJesustheLord Posted June 20, 2004 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 16 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 557 Content Per Day: 0.08 Reputation: 10 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/07/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 09/21/1976 Share Posted June 20, 2004 My understanding is the 66 Books were canonized, by the Catholic church in the time of constantine Huh? At the time of Constantine, there was no such thing as a Catholic church. (Of course, any devoted Catholic will take exception to this.) There was basically only one Christian church at the time (not counting the obvious heretics, such as the Gnostics). The books of the Bible were chosen by people who were students of the Apostles, or students of those guys. I can scarcely imagine any better authority. Please explain how this was then.? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevehut Posted June 21, 2004 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 26 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 3,216 Content Per Day: 0.43 Reputation: 43 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/24/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 05/16/1962 Share Posted June 21, 2004 Please explain how this was then.? Explain, which? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest idied2 Posted June 24, 2004 Share Posted June 24, 2004 On what authority, or on what principle, would we accept as Scripture books that we KNOW were not written by one of the 12 apostles? Can I add or remove books from the canon on my own authority? How and WHY is it 66 books? The Bible did not fall from the sky with 66 books in it, did it? What would you say if i told you that Jesus and the Apostles used the OT that included the 7 'lost books'? At some point, humans filled with the Holy Spirit had to determine which writings were inspired and which were not--they were called Apostolic Successors. Can 7 lost books lead you closer to God? That's what they were written to do. 66 books 73 books 1.000.000.000 books. What does it matter? Did you leave proverbs or the song of solomon or the psalms that solomon wrote in your bible. Why? Why would you want to be taught by someone who did evil in the sight of GOD and died in their sin? Someone who Christ slamed many times in new testament scripture? You can change what ever you want according to what the LORD has given you. But if you come Without the witness of the POWER of the spirit of GOD. no one will hear you. You end up being one of the millions of yaps flapping in the wind, just like me right now. In CHRIST JESUS :hug: :hug: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllforJesustheLord Posted June 24, 2004 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 16 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 557 Content Per Day: 0.08 Reputation: 10 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/07/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 09/21/1976 Share Posted June 24, 2004 At the time of Constantine, there was no such thing as a Catholic church. (Of course, any devoted Catholic will take exception to this.) There was basically only one Christian church at the time (not counting the obvious heretics, such as the Gnostics). The books of the Bible were chosen by people who were students of the Apostles, or students of those guys. I can scarcely imagine any better authority. This is what I am asking for an explaination on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adstar Posted June 24, 2004 Group: Royal Member Followers: 12 Topic Count: 75 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,399 Content Per Day: 0.43 Reputation: 1,307 Days Won: 1 Joined: 09/01/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted June 24, 2004 Constantine gave birth to the catholic church when he got some false Christians to follow Him into battle to secure the throne of Rome for himself. that was the birth of the harlot. All praise The Ancient Of Days Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest yod Posted June 24, 2004 Share Posted June 24, 2004 It's not a big deal to me either way.....but didn't he see this sign of some kind of a cross and it said "by this sign conqour" and he got all superstitious and called on this new god then won the battle? I don't remember hearing that he had christian soldiers at all but you certainly could be right. Wasn't it after that when he "became" the head of the Catholic Church by providing for all the christian bishops (except the jewish ones) to codify this new religion at Nicea and Laodecia? And isn't this the same guy that took his mother (the mystic) to Jerusalem and she walked around guessing where things happened historically and these became known as the "traditional sites" though there is usually flimsy proof they are anywhere near it? In fact, she guessed Mount Sinai on the wrong continent...it's not in Africa at all. Everyone knows Midian was the west coast of modern Saudi Arabia, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts