Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Thank you all for responding. Definitely gives me food for thought.
The reason why I started this post in the first place is because of what I've heard/read from others, especially non-Catholic Christians.
Some of them say, "That's not in the bible!" Yet in my own Catholic bible...it is.
Just for example, some have said that free-will isn't in the bible. Yet in *my* bible, it is. It's in the Book of Ben Sira, chapter 15. Ben Sira is a wisdom* book, that the Hebrews and Protestants left out of the bible. Yet, it has a wealth of wisdom, including the answers to questions that some non-Catholic Christians ask. Granted, that some KJV books put Ben Sira at the back of the bible as apocrypha. But does that mean that there's no wisdom in it?
In fact, MOST of the books that were left out of the KJV are wisdom books. Makes me scratch my head when I hear others say, "It's not in the bible!"
Ever since Marcion (ca 145 AD) people have been putting forth canonical lists of approved / inspired scriptures. That first canon consisted only of Paul's letters plus a slightly shortened version of the Gospel of Luke; Marcion rejected the Hebrew scriptures entirely. That's the opposite extreme from the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox inclusion of the so-called apocrypha.
Part of this also depends on one's definition of what is inspired, and how inspired, in what books. Literalist / inerrantist thinking, which I doubt applies to Mink, would say the 66 books in the Protestant Bible are god's holy and inerrant word. Outside that group, there's varying levels of acceptance of the notion that scripture (regardless off which canon we are discussing) is not 100% inerrant or even inspired. So Mink's characterization of Ben Sira as a "wisdom" book probably sees this as a source of ancient wisdom in a general sense but not the last and final word on every pronouncement it makes. Mink can correct me if I'm mistaken.
(Keep in mind also that there were many, MANY other gospels, epistles, and apocalypses in circulation besides those that made it in the NT canon proper, and that early Christians were living by many of them. Most are lost to us now, but some are in whole or in part available to us, or heavily quoted in the writings of their critics, at least; so it is not just a question of whether or not one accepts the apocrypha, it once was a much broader question. The Acts of Thecla, anyone? The Gospel of Thomas? These are now rejected in part because they do not hew to modern orthodoxy. There were once not only many canons to choose from, but many candidate orthodoxies. Modern orthodoxy just happened to be the victor for various reasons. Modern orthodoxy was not always dominant or assured of victory, and merely swatted the occasion fly of heresy. It had to really fight and compete for the win. If it hadn't been for Constantine, it may have not prevailed, for all we know.
At any rate ... for those who are curious here is the relevant passage in Ben Sira:
Quote:
11 Do not say: “It was God’s doing that I fell away,”
for what he hates he does not do.
12 Do not say: “He himself has led me astray,”
for he has no need of the wicked.
13 Abominable wickedness the Lord hates
and he does not let it happen to those who fear him.
14 God in the beginning created human beings
and made them subject to their own free choice.
15 If you choose, you can keep the commandments;
loyalty is doing the will of God.
16 Set before you are fire and water;
to whatever you choose, stretch out your hand.
17 Before everyone are life and death,
whichever they choose will be given them.
They created a trinity god at the council of Constantinople in 381 ce, by satans will to mislead all serving it to not enter Gods kingdom. Then translated errors in to fit that false council teaching. The biggest error being a capitol G God in the last line at John 1:1. Its not written like that in the Greek lexicons, which is Catholicism translating.
The true God called HoTheos in the second line, plain Theos in the last line clearly showing a difference. The only other spot in the NT is at 2 Cor 4:4--satan called plain Theos-god and the true God called HoTheos=God. It works the same at both spots, but billions have been mislead by that capitol G error.
They created a trinity god at the council of Constantinople in 381 ce, by satans will to mislead all serving it to not enter Gods kingdom. Then translated errors in to fit that false council teaching. The biggest error being a capitol G God in the last line at John 1:1. Its not written like that in the Greek lexicons, which is Catholicism translating.
The true God called HoTheos in the second line, plain Theos in the last line clearly showing a difference. The only other spot in the NT is at 2 Cor 4:4--satan called plain Theos-god and the true God called HoTheos=God. It works the same at both spots, but billions have been mislead by that capitol G error.
That's not what I was responding to. But maybe I misread your earlier post since it was so poorly written.
They created a trinity god at the council of Constantinople in 381 ce, by satans will to mislead all serving it to not enter Gods kingdom. Then translated errors in to fit that false council teaching. The biggest error being a capitol G God in the last line at John 1:1. Its not written like that in the Greek lexicons, which is Catholicism translating.
The true God called HoTheos in the second line, plain Theos in the last line clearly showing a difference. The only other spot in the NT is at 2 Cor 4:4--satan called plain Theos-god and the true God called HoTheos=God. It works the same at both spots, but billions have been mislead by that capitol G error.
Not this again. While a formal doctrine of the Trinity wasn't hammered out until the fourth century, there were those, such as Tertullian (AD 155-220) who had a Trinitarian theology before that time. And it has nothing to do with a ''capitol G error.'' But you'll just keep spouting what the Jehovah's Witnesses tell you to spout.
Not this again. While a formal doctrine of the Trinity wasn't hammered out until the fourth century, there were those, such as Tertullian (AD 155-220) who had a Trinitarian theology before that time. And it has nothing to do with a ''capitol G error.'' But you'll just keep spouting what the Jehovah's Witnesses tell you to spout.
Why this again? My impression is that these folks have little mini-scripts that they have been taught to launch into. And this is one of them. Every one of them that I have ever talked to seem to say almost identical things.
Why this again? My impression is that these folks have little mini-scripts that they have been taught to launch into. And this is one of them. Every one of them that I have ever talked to seem to say almost identical things.
Not this again. While a formal doctrine of the Trinity wasn't hammered out until the fourth century, there were those, such as Tertullian (AD 155-220) who had a Trinitarian theology before that time. And it has nothing to do with a ''capitol G error.'' But you'll just keep spouting what the Jehovah's Witnesses tell you to spout.
Yes they were considering God as a trinity before Catholicism put it in. That means-the Abrahamic God served by Israel to this day= a single being God=YHWH(Jehovah) was served up until that point in time. The problem for mortals is that God did not change into a trinity, he was always the single being God served by Israel, Thus the religion Jesus started served that God as well, Even today.
The trinity based religions are so confused they have become a house divided, they will not stand. There is no division in the one religion that has Jesus-1Cor 1:10
Yes they were considering God as a trinity before Catholicism put it in. That means-the Abrahamic God served by Israel to this day= a single being God=YHWH(Jehovah) was served up until that point in time. The problem for mortals is that God did not change into a trinity, he was always the single being God served by Israel, Thus the religion Jesus started served that God as well, Even today.
The trinity based religions are so confused they have become a house divided, they will not stand. There is no division in the one religion that has Jesus-1Cor 1:10
As I've told you before, Second Temple period Judaism had a 'two powers in heaven' belief because of certain passages which indicated a binitarian aspect to God. It was later declared to be a heresy in the second century AD because the Jews didn't like Jesus being that second power in heaven. You can easily look this up. Since this isn't the topic of the thread I'll say no more about it.
I am not sure why some get offended if people like Protesants and those who prefer independent. Claim the Bible even minus the "Jewish Historical books" of the Apocrypha are excluded IF THEY DO NOT USE THE BIBLE ON ANY REGULAR BASIS OR LIKE ONCE OR TWICE?
All Christians/Catholic/Orthodox realms of Christianity.... say the Bible holds God's Word. DOES THAT MEAN IT IS MAYBE OPENED ONCE VS THE MISSAL while at Mass?
Even the Catholic Literary utilizes choosen scripture. Most Europeans were ILLITERATE THRU HISTORY. Yet it kind of took the Reformation ... and of course the invention of the Printing Press ... to get more of the people able to have the book version of a Bible. Still many saw the book itself as ALONE sacred to just hold and keep as as momento on a shelf and to write family Baptisms and list Weddings etc.
The fact the Apocrypha books are not in the KJV onward by Prots REALLY.... OFFENDS THOSE WHO SAY THEY READ THE BIBLE LIKE ONCE AND HAVE NO NEED TO OPEN IT AGAIN? That says a lot. <----
Despite the Apocrapha not included also .... the translations are extremely close to the books it includes from the Old English version of Catholic Bible as I read both. The NEW TESTEMENT IS IN FULL of course.
I have more issues with the word alterations and major doctrinal changes it caused by the Jehovah Withesses and their NWT version.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mink57
Some of them say, "That's not in the bible!" Yet in my own Catholic bible...it is.
Just for example, some have said that free-will isn't in the bible. Yet in *my* bible, it is. It's in the Book of Ben Sira, chapter 15. Ben Sira is a wisdom* book, that the Hebrews and Protestants left out of the bible. Yet, it has a wealth of wisdom, including the answers to questions that some non-Catholic Christians ask. Granted, that some KJV books put Ben Sira at the back of the bible as apocrypha. But does that mean that there's no wisdom in it?
In fact, MOST of the books that were left out of the KJV are wisdom books. Makes me scratch my head when I hear others say, "It's not in the bible!"
Again, WHOSE bible?
It's certainly in mine.
Sorry OP..... You seem to take offense with the Apocrypha taken out yet do not see a need to utilize the Bible in full and at home anyway?
Do you as the OP feel the Historical books of Apocrapha (many non-Catholics still have access to and read at least once) hold TRUE FAITH LESSONS OF THE CHRIST that Protestants etc...then lack for knowing Jesus as their Savior?
Last edited by LeafyDenseCities; 10-22-2022 at 09:10 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
