Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Why do they prey for the deads salvation | 1 Cor 3:15 | DocTrinsograce | 143352 | ||
Dear Colin, I didn't say that "the Apocrypha had always been considered canonical by everyone." (At least, I can't find where I did... and if I did, it was a typo.) Quite the contrary. (There is ample evidence for this and I'll dig it up if you insist.) Regarding your statement that "removing them (the Apocrypha) was a sin:" I would say that if they were never even added no sin was committed. Considering their source, adding them, however, WAS and is a sin (Proverbs 30:5-6, Matthew 15:7-9, 1 Timothy 6:3-5, Revelation 22:18). Let's see... you want a bibliography... The Catholic Encyclopedia gives the purposes and history of the Council of Trent (with its own spin, of course). You can go see the public records of the Council of Trent itself. (Are you going to make me dig around in them again for specifics? Its been a while. But all the silly high sounding, self important, pomp and circumstance are not fun to wade through.) You can narrow it down to the fourth session, I believe, if you want the Apocrypha stuff. The invention of the printing press and the practice of of how Protestants used their bibles can be founnd in history books just about anywhere. The Protestant attitude toward the Apocrypha and Pseudopygraphal is also well documented in their various confessions. For example the confession of the Baptists (1689) states, "The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon or rule of the Scripture, and, therefore, are of no authority to the church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved or made use of than other human writings. (Luke 24:27, 44, Romans 3:2)" Which was adopted from the Westminster Confession (1646). The same sentiments are affirmed in the Heidelberg Confession (1618). The Belgic Confession puts it this way, "The church may certainly read these books and learn from them as far as they agree with the canonical books. But they do not have such power and virtue that one could confirm from their testimony any point of faith or of the Christian religion. Much less can they detract from the authority of the other holy books." And the Thirty-Nine Articles (1571) states, " And the other bookes, (as Hierome sayeth), the Churche doth reade for example of life and instruction of manners: but yet doth it not applie them to establish any doctrene [sic]." You'll have to be specific about other things with which you take issue. (Sorry, I've still got a fever and I'm supposed to be studying for a midterm on Monday.) History is full of impossible sounding things, Colin. God is a God of truth. It should not amaze us when He takes specific steps to insure the preservation of His revealed Word. In Him, Doc |
||||||
2 | Why do they prey for the deads salvation | 1 Cor 3:15 | MJH | 143394 | ||
Regarding your statement that "removing them (the Apocrypha) was a sin:" I would say that if they were never even added no sin was committed. Considering their source, adding them, however, WAS and is a sin (Proverbs 30:5-6, Matthew 15:7-9, 1 Timothy 6:3-5, Revelation 22:18). I know, you had a fever; but it bugs me when people use scripture to make a point that the scripture they are quoting doesn’t make. Taking them 1 at a time. Proverbs 30:5-6 This is speaking about the Torah, or the first 5 books of the Bible. Some might argue (wrongly) that this statement also refers to prophetic words spoken by God to prophets after Moses but before Solomon. Then others have the strange idea to apply this to post Solomon times. The statement can not apply to post Solomon for several reasons the most important being that if it did, then all post Solomon books would be non-Biblical (“do not add to his words”). (The words: “Every word of God proofs true” is universal of course.) Matt 15:7-9: This statement is clearly speaking about the Oral Torah (Law). Here Jesus is stating that these so called Oral Laws were not from the Torah as the teachers of the Torah taught, but actually from men. Jesus spent much of His time teaching the correct interpretation of the Torah and the rest of the Hebrew Scriptures. Again, these can not make your point about the Apocrypha books which were before Jesus time. He isn’t even speaking of written texts, but of oral laws. 1 Timothy 6:3-4: This one is obviously not a refutation of the Apocrypha books. Rev 22:18-19: Here we have two things: 1) is this statement about the book of Revelation? or the whole Bible? If just Revelation, then why is the word translated into English as “book” and not “letter?”; if he means whole Bible, then why does he mention this in a letter to the churches. I assume he wasn’t attaching the whole Bible to the letter. The best understanding is to say the words apply to the book or letter of Revelation. However; other Bible passages make it clear that God’s Word isn’t to be changed (texts that usually refer to the Torah (first 5 books) but can be extrapolated to the whole accepted Bible, but still doesn’t answer the Apocrypha question.) 2) This text was written WAY after the Apocrypha, so even if it refers to the whole Bible, the Apocrypha was written before, not after John’s letter. There is no way one can use scripture to disprove or prove the Apocrypha EXCEPT when the books in the Apocrypha contradict accepted scripture, which many do. I am not a scholar of the Apocrypha, but I do know that many books add to our understanding of the Jews and the times. They were known by the apostles and Jesus and the general public. The Jews celebrated, the holiday instituted in Maccabees (Festival of Lights or Hanukah) which Jesus also celebrated and called Himself the Light of the World during the festival. All this and still I agree that the Apocrypha are not to be accepted as authoritative God given scripture. Studying for a mid-term? Seems to me after reading your many posts you ought to be giving the mid-term. God Bless MJH |
||||||
3 | Why do they prey for the deads salvation | 1 Cor 3:15 | DocTrinsograce | 143398 | ||
Dear brother/sister MJH, I've enjoyed your posts in the past. I particularly appreciate how you help us to understand the historical context of the practices and events we see in Scripture. I'll try to explain some of my reasoning for you. Please read between the lines, here. There is a lot of reasons between one concept and another that could (and probably should) be included... but this flu... yuck! Please forgive me! Besides, I'm doing this when I should be studying! ;-) Although the story of God's redemption of man is a progressive revelation, I believe it is axiomatic that anything that can be said of God at one moment in time is true of Him in another. I also believe that the entire words of Scripture are the words of God. The word of God is eternal. Obviously any given human writer in scripture would not have been aware of revelations after his own time. However, it is not inappropriate to accept their meaning as applying to a broader context. There are many examples of this use of scripture in scripture. Please don't misunderstand -- your warnings about beginning with an understanding of what the individual author actual meant at the time of writing is very good! (I think I even wrote recently, "Scripture means only what it was meant to mean at the time it was written.") However, what if the principles stated by the writer were meant by the Holy Spirit to apply in a broader context? What if they are universal statements. How would we know? In the example of the verses that I gave, all of them reflected the same warning: Human beings must not add to or change the Word of God. The word of God includes Torah, Christ and Apostle's Teachings, and the concluding book of the Bible (the order of the canon is not an accident). Actually, there may be more verses along these lines that I hadn't remembered. The important point is, though, that the same principle is repeated spanning different moments in redemptive history. God is trying to say something that is important. Now, I'm not coming up with something original here. The only originality I have is how inadequately I state things! :-) In fact, if I were coming up with some kind of novel way of thinking, that would be suspect in and of itself! All I've done is explain why I think these verse can be applied this way. These verses have been used for a long time to demonstrate this concept, and by men -- past and present -- far wiser and knowledgeable than I! Anyway... I'd better sign off. *whew* I feel rotten. :-p Sorry if I haven't been very clear. In Him, Doc |
||||||