What do you make of it?

MoreCoffee · Aug 21, 2018

1Corinthians 15:20 But no, Christ has been raised from the dead, and he comes before all those who have fallen asleep. 21 A human being brought death; a human being also brings resurrection of the dead. 22 For, as in Adam all die, so, in Christ, all will be made alive. 23 However, each one in his own time: ﬁrst Christ, then Christ’s people, when he comes. 24 Then, the end will come, when Christ delivers the kingdom to God the Father, after having destroyed every rule, authority and power. 25 For he must reign and put all enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed will be death. 27 As Scripture says: God has subjected everything under his feet. When we say that everything is put under his feet, we exclude, of course, the Father, who subjects everything to him. 28 When the Father has subjected everything to him, the Son will place himself under the One who subjected everything to him. From then on, God will be all in all. 29 Tell me: what are these people doing, who are baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead cannot be raised, why do they want to be baptized for the dead? 30 As for us, why do we constantly risk our life? For death is my daily companion. 31 I say that, brothers and sisters, before you, who are my pride in Christ Jesus our Lord. 32 Was it for human interest that I fought in Ephesus like a lion tamer? If the dead are not raised, let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we shall die! 33 Do not be deceived; bad theories corrupt good morals. Wake up, and do not sin, 34 because some of you are outstandingly ignorant about God; I say this to your shame.

I look at that passage and the verse that I've highlighted looks very odd indeed. We, meaning Catholic Christians, have no such practise. We do not baptise the dead nor are the living baptised on behalf of the dead among us. We pray for the dead, that is supported in holy scripture and is not so hard to understand but this looks odd.

Cassia · Aug 23, 2018

Right now the Holy Spirit is the acting force on earth while Christ remains seated until the enemies are placed under his feet. That could mean that the second coming is the completion whereby the Father is the acting force having all things subject to him. (the second half of the jubilee discord enacted)
for the words spoken in neglect cannot be escaped from the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. His reign is until all things are put under his feet. The last thing under his feet is the sting of the death of sin and the power of sin is law.. but thankfully God gives the victory thru Jesus Christ. Then will the perishable put on unperishable in the swallowing up of death in victory.

Baptism is into death so not sure how the underlined in the op relates. What is dead remains dead except in resurrection. One is binding and the other liberating.

MoreCoffee · Aug 25, 2018

Cassia said:
Right now the Holy Spirit is the acting force on earth while Christ remains seated until the enemies are placed under his feet. That could mean that the second coming is the completion whereby the Father is the acting force having all things subject to him. (the second half of the jubilee discord enacted)

I do not understand the reference to "jubilee discord". What is it?

for the words spoken in neglect cannot be escaped from the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. His reign is until all things are put under his feet. The last thing under his feet is the sting of the death of sin and the power of sin is law.. but thankfully God gives the victory thru Jesus Christ. Then will the perishable put on unperishable in the swallowing up of death in victory.

The question that saint Paul asks is "what are these people doing, who are baptised on behalf of the dead? If the dead cannot be raised, why do they want to be baptised for the dead?" I am not confident that you've given an answer.

Baptism is into death so not sure how the underlined in the op relates. What is dead remains dead except in resurrection. One is binding and the other liberating.

Baptism is both into Christ's death and into his resurrection. More to the point baptism is into union with Christ. It may be unwise to place too much emphasis on death when discussing baptism. But saint Paul is asking why people are baptised for the dead which is not a practise that any church (except Mormons) engages in today. So everybody is a little confused by what he wrote. It would be interesting to know but saint Paul didn't write any explanation. I am sure that the Corinthian Christians would have known. It may be that Christians in other cities also knew but the reasons for the practise have not been preserved either in writing or in traditions handed down through the centuries. The absence of "baptism for the dead" in Christian Tradition and in written records from the churches is testimony that whatever the practise was it was not essential to Christian living and teaching. It did not endure because it was not worth retaining.

SilkenBast · Aug 25, 2018

It seems so out of place in the text that it's almost as if Paul is answering some earlier doubt about the dead being raised (from a Corinthian, presumably?), but the argument itself is weak. It's almost as if he is saying "Hey, look at those people being baptised for the dead. See? Their would be no point in doing that if they weren't going to be raised at some point. Therefore, the dead ARE raised". It's essentially a weak argument. Like saying throwing biscuits up into the sky for dead pet dogs is proof they die and go to heaven (and still need to eat).

Albion · Aug 26, 2018

It is something of a mystery since we have that statement in Scripture, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence that baptismal rites performed on behalf of people who had already passed on were ever part of the church.

There appear to have been a few people in Antiquity who rationalized that the practice should be done, but I don't know that proxy baptisms themselves were ever part of church life.

MoreCoffee · Aug 26, 2018

SilkenBast said:
It seems so out of place in the text that it's almost as if Paul is answering some earlier doubt about the dead being raised (from a Corinthian, presumably?), but the argument itself is weak. It's almost as if he is saying "Hey, look at those people being baptised for the dead. See? Their would be no point in doing that if they weren't going to be raised at some point. Therefore, the dead ARE raised". It's essentially a weak argument. Like saying throwing biscuits up into the sky for dead pet dogs is proof they die and go to heaven (and still need to eat).

There are many theories that people have created over the centuries to explain this odd passage. The Cambridge bible commentary says:

Else what shall they do which are baptised for the dead] St Paul now abruptly changes the subject, and appeals to the conduct of Christians as a witness to their belief. This is again a passage of extreme difficulty, and it would be impossible to notice one tithe of the explanations which have been proposed of it. We will only touch on three:

the natural and obvious explanation that the Apostle was here referring to a practice, prevalent in his day, of persons permitting themselves to be baptised on behalf of their dead relatives and friends. This interpretation is confirmed by the fact that Tertullian, in the third century, mentions such a practice as existing in his time. But there is great force in Robertson’s objection: “There is an immense improbability that Paul could have sustained a superstition so abject, even by an allusion. He could not have spoken of it without anger.” The custom never obtained in the Church, and though mentioned by Tertullian, is as likely to have been a consequence of this passage as its cause. Then there is
the suggestion of St Chrysostom, that inasmuch as baptism was a death unto sin and a resurrection unto righteousness, every one who was baptised was baptised for the dead, i.e. for himself spiritually dead in trespasses and sins; and not only for himself, but for others, inasmuch as he proclaimed openly his faith in that Resurrection of Christ which was as efficacious on others’ behalf as on his own. There remains
an interpretation suggested by some commentators and supported by the context, which would refer it to the baptism of trial and suffering through which the disciples of Christ were called upon to go, which would be utterly useless and absurd if it had been, and continued to be, undergone for the dying and for the dead (1Co 15:6; 1Co 15:18). The use of the present tense in the verb baptised, the close connection of the second member of the sentence with the first, and the use of the word baptised in this sense in St Mat 3:11; Mat 20:12, are the grounds on which this interpretation may be maintained.

Cassia · Aug 27, 2018

MoreCoffee said:
I do not understand the reference to "jubilee discord". What is it?

Luke 4:17-20*is the passage I was referring to. It’s an excerpt from Isaiah that was only partially read and only included His mission on earth during the first visit

18*
“The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me,
Because He has anointed Me
To preach the gospel to the poor;
He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted,
To proclaim liberty to the captives
And recovery of sight to the blind,
To set at liberty those who are oppressed;
19*
To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.”

While the quote from Isaiah continues

Isaiah 61:2
to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor,
and the day of vengeance of our God;

The reference to the Jubilee referred to His mission that was to set captivity and oppression free as God had commanded during the Jubilee.

The question that saint Paul asks is "what are these people doing, who are baptised on behalf of the dead? If the dead cannot be raised, why do they want to be baptised for the dead?" I am not confident that you've given an answer.

It seems there isn't an answer to why Paul would have said that.

Baptism is both into Christ's death and into his resurrection. More to the point baptism is into union with Christ. It may be unwise to place too much emphasis on death when discussing baptism. But saint Paul is asking why people are baptised for the dead which is not a practise that any church (except Mormons) engages in today. So everybody is a little confused by what he wrote. It would be interesting to know but saint Paul didn't write any explanation. I am sure that the Corinthian Christians would have known. It may be that Christians in other cities also knew but the reasons for the practise have not been preserved either in writing or in traditions handed down through the centuries. The absence of "baptism for the dead" in Christian Tradition and in written records from the churches is testimony that whatever the practise was it was not essential to Christian living and teaching. It did not endure because it was not worth retaining.

MoreCoffee · Aug 27, 2018

Cassia said:
Luke 4:17-20* is the passage I was referring to. It’s an excerpt from Isaiah that was only partially read and only included His mission on earth during the first visit

18* “The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me,
Because He has anointed Me
To preach the gospel to the poor;
He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted,
To proclaim liberty to the captives
And recovery of sight to the blind,
To set at liberty those who are oppressed;
19* To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.”

The passage in the Gospel according to saint Luke doesn't mention any jubilee which may be significant even if it is alluding to something like a Jubilee year.

Luke 4:16-30 16 And he went to Nazareth, where he had been raised. And he entered into the synagogue, according to his custom, on the Sabbath day. And he rose up to read. 17 And the book of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. And as he unrolled the book, he found the place where it was written:
18 "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me; because of this, he has anointed me. He has sent me to evangelise the poor, to heal the contrite of heart, 19 to preach forgiveness to captives and sight to the blind, to release the broken into forgiveness, to preach the acceptable year of the Lord and the day of retribution."
20 And when he had rolled up the book, he returned it to the minister, and he sat down. And the eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fixed on him. 21 Then he began to say to them, "On this day, this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing."22 And everyone gave testimony to him. And they wondered at the words of grace that proceeded from his mouth. And they said, "Is this not the son of Joseph?" 23 And he said to them: "Certainly, you will recite to me this saying, "Physician, heal yourself." The many great things that we have heard were done in Capernaum, do here also in your own country." 24 Then he said: "Amen I say to you, that no prophet is accepted in his own country. 25 In truth, I say to you, there were many widows in the days of Elijah in Israel, when the heavens were closed for three years and six months, when a great famine had occurred throughout the entire land. 26 And to none of these was Elijah sent, except to Zarephath of Sidon, to a woman who was a widow. 27 And there were many lepers in Israel under the prophet Elisha. And none of these was cleansed, except Naaman the Syrian." 28 And all those in the synagogue, upon hearing these things, were filled with anger. 29 And they rose up and drove him beyond the city. And they brought him all the way to the edge of the mount, upon which their city had been built, so that they might thrown him down violently. 30 But passing through their midst, he went away.

While the quote from Isaiah continues

Isaiah 61:2
to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor,
and the day of vengeance of our God;

The quote in Luke appears to be verses 1 and 2. Of course saint Luke had no verse numbers in his copy of the scroll of Isaiah nor would Jesus have had any because verse numbering didn't come into existence until the later middle ages many centuries after the gospel was written.

Isaiah 61:1-11 1 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, for the Lord has anointed me. He has sent me to bring good news to the meek, so as to heal the contrite of heart, to preach leniency to captives and release to the confined, 2 and so to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord and the day of vindication of our God: to console all who are mourning, 3 to take up the mourners of Zion and to give them a crown in place of ashes, an oil of joy in place of mourning, a cloak of praise in place of a spirit of grief. And there, they shall be called the strong ones of justice, the planting of the Lord, unto glorification. 4 And they will rebuild the deserted places of past ages, and they will raise up the ruins of antiquity, and they will repair the desolate cities, which had been dissipated for generation after generation. 5 And foreigners will stand up and will pasture your flocks. And the sons of sojourners will be your farmers and the workers of your vineyards. 6 But you yourselves will be called the priests of the Lord. It will be said to you, "You are the ministers of our God." You will eat from the strength of the Gentiles, and you will pride yourself on their glory. 7 Instead of your double confusion and shame, they will praise their portion. Because of this, they will possess double in their land. Everlasting joy will be for them. 8 For I am the Lord, who loves judgement and who holds hatred for robbery within a burnt offering. And I will turn their work into truth, and I will forge a perpetual covenant with them. 9 And they will know their offspring among the nations, and their progeny in the midst of the peoples. All who see them will recognise them: that these are the offspring whom the Lord has blessed. 10 I will rejoice greatly in the Lord, and my soul will exult in my God. For he has clothed me with the vestments of salvation, and he has wrapped me in the clothing of justice, like a groom arrayed with a crown, and like a bride adorned with her jewels. 11 For as the earth brings forth its seedlings and the garden produces its seeds, so will the Lord God bring forth justice and praise in the sight of all the nations.

The reference to the Jubilee referred to His mission that was to set captivity and oppression free as God had commanded during the Jubilee.

It seems there isn't an answer to why Paul would have said that.

It is not clear that either Isaiah or Luke refer to any Jubilee. The phrase "acceptable year of the Lord" is similar to the phrasing used for the jubilee year given in the law. It was one year in 50, the 49 years would pass and then the jubilee year was proclaimed.

Leviticus 25:8-22 8 You shall also number for yourselves seven weeks of years, that is, seven times seven, which together makes forty-nine years. 9 And you shall sound the trumpet in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, at the time of the atonement, throughout all your land. 10 And you shall sanctify the fiftieth year, and you shall proclaim a remission for all the inhabitants of your land: for the same is the Jubilee. A man shall return to his possession, and each one shall go back to his original family, 11 for it is the Jubilee and the fiftieth year. You shall not sow, and you shall not reap what grows in the field of its own accord, and you shall not gather the first-fruits of the crop, 12 due to the sanctification of the Jubilee. But you shall eat them as they present themselves. 13 In the year of the Jubilee, all shall return to their possessions. 14 When you will sell anything to your fellow citizen, or buy anything from him, do not cause your brother grief, but buy from him according to the number of years from the Jubilee, 15 and he shall sell to you according to the computation of the produce. 16 The more years that will remain after the Jubilee, the more the price shall increase, and the less the time is numbered, so much less shall the purchase price be. For he will sell to you the time for the produce. 17 Do be willing to afflict your countrymen, but let each one fear his God. For I am the Lord your God. 18 Accomplish my precepts, and observe my judgements, and complete them, so that you may be able to live in the land without any fear, 19 and so that the soil may produce its fruits for you, from which you may eat, even to fullness, dreading violence by no one. 20 But if you will say: What shall we eat in the seventh year, if we do not sow and do not gather our produce? 21 I will give my blessing to you in the sixth year, and it shall yield the produce of three years. 22 And in the eighth year you shall sow, but you shall eat from the old produce, until the ninth year, until what is new matures, you shall eat what is old.

I do not see a clear connection between the gospel according to Luke, the passage in Isaiah the prophet, and the Law in Leviticus.

psalms 91 · Aug 27, 2018

Cassia said:
Luke 4:17-20*is the passage I was referring to. It’s an excerpt from Isaiah that was only partially read and only included His mission on earth during the first visit

18*
“The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me,
Because He has anointed Me
To preach the gospel to the poor;
He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted,
To proclaim liberty to the captives
And recovery of sight to the blind,
To set at liberty those who are oppressed;
19*
To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.”

While the quote from Isaiah continues

Isaiah 61:2
to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor,
and the day of vengeance of our God;

The reference to the Jubilee referred to His mission that was to set captivity and oppression free as God had commanded during the Jubilee.

It seems there isn't an answer to why Paul would have said that.

The first part the quote from Isiah He read only the part that He would fulfill while on earth the rest will be fulfilled when He returns. As for baptism for the dead there is no salvation beyond the grave as the story of Lazarus points out. It is a futile gesture at best.

hedrick · Aug 27, 2018

I favor the straighforward reading, that there was a custom of baptisms on behalf of the dead. It can’t have been very widespread or lasted very long, or there would be other evidence of it.

Cassia · Aug 27, 2018

psalms 91 said:
The fiorst part the quote from Isiah He read onkly the part that He would fulfill while on earth the rest will be fulfilled when He returns. As for baptism for the dead there is no salvation beyond the grave as the story of Lazarus points out. It is a futile gesture at best.

Perhaps the vengeance is for the incomplete mission that was given to his followers to complete? Isaiah 58 and Isaiah 61
The main concern of the mature church ought to be the message of reconciliation between the church and God as well as amongst each other. Which the Jubilee message is, as well as the sum of the law and prophets imo.

MoreCoffee · Sep 1, 2018

SilkenBast said:
It seems so out of place in the text that it's almost as if Paul is answering some earlier doubt about the dead being raised (from a Corinthian, presumably?), but the argument itself is weak. It's almost as if he is saying "Hey, look at those people being baptised for the dead. See? Their would be no point in doing that if they weren't going to be raised at some point. Therefore, the dead ARE raised". It's essentially a weak argument. Like saying throwing biscuits up into the sky for dead pet dogs is proof they die and go to heaven (and still need to eat).

I wonder if the Corinthian Christians thought it was out of place? I think that they probably did not. It may have been an answer to a question that they asked by word of mouth or by letter to saint Paul but we have no record of it.

Pedrito · Sep 1, 2018

==============================================================================================

1 Corinthians 15:29:
29 Tell me: what are these people doing, who are baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead cannot be raised, why do they want to be baptized for the dead?

As has been suggested elsewhere, once the original Apostolic Gospel is understood, the meaning of the verse (made difficult in the light of man-made doctrines) becomes simple and clear.

==============================================================================================

So once again, I don’t recommend that people undertake the task of studying the Bible as it was written, rejecting the filters of denominational beliefs, etc., and letting the Bible itself point to questionable translations. I don’t recommend it, because once their religious social group finds out what they’ve found out, they will certainly end up being in big trouble. And I don’t want them to blame me for that.

But I will say, that if anyone does undertake that task, willingly, honestly, and with their eyes open, and that if clearly understanding God’s purpose, including for them individually, is a form of blessing, they will be blessed beyond measure.

As others have been.

==============================================================================================

MoreCoffee · Sep 3, 2018

Pedrito said:
==============================================================================================

1 Corinthians 15:29:
29 Tell me: what are these people doing, who are baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead cannot be raised, why do they want to be baptized for the dead?

As has been suggested elsewhere, once the original Apostolic Gospel is understood, the meaning of the verse (made difficult in the light of man-made doctrines) becomes simple and clear.

==============================================================================================

So once again, I don’t recommend that people undertake the task of studying the Bible as it was written, rejecting the filters of denominational beliefs, etc., and letting the Bible itself point to questionable translations. I don’t recommend it, because once their religious social group finds out what they’ve found out, they will certainly end up being in big trouble. And I don’t want them to blame me for that.

But I will say, that if anyone does undertake that task, willingly, honestly, and with their eyes open, and that if clearly understanding God’s purpose, including for them individually, is a form of blessing, they will be blessed beyond measure.

As others have been.

==============================================================================================

If your warning is taken to heart then no one here will be reading the bible free of denominational biases. But since you prefer a 66 book bible you do not appear to be reading your 'bible' free of the biases that whittled it down to 66 books.

Arsenios · Sep 3, 2018

MoreCoffee said:
1Corinthians 15:29
Tell me: what are these people doing, who are baptized on behalf of the dead? ...
30 As for us, why do we constantly risk our life? For death is my daily companion. .

Chrysostom's commentary may prove useful to you...
Even though I did not do all that well with it...

There does seem to be an apposition between "These people" and as for "us"...

Arsenios

Pedrito · Sep 3, 2018

==============================================================================================

Post #14 (MoreCoffee):

If your warning is taken to heart then no one here will be reading the bible free of denominational biases. But since you prefer a 66 book bible you do not appear to be reading your 'bible' free of the biases that whittled it down to 66 books.

Two points can be made regarding those statements.

==============================================================================================

A number of churches in Christendom engage in active proselytising, either by structured, organised means (such as street promotions or door knocking – I have been accosted a number of times by individuals inviting me to come to their church, and offering a pamphlet for me to accept as a notional commitment), or via adherents talking to people they know on a low key basis.

In all such cases in my experience, only positive ideas are presented regarding the organisation being promoted.

The “warning” I gave is in stark contrast to that. It mirrors to some degree Jesus’ words about counting the cost – counting the cost of becoming a disciple – for some people the task would have been too hard, the cost would have been too great; it would be better for those people to back off and not make the commitment. (Were the people who did not make that commitment for whatever reason, Hell-bound?)

People who have an appropriate loyalty, as well as those who are willing to put their toe in the water out of curiosity or dissatisfaction with what “normal” Christianity has offered them so far in life, will embark on the voyage of discovery in spite of possible negative consequences.

And it is obvious that I am not promoting any particular organisation.

==============================================================================================

As MoreCoffee has pointed out elsewhere, there are many versions of the Bible floating around, containing different numbers of books, because different religious organisations have embraced different combinations of what they regard as Scriptures, possibly to give credence to their particular belief systems and practices. Their collections come from three sources:
- The Hebrew Scriptures accepted as God-Inspired by the Pharisees;
--- The Pharisees were the religious group within Israel that upheld God’s Holy Revelation;
------ They also upheld the importance of holy living as guided by strict interpretations of the nitty-gritty;
------ Even if their approach was myopically over-zealous at times;
- The Greek Scriptures penned by the apostles and Luke, later accepted as “canonical”;
- Books originating from other sources.

The 66-book Bible is simply a combination of the two sources that were considered God-Inspired by the people to whom they were originally written. Its cohesiveness is ‘magical’, even though that inherent ‘magic’ is obscured by the post-Nicene adoption of human-based philosophies – the multiplicity of church teachings testifies to that obscuring.

==============================================================================================

It would be instructive for me, were MoreCoffee to itemise “the biases that whittled it [the Bible] down to 66 books”. So I hereby request that he do so.

==============================================================================================

MoreCoffee · Sep 3, 2018

Pedrito said:
==============================================================================================

Post #14 (MoreCoffee):

Two points can be made regarding those statements.

==============================================================================================

A number of churches in Christendom engage in active proselytising, either by structured, organised means (such as street promotions or door knocking – I have been accosted a number of times by individuals inviting me to come to their church, and offering a pamphlet for me to accept as a notional commitment), or via adherents talking to people they know on a low key basis.

In all such cases in my experience, only positive ideas are presented regarding the organisation being promoted.

The “warning” I gave is in stark contrast to that. It mirrors to some degree Jesus’ words about counting the cost – counting the cost of becoming a disciple – for some people the task would have been too hard, the cost would have been too great; it would be better for those people to back off and not make the commitment. (Were the people who did not make that commitment for whatever reason, Hell-bound?)

People who have an appropriate loyalty, as well as those who are willing to put their toe in the water out of curiosity or dissatisfaction with what “normal” Christianity has offered them so far in life, will embark on the voyage of discovery in spite of possible negative consequences.

And it is obvious that I am not promoting any particular organisation.

==============================================================================================

As MoreCoffee has pointed out elsewhere, there are many versions of the Bible floating around, containing different numbers of books, because different religious organisations have embraced different combinations of what they regard as Scriptures, possibly to give credence to their particular belief systems and practices. Their collections come from three sources:
- The Hebrew Scriptures accepted as God-Inspired by the Pharisees;
--- The Pharisees were the religious group within Israel that upheld God’s Holy Revelation;
------ They also upheld the importance of holy living as guided by strict interpretations of the nitty-gritty;
------ Even if their approach was myopically over-zealous at times;
- The Greek Scriptures penned by the apostles and Luke, later accepted as “canonical”;
- Books originating from other sources.

The 66-book Bible is simply a combination of the two sources that were considered God-Inspired by the people to whom they were originally written. Its cohesiveness is ‘magical’, even though that inherent ‘magic’ is obscured by the post-Nicene adoption of human-based philosophies – the multiplicity of church teachings testifies to that obscuring.

==============================================================================================

It would be instructive for me, were MoreCoffee to itemise “the biases that whittled it [the Bible] down to 66 books”. So I hereby request that he do so.

==============================================================================================

It was Christians who decided the canon of the holy scriptures, they did so before the end of the fourth century of our era. The Jews decided a list of books some time after the rebellion of Bar Kochba (after 132 AD) and the earliest evidence that currently exists of a decided 'canon' for Jewish scripture is from the seventh century of our era. The 66 book bible arose after the 16th century "reformation" precipitated by Martin Luther's excommunication from the Catholic Church; prior to that time (after 1521 AD) no 66 book bible was ever made by Christians. All the early printed editions were 73 books or more and all the Christian made manuscripts were 73 books or more. What more need be said aside from noting that the decisions of Church councils repeatedly listed the books of the Christian holy scriptures as containing at the very least the books included in the canons of the third council of Carthage (379 AD):

It was also determined that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in the Church under the title of divine Scriptures.
The Canonical Scriptures are these:

Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, 3 two books of Paraleipomena, 4 Job, the Psalter, five books of Solomon, 5 the books of the twelve prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezechiel, Daniel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, 6 two books of the Maccabees.

Of the New Testament:

four books of the Gospels, one book of the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles of the Apostle Paul, one epistle of the same [writer] to the Hebrews, two Epistles of the Apostle Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude, one book of the Apocalypse of John.

Let this be made known also to our brother and fellow-priest Boniface, or to other bishops of those parts, for the purpose of confirming that Canon. because we have received from our fathers that those books must be read in the Church. Let it also be allowed that the Passions of Martyrs be read when their festivals are kept.
(B.F. Westcott, A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament (5th ed. Edinburgh, 1881), pp. 440, 541-2.)

Arsenios · Sep 4, 2018

MoreCoffee said:
It was Christians who decided the canon of the holy scriptures, they did so before the end of the fourth century of our era. The Jews decided a list of books some time after the rebellion of Bar Kochba (after 132 AD) and the earliest evidence that currently exists of a decided 'canon' for Jewish scripture is from the seventh century of our era. The 66 book bible arose after the 16th century "reformation" precipitated by Martin Luther's excommunication from the Catholic Church; prior to that time (after 1521 AD) no 66 book bible was ever made by Christians. All the early printed editions were 73 books or more and all the Christian made manuscripts were 73 books or more. What more need be said aside from noting that the decisions of Church councils repeatedly listed the books of the Christian holy scriptures as containing at the very least the books included in the canons of the third council of Carthage (379 AD):

It was also determined that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in the Church under the title of divine Scriptures.
The Canonical Scriptures are these:

Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, 3 two books of Paraleipomena, 4 Job, the Psalter, five books of Solomon, 5 the books of the twelve prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezechiel, Daniel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, 6 two books of the Maccabees.
Of the New Testament:

four books of the Gospels, one book of the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles of the Apostle Paul, one epistle of the same [writer] to the Hebrews, two Epistles of the Apostle Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude, one book of the Apocalypse of John.
Let this be made known also to our brother and fellow-priest Boniface, or to other bishops of those parts, for the purpose of confirming that Canon. because we have received from our fathers that those books must be read in the Church. Let it also be allowed that the Passions of Martyrs be read when their festivals are kept.
(B.F. Westcott, A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament (5th ed. Edinburgh, 1881), pp. 440, 541-2.)

An excellent reply -

The 66 Book Bible is a Bible altered by the will of scholarly man...

Yet it was created by Holy Men of God speaking forth...

2Peter 1:21
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man:
but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

The attaining of such holiness is not scholarship...

It is repentance...

Arsenios

Dare I add that the 66 Book Bible has had removed from it
what scholars have decided they do not want you to read
because it does not fit with their theology?
And that this is rooted solidly
in the tradition of Luther's own predilections?

psalms 91 · Sep 4, 2018

Arsenios said:
An excellent reply -

The 66 Book Bible is a Bible altered by the will of scholarly man...

Yet it was created by Holy Men of God speaking forth...

2Peter 1:21
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man:
but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

The attaining of such holiness is not scholarship...

It is repentance...

Arsenios

Dare I add that the 66 Book Bible has had removed from it
what scholars have decided they do not want you to read
because it does not fit with their theology?
And that this is rooted solidly
in the tradition of Luther's own predilections?

However they are available to read and I found them to be a good source of history if nothing else.

MoreCoffee · Sep 4, 2018

psalms 91 said:
However they are available to read and I found them to be a good source of history if nothing else.

They, meaning the books missing from the 66 book bible but included in the 73 (and more) book bible, are a good source for history and more than history because they teach the reader about God and his grace. The parts of Esther that were removed are very instructive for believers since the book without them does not mention God even once but with them his goodness and mercy is presented clearly for all to see. And the missing parts of Daniel also teach a great deal about God's goodness and give a song of praise to God that is often sung by Christians. The seven books that were removed are excellent teaching about God's wisdom as well as teaching about history. All these things play a role in giving understanding to Christians so that they may be perfected in their walk with God and in the common salvation which is his gift to them.

What do you make of it?

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member