What do you make of it?

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?

Click to expand...

Aw yeah blame Luther for something that wasn't even his fault.

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

Arsenios in Post #15, quoting from MoreCoffee’s Post #1:

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. .

Click to expand...

Arsenios in Post #15:

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"...

Click to expand...

I have had difficulty identifying the unusual translation above. The DRC (Roman Catholic Bible) states it thus:
29 Otherwise what shall they do that are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not again at all? why are they then baptized for them?
30 Why also are we in danger every hour?

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

The contrast between the people mentioned in Verse 29 and those in Verse 30 is quite simple. Unfortunately, generally speaking, it is the job of theologians to complicate things that are simple – they take things that are straight forward, and make them seem complex. They are constrained to do that. It produces an air of wisdom. That is how theologians make a name for themselves.

The simplicity of the situation here is easy to demonstrate. (It mirrors the simplicity of the Original Apostolic Gospel.)

The people in Verse 29 are common Christians of the day, doing something that made sense within the framework of the Original Apostolic Gospel.

The people in Verse 30 are the Apostles (like Paul) and other specialised people, whose primary task was the spread of Wonderful Gospel, and who risked life and limb to do so.

The Apostle simply points out that both activities, undertaken by different categories of people, are motivated by the fact that the dead will indeed be raised – that resurrection is the God-ordained mechanism of rescuing people from being dead – and that both of the activities he mentioned would be futile unless that were so.

As a meerkat character says in a set of TV commercials Down Under: “ Simples ! ”

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

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

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.

Click to expand...

Post #16 (Me):

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.

Click to expand...

I don’t think that the said-to-be biases have yet been listed.

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

In Post #20 we read “The parts of Esther that were removed...” and “And the missing parts of Daniel...” and “The seven books that were removed...”.

The question is (and I’m open to honest instruction): was that “removed” information actually present in the original forms of the Hebrew Scriptures, or was that information implanted in subsequent versions and simply appropriately excised?

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

MoreCoffee said:

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.

Click to expand...

...unwritten and written Apostolic Tradition unless it happens to be in the 66 books of a typical Protestant bible

Click to expand...

...so also do any number of books you can buy at Barnes and Noble that deal with understanding the Bible and church customs (AKA Apostolic Tradition), but that doesn't make any of them be inspired by God (AKA Holy Scripture).





.

MoreCoffee said:

Amen. None of those books was ever declared to be inspired holy scripture by any Church council.

Click to expand...

And so are not part of the Bible.

And does anybody seriously contend that those books in Barnes and Nobel are inspired scripture? The Catholic Church doesn't, does your church? So why bring them up unless you think a red herring or rabbit hole is worth pursuing.

Click to expand...

Because your argument on behalf of the Apocryphal books was entirely about these writings being good to read if we want to better appreciate the Christian faith.

Well, if that is so, I can point you to dozen of other books (at Barnes and Noble, for example) that accomplish the same thing. Does your church include them as part of its editions of the Bible? No. If not, why not?

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

I thank MoreCoffee for the information he provided in Post #24.

However, I wonder if a slight change of perspective might throw some extra light on the situation.

MoreCoffee’s thoughts on “the biases that whittled it [the Bible] down to 66 books” (which he offered as a subset of thoughts that could have been presented), with some added comments of mine, follow.

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

I. acceptance of the Mosoretic text as the "original"

The Vulgate Latin version of the New Testament was a late 4th Century revision of an older version known as the Vetus Latina. The Vetus Latina was itself based on a variety of Greek texts. In 1512, Erasmus commenced a revision of the Vulgate; he is said to have commented on the Vulgate thus: "But one thing the facts cry out, and it can be clear, as they say, even to a blind man, that often through the translator's clumsiness or inattention the Greek has been wrongly rendered; often the true and genuine reading has been corrupted by ignorant scribes, which we see happen every day, or altered by scribes who are half-taught and half-asleep." His work was first published in 1516, followed by another edition in 1519 with typographical errors corrected.

Yet, if my information is correct, the Roman Catholic Church adopted the demonstrably deficient Vulgate as its official Bible at the Council of Trent (1545–63). The Clementine edition of the Vulgate (1592 ff) became the standard Bible text of the Roman Catholic Church and remained so until the late 20th Century, despite being thus accused: “… frequently deviates from the manuscript tradition for literary or doctrinal reasons...”.

The point is that:
- Greek texts existed prior to the early and late Latin translations; there was manipulation in their translation; Yet the Vulgate was adopted as authoritative;
- Hebrew texts existed prior to the production of the standardised Mazoretic text;
- The Hebrew texts on which the Masoretic text was based excluded apocryphal extensions (at least in the main);
- Therefore the apocryphal portions of the Septuagint (Greek translation of the original Hebrew) are additions.


Trying to focus attention on the Masoretic Text to draw attention away from older Hebrew texts, is therefore diversionary.

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

Continued...

Your reply is misdirection. That is expected from your messages. Facts and truth get devalued in what you write. Fantasy and misdirection take the place of facts and truth in what you write.

Click to expand...

Whatever.

You completely sidestepped the issue with the Apocrypha. We and our churches have not said that they aren't good to read, so for you to make as your contention that they are worth reading is a pointless exercise.

MoreCoffee said:

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?"
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.

Click to expand...

I have wondered at this passage as well, so I went to Chrysostom's commentary, and was astonished at what I found...
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/220140.htm

John takes quite a bit of time approaching the passage, and I may have gotten it wrong, but as I am reading his commentary I think he is sayint that EVERY Baptism is for the dead... Which brings us right into the middle of Josiah's Lament about how Christ is the Savior and the dead cannot give Life to themselves... The dead one is being baptized for the one who is dead - eg for himself or herself... One enters into the Waters of Regeneration as a dead person, and emerges as one reborn of Spirit and Water... This is the difference between the Christian Saint and the Old Testament Saint, because while the OT Saints were far more righteous in their conduct, and far more saturated in the Holy Spirit of God - I mean, have you ever seen a face like that of Moses where one cannot bear to gaze upon it? - Yet these are still not re-birthed into the post-incarnate and Ascended Christ... They had not been Baptized into Christ... Yet they were Saturated in the Holy Spirit, talked with God, wrote prophetically, etc etc... Yet as Paul records in Hebrews, they were not perfected in God UNTIL Christ descended into hades after His Life-bestowing death on the Cross and brought them forth with us who ARE Baptized into Christ...

And if this take is right, and I think it is, then Josiah's Lament is answered in Scripture very elegantly, because it does not say that the Baptized are Baptized for the dead... Yet it is the dead who are Baptized into Life, without question... The Baptismal Waters are Scripturally called the Waters of Regeneration (Rebirth) and Christ IS the one Baptizing the dead into Life, into Himself, into His Body... For we in Him are become members of His Body, the Ekklesia, the Assembly of Christ called out from the world into the Kingdom of Heaven which is Christ...

The mistake in the Lament of Josiah is this IDEA that repentance is a Good work... Good has nothing too repent FROM... Christ Himself did not repent... ONLY evil is capable of repentance... Because repentance is denial of self in sin... We CAN say that it is a good thing to repent, and that is true, but it is not a work of the Good, but is only a work against evil in one's self... The most drooling beast can turn from any particular evil it is contemplating... But it cannot give itself Life - Only God can give Life... But evil without God's Life CAN repent from evil, and CAN produce the Fruits of Repentance, while still dead in its treaspasses...

In fact, even after the Rebirth of Baptism into Christ, the body is still dead in its treaspasses, which still clamor for their fulfillment because of long habits... And keeping the purity of soul and body in the face of this clamor and that of the persecutions of the world is the "running of the race set before us" that Paul enjoins us to engage against demonic powers...

And we cannot Baptize ourselves... Only the body of Christ can Baptize the Dead into Life... Because only Christ HAS the Life that the Dead do not have but need so urgently...

Christian Life is man's uest for God in all thingns...


Arsenios

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.

Click to expand...

Albion said:

And so are not part of the Bible.

Because your argument on behalf of the Apocryphal books was entirely about these writings being good to read if we want to better appreciate the Christian faith.

Well, if that is so, I can point you to dozen of other books (at Barnes and Noble, for example) that accomplish the same thing. Does your church include them as part of its editions of the Bible? No. If not, why not?

Click to expand...

The Orthodox love the Deuterocanonicals... They are faithful witnesses to the life of the Body of Christ in the early years of the Faith... We include them without elevation to Holy Writ...

It is the Way of Christ that the Apostolic Churches disciple, and in this Way of Life, we abide and take refuge - And in the Life of the Ekklesia - So that we do not suffer so much from having such reliance on the written that those who calved themselves from the Latin Church in the Sola diversion seem to have... I mean, if the Written is the basis of one's Faith, one has to be VERY rigorous about the Written... And what is and what is not Scripture Itself has to be dogmatically imposed with great rigor... We who abide in the Way are perehaps more lax in that regard... I read one of the Deuteros, and was edified and moved to tears... And I am sure many find Barnes and Noble religious books similarly moving... But if one desires to get a glimpse into the praxis of the early Church, the contemporary witness which the Deutero's provide is an excellent way to gain an understanding...

Arsenios

Arsenios said:

The Orthodox love the Deuterocanonicals... They are faithful witnesses to the life of the Body of Christ in the early years of the Faith...

Click to expand...

I can easily appreciate it when you say that you love the Deuterocanonicals, but I am not sure how these writings can be faithful witnesses to the life of the Body of Christ in the early years of the Faith, considering that all were written long before the Incarnation. So perhaps you can elaborate or else explain if you are referring to some books other than the Apocrypha.

It is the Way of Christ that the Apostolic Churches disciple, and in this Way of Life, we abide and take refuge - And in the Life of the Ekklesia - So that we do not suffer so much from having such reliance on the written that those who calved themselves from the Latin Church in the Sola diversion seem to have... I mean, if the Written is the basis of one's Faith, one has to be VERY rigorous about the Written.

Click to expand...

That seems fair to say. What's more, it is difficult if not impossible to argue that there is anything which is more authoritative than God's own word, revelation.

Albion said:

I am not sure how these writings can be faithful witnesses to the life of the Body of Christ in the early years of the Faith, considering that all were written long before the Incarnation. So perhaps you can elaborate or else explain if you are referring to some books other than the Apocrypha.

Click to expand...

I mis-spoke, confusing them with the ante-Nicene Fathers...

But I remembere reading Ruth, I think it was,

How she became, from being an outsider, an ancestor of Christ...

I remember it giving me chills...

For I know what being an outsider is...

Memory is getting more fickle these days...

Thank-you...


Arsenios

Albion said:

What's more, it is difficult if not impossible to argue
that there is anything which is more authoritative
than God's own word, revelation.

Click to expand...

Which is why we disciple God rather than the Written...
For us, the Written is Holy...
And God is it's Source...

The Beattitudes are to be lived...

Arsenios

Arsenios said:

I mis-spoke, confusing them with the ante-Nicene Fathers...

Click to expand...

Ah. That answers a few things. Thanks.

Arsenios said:

Which is why we disciple God rather than the Written...
For us, the Written is Holy...
And God is it's Source...

The Beattitudes are to be lived...

Arsenios

Click to expand...

Seems like you are referring to two entirely different things--two which are not in conflict with each other.

MoreCoffee said:

Click to expand...

God-Speed, my friend and my brother...


Arsenios