Should people who rip books out of the Bible burn in Hell?

[pinacled]

This thread is about ripping books out of the Bible.

Should devarim 19 be ripped away from the whole of Torah?

Losing a thumb greatly hinders a person's ability to grasp.

Blessings Always

 

[pinacled]

A very interesting take. Even if this passage was not original to the gospel it still is one of the most memorable.

Deceit wrapped in accusations is an apparent snare for the innocent and naivety of children.

The Judge(s) knew well what was occurring

 

[NathanH83]

This thread is about ripping books out of the Bible.

No one has provided anything to suggest that anyone has ripped any book out of anything.



.

The KJV included the apocrypha when it was published in 1611

 

[Josiah]

The KJV included the apocrypha when it was published in 1611

So, how does that prove that someone has ripped books out of the Bible, the collection of books officially/formally declared by Christianity to be the normative, inerrant, inscripturated words of God?

BTW, the Church of England STILL accepts several books as APOCRYPHA (not as canonical), they are listed in the Thirty-Nine Articles, listed by title. That article has never been dropped or revised. Okay.... so WHO exactly "RIPPED OUT" books that Christianity had officially/formally declared to be fully canonical, inerrant, the inscripturated words of God (Scripture)?




.

 

[NathanH83]

So, how does that prove that someone has ripped books out of the Bible, the collection of books officially/formally declared by Christianity to be the normative, inerrant, inscripturated words of God?

BTW, the Church of England STILL accepts several books as APOCRYPHA (not as canonical), they are listed in the Thirty-Nine Articles, listed by title. That article has never been dropped or revised. Okay.... so WHO exactly "RIPPED OUT" books that Christianity had officially/formally declared to be fully canonical, inerrant, the inscripturated words of God (Scripture)?




.

Well, first Martin Luther pulled them out of the main body of text and put them in a separate section. Then others followed suit. Then hundreds of years later, they dropped out that section.

That’s pretty evil.

 

[Josiah]

Well, first Martin Luther pulled them out of the main body of text and put them in a separate section. Then others followed suit. Then hundreds of years later, they dropped out that section.

That’s pretty evil.

Wrong.

You have ZERO evidence that some unnamed, unidentified books you refer to as "THEM" ever were IN the corpus of books that Christianity had officially, formally, ecumenically, universally declared to be the normative, canonical, inscripturated words of God. Since you can't prove these mysterious, unidentified "THEM" were ever "in" then you can't prove anyone "pulled" or "moved" or "ripped out" these unidentified, mysterious "THEM."


Wrong.

Luther's own personal translation has one MORE Book in it than the modern RCC tome. The ONLY book Luther did not include in his own personal translation that typically was included in Catholic Bibles of his day was the Epistle to the Leodiceans (that book some Catholic are STILL complaining about his removing.... even though the RCC didn't include it in its lists at the Council of Florance or Council of Trent EITHER, and their own Bible today doesn't include it).



And you have a wrong assumption about the ORDER of the books. There is no official order to the Books. Never has been. To this day, the various Orthodox Churches do not have the same order as likely in your Protestant tome. Nor do the Jews. In Luther's time, various Catholic tomes used various orders - there was no standard sequence of books in a tome. Because of Luther's translation, because of the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England and because of the Westminster Confession, a certain order did develop for the Protestant West. But this was not until the 16th Century and NEVER was official or ecumenical.





.

 

[FredVB]

I don't say that. If Christ is refused people suffer for their sins.

 

[FredVB]

Ripping out the message of the gospel of Christ or a part of it, as any part of the gospel message is essential, would have one not be saved, and such a one would perish.

 

[Stephen]

.

Before someone can be rebuked for taking something out, they'd need to show it was first in.


Some Catholics to this day rebuke Luther for taking a book OUT of the Bible - but are very quiet about which book. It was the Epistle to the Leodiceans, a short book (you can read it, just google it) that most Catholic tomes included for about 1000 years. Yes, it was IN most Catholic tomes but Luther did NOT include it in his personal translation - and Catholics then SCREAMED about this, and some still do. Thing is, the Roman Catholic Council of Trent just after Luther left it out too!!!! And the Roman Catholic Council at Florence just before Luther also left it out! But those Catholics won't tell you that. Indeed, Luther's translation had one MORE book in it than post Trent modern Roman Catholic Bibles do. One MORE! Those Catholics won't tell you that.

And modern Catholic tomes have fewer books than Anglican/Episcopalian Bibles do, so did Catholics not only join with Luther in taking out the Epistle to the Leodiceans but also a bunch of other books found in the Anglican Bible? And the modern Catholic Bible has fewer books in it than the Greek Orthodox Church has in theirs, so did the RCC take stuff out? And the Greek Orthdox Church has fewer books in its Bible than the Syrian Orthodox Church does.... and the Syrian Orthodox Church has fewer books in its Bible than the Cyptic Orthodox Church.

There is universal consensus among all Christians around 66 books (and has been for at least 1600 years). Some 7 or 8 rather irrelevant and largely ignored Books have much consensus but not universal. There are a couple of dozen other largely forgotten, unused, irrelevant books that some Eastern Orthodox groups technically but unofficially include but no Orthodox Church agrees with ANY other concerning their (unofficially and irrelevant) unqiue set.



Oh, and by the way, the verse you reference refers to the Book of Revelation, not the Bible.


.



.

Hi Josiah,
What evidence do you have that it was ever officially approved of by the Catholic Church?

You might like to read this:

St. Paul to the Laodiceans

A site dedicated to the promotion of Traditional Catholic spirituality, theology, and discipline with a focus on the Church's historical heritage. Home of Free RCIA Notes and Outlines and an ever expanding collection of articles on all things Catholic.

www.unamsanctamcatholicam.com

 

[Josiah]

Stephen,

I never said that a handful of denominations have not done so for self alone... Some claim the RCC did so in the 15th Century at it's own denomination meeting at Florence, others claim that wasn't really official or binding and so claim it itself did so for it itself uniquely at it's own meeting of itself at Trent in the 16th Century. The Anglican Church did so in its 39 Articles in the 16th Century. The Reformed churches did so also in the 16th Century in its Westminster Confession. The LDS did so in the 19th Century. Some denominations have done so - for itself alone - but there has never been a formal, official, binding declaration by the whole church catholic (proof: there is non one tome of the Bible that has exactly the same books in it all regarded the same way - never has been, still isn't). Yes, if a denomination that declared its unique Bible then removed a book from its fown Bible, yes, it would have "ripped out" a book, but to date, that's never happened.



.

 

[tango]

Ripping out the message of the gospel of Christ or a part of it, as any part of the gospel message is essential, would have one not be saved, and such a one would perish.

The thread is about ripping books out of the Bible. If you had the entire Bible except, say, the book of Philemon, would your salvation be in jeopardy? What if you were missing the first 10 chapters of 1 Chronicles?

 

[Stephen]

The thread is about ripping books out of the Bible. If you had the entire Bible except, say, the book of Philemon, would your salvation be in jeopardy? What if you were missing the first 10 chapters of 1 Chronicles?

The problem is that there is no universally accepted Bible to add to or delete from.

The founder/founders/leaders of each group - denomination/sect/cult - decide what books make up a Bible for them. They may base it on a list from another group and delete or add books to make what is the Bible for them. And who is to say they are right or wrong?

 

[tango]

The problem is that there is no universally accepted Bible to add to or delete from.

The founder/founders/leaders of each group - denomination/sect/cult - decide what books make up a Bible for them. They may base it on a list from another group and delete or add books to make what is the Bible for them. And who is to say they are right or wrong?

True, but that isn't really the point I'm making here. FredVB said that an incomplete message might put someone's salvation in jeopardy. If we accept without reservation that the page after page after page of who begat who at the beginning of 1 Chronicles belongs in the Bible, my question was whether someone's salvation is affected by never reading it.

 

[Josiah]

The problem is that there is no universally accepted Bible to add to or delete from.

The founder/founders/leaders of each group - denomination/sect/cult - decide what books make up a Bible for them. They may base it on a list from another group and delete or add books to make what is the Bible for them. And who is to say they are right or wrong?

Thus the answer to your question in post 28...

A FEW denominations eventually determined the biblical canon for it itself exclusively.... But (unlike Judaism), Christianity has never declared the exact content of our Christian Scriptures, at least in any official/formal/binding/definitive way. A handful of individual denominations have done so for it itself exclusively (yours either at its Council of Florence in the 15th Century or its meeting at Trent in the 16th). Mine has never done this, however.

We have a very ancient and ecumenical TRADITION around 66 books (by Christian count)... a lesser one around some 7-15 books...and even lesser around several more. In MY opinion, it's surprisingly moot since the lesser accepted ones are rarely used or even read, and it seems little to nothing in them is of any consequence in terms of dogma. In my Catholic years, I recall a rare inclusion of some snippet from some of them in the lectionary (as some also appear in Lutheran lectionaries) but that's it. It was after I became a Lutheran that I experience my first extensive study of them (the publishing house of my denomination has excellent prepared study materials for them). I've been discussing things with my Catholic family for a long time - NEVER has ANYTHING from ANY of the "other" books ever come up; indeed, I doubt any of my Catholic family or friends can name more than 3 of them. Christians have NEVER agreed on them... and it's NEVER been a problem or issue because, to be frank, they don't seem to matter much. Catholics bring up this topic not because they care about these books (or even know what they are) but because they hear this "Protestants ripped out a bunch of books from the Bible" claim and see it as a question of unmitigated/unaccountable authority of their denomination: for them, it's about denominational authority not anything in any of these books.




A blessed Lent to you and yours....


Josiah




.

 

[Stephen]

Thus the answer to your question in post 28...

A FEW denominations eventually determined the biblical canon for it itself exclusively.... But (unlike Judaism), Christianity has never declared the exact content of our Christian Scriptures, at least in any official/formal/binding/definitive way. A handful of individual denominations have done so for it itself exclusively (yours either at its Council of Florence in the 15th Century or its meeting at Trent in the 16th). Mine has never done this, however.

We have a very ancient and ecumenical TRADITION around 66 books (by Christian count)... a lesser one around some 7-15 books...and even lesser around several more. In MY opinion, it's surprisingly moot since the lesser accepted ones are rarely used or even read, and it seems little to nothing in them is of any consequence in terms of dogma. In my Catholic years, I recall a rare inclusion of some snippet from some of them in the lectionary (as some also appear in Lutheran lectionaries) but that's it. It was after I became a Lutheran that I experience my first extensive study of them (the publishing house of my denomination has excellent prepared study materials for them). I've been discussing things with my Catholic family for a long time - NEVER has ANYTHING from ANY of the "other" books ever come up; indeed, I doubt any of my Catholic family or friends can name more than 3 of them. Christians have NEVER agreed on them... and it's NEVER been a problem or issue because, to be frank, they don't seem to matter much. Catholics bring up this topic not because they care about these books (or even know what they are) but because they hear this "Protestants ripped out a bunch of books from the Bible" claim and see it as a question of unmitigated/unaccountable authority of their denomination: for them, it's about denominational authority not anything in any of these books.




A blessed Lent to you and yours....


Josiah




.

My understanding is that the early Church took the Septuagint as it's OT which included the deuterocanonical books, though there do appear to have been many disputes on this

The list was definitively defined long before Trent or Florence at the Council of Rome by Pope Damasus I in a document known as the decree of Gelasius.

I quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia on this:
But while eminent scholars and theorists were thus depreciating the additional writings, the official attitude of the Latin Church, always favourable to them, kept the majestic tenor of its way. Two documents of capital importance in the history of the canon constitute the first formal utterance of papal authority on the subject. The first is the so-called "Decretal of Gelasius", de recipiendis et non recipiendis libris, the essential part of which is now generally attributed to a synod convoked by Pope Damasus in the year 382. The other is the Canon of Innocent I, sent in 405 to a Gallican bishop in answer to an inquiry. Both contain all the deuterocanonicals, without any distinction, and are identical with the catalogue of Trent. The African Church, always a staunch supporter of the contested books, found itself in entire accord with Rome on this question. Its ancient version, the Vetus Latina (less correctly the Itala), had admitted all the Old Testament Scriptures. St. Augustine seems to theoretically recognize degrees of inspiration; in practice he employs protos and deuteros without any discrimination whatsoever. Moreover in his "De Doctrinâ Christianâ" he enumerates the components of the complete Old Testament. The Synod of Hippo (393) and the three of Carthage (393, 397, and 419), in which, doubtless, Augustine was the leading spirit, found it necessary to deal explicitly with the question of the Canon, and drew up identical lists from which no sacred books are excluded. These councils base their canon on tradition and liturgical usage.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Canon of the Old Testament

Signifies the authoritative list or closed number of the writings composed under Divine inspiration, and destined for the well-being of the Church

www.newadvent.org

The Catholic and Orthodox Churches use all the deuterocanonical books (though the Orthodox have more books than the Catholic Church) so I think your claim that the ancient tradition is of 66 books in incorrect. Almost 2/3 of Christians use a canon of at least 73 books. The 66 book canon is a recent novelty.

Regarding the usage in Catholic liturgy I think all 73 books are used, some more than others.
I won't comment in the ignorance of your Catholic family and friends.

 

[Stephen]

True, but that isn't really the point I'm making here. FredVB said that an incomplete message might put someone's salvation in jeopardy. If we accept without reservation that the page after page after page of who begat who at the beginning of 1 Chronicles belongs in the Bible, my question was whether someone's salvation is affected by never reading it.

Someones salvation is not neccesarily affected by never reading any of the Bible.

 

[Josiah]

My understanding is that the early Church took the Septuagint as it's OT which included the deuterocanonical books, though there do appear to have been many disputes on this

My understanding is different.

At no time did the church officially, formally, definitively declare that ANY collection of books found anywhere was/is the corpus of normative, authoritative, inscripturated words of God - THE Christian Bible. Yes, many Greek speaking Christians used Greek translations (just as many English speaking people today use English translations of books) but that has nothing to do with Christianity definitively, officially declaring what books are and are not normative, canonical Scripture.

The list was definitively defined long before Trent or Florence at the Council of Rome by Pope Damasus I in a document known as the decree of Gelasius.

No. A bishop gave an opinion.... and there were REGIONAL (non-ecumenical, non-catholic) NON- BINDING decisions for a geographical area as to what books should be included in the Sunday Lectionary for those areas, but that has nothing to do with Christianity officially, formally, ecumenically declaring what Books are normative, canonical Scripture. Evidence? Bishop Damasus was ignored. Few heard of the meetings at Hippo, etc. Most Christians in the world continued to use Books NOT mentioned by any bishop or any regional synod. Even Western Catbolics ignored this, for example the Letter to the Leodiceans was INCLUDED in most Catholic tomes and lectionaries for some 1000 years even through Bishop Damascus didn't mention it. The persons and regional synods you mention were not ecumenical, not definitive, not binding... indeed, mostly unknown and ignored.

The Catholic and Orthodox Churches use all the deuterocanonical books (though the Orthodox have more books than the Catholic Church)

So which is it? The Catholic and Orthodox churches have the exact same books in their tomes OR NOT? If you can show ALL Christians have ALWAYS had the exact same books (none more, none less) then perhaps you'd have a case that there MAY have been some unknown formal decision/declaration as to what is Scripture.





Again, before someone can claim some mysterious person or denomination "RIPPED OUT" some book from their Bible, they'd need to show it was first IN their Bible. I don't claim the Roman Catholic Church "RIPPED OUT" the Letter to the Leodiceans from the RCC Bible because the RCC never officially put it (or any other book) INTO their Bible.... yes, it was included in most Catholic tomes and yes the Florance and Trent meetings of that denomination didn't include it, but you can't "RIP OUT" what was never put in.

Unlike the Judaism and Islam, Christianity has NEVER officially put any book INTO the Bible, there simply has NEVER been an official, formal, definitive, authoritative ECUMENICAL declaration on that point (again, unlike Judaism and Islam). A handful of individual denominations have done that in the past 500 years or so, but they were denominational decisions for only that denomination (and they don't agree with each other). What we have is TRADITION. It is very solid around 66 books (by common Christian count), less so around another 7-10 or so, less so for another dozen or so, but a matter of TRADITION. NEVER in the 2000 year history of Christianity have all Christians agreed on what is and is not normative, canonical Scripture - but this has never been an issue because those books beyond the 66 seems to be amazingly irrelevant - seldom read, rarely used, and of no doctrinal consequence. Ironically, it seems Lutherans study them more than Catholics do (at least in my experience).



A blessed upcoming Lent to you and yours....


Josiah




.

 

[Stephen]

My understanding is different.

At no time did the church officially, formally, definitively declare that ANY collection of books found anywhere was/is the corpus of normative, authoritative, inscripturated words of God - THE Christian Bible. Yes, many Greek speaking Christians used Greek translations (just as many English speaking people today use English translations of books) but that has nothing to do with Christianity definitively, officially declaring what books are and are not normative, canonical Scripture.

I beg to differ. The Pope at the Council of Rome (382) defined the books of the OT and NT. That was before the Coptic Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox split off. So that is as close as we are going to get to the whole of Christianity.

No. A bishop gave an opinion.... and there were REGIONAL (non-ecumenical, non-catholic) NON- BINDING decisions for a geographical area as to what books should be included in the Sunday Lectionary for those areas, but that has nothing to do with Christianity officially, formally, ecumenically declaring what Books are normative, canonical Scripture. Evidence? Bishop Damasus was ignored. Few heard of the meetings at Hippo, etc. Most Christians in the world continued to use Books NOT mentioned by any bishop or any regional synod. Even Western Catbolics ignored this, for example the Letter to the Leodiceans was INCLUDED in most Catholic tomes and lectionaries for some 1000 years even through Bishop Damascus didn't mention it. The persons and regional synods you mention were not ecumenical, not definitive, not binding... indeed, mostly unknown and ignored.

Not just "a" bishop but the Pope, the successor of St. Peter who held the keys and the power to bind and looses (Mt 16:19). Yes Hippo and Carthage were local councils, presumably because of local dissent.

So which is it? The Catholic and Orthodox churches have the exact same books in their tomes OR NOT? If you can show ALL Christians have ALWAYS had the exact same books (none more, none less) then perhaps you'd have a case that there MAY have been some unknown formal decision/declaration as to what is Scripture.

The Orthodox Churches have what we call the deuterocanonical books as defined by Pope Damasus, and at some point they have added some others. However the fact that they include these show that were part of the canon that was defined at the Council of Rome.

Again, before someone can claim some mysterious person or denomination "RIPPED OUT" some book from their Bible, they'd need to show it was first IN their Bible. I don't claim the Roman Catholic Church "RIPPED OUT" the Letter to the Leodiceans from the RCC Bible because the RCC never officially put it (or any other book) INTO their Bible.... yes, it was included in most Catholic tomes and yes the Florance and Trent meetings of that denomination didn't include it, but you can't "RIP OUT" what was never put in.

Unlike the Judaism and Islam, Christianity has NEVER officially put any book INTO the Bible, there simply has NEVER been an official, formal, definitive, authoritative ECUMENICAL declaration on that point (again, unlike Judaism and Islam). A handful of individual denominations have done that in the past 500 years or so, but they were denominational decisions for only that denomination (and they don't agree with each other). What we have is TRADITION. It is very solid around 66 books (by common Christian count), less so around another 7-10 or so, less so for another dozen or so, but a matter of TRADITION. NEVER in the 2000 year history of Christianity have all Christians agreed on what is and is not normative, canonical Scripture - but this has never been an issue because those books beyond the 66 seems to be amazingly irrelevant - seldom read, rarely used, and of no doctrinal consequence. Ironically, it seems Lutherans study them more than Catholics do (at least in my experience).



A blessed upcoming Lent to you and yours....


Josiah

Again I differ. Christianity had a definitive list from the Council of Rome.

Please can you answer me a couple of points.

1. When did the Jews have an official, formal, definitive, authoritative declaration of their canon?

2. What evidence do you have for your claim that we have a TRADITION that "is solid around 66 books (by common Christian count)" when you consider that most of Christianity from 382 used at least 73 books?


Blessings

 

[FredVB]

True, but that isn't really the point I'm making here. FredVB said that an incomplete message might put someone's salvation in jeopardy. If we accept without reservation that the page after page after page of who begat who at the beginning of 1 Chronicles belongs in the Bible, my question was whether someone's salvation is affected by never reading it.

I prefer to speak for myself. While the actual gospel of salvation is essential, the whole Bible is not that. People can be saved and do get saved without the Bible. But the Bible is important as basis. It is the gospel that Jesus is our savior and we need to have our trust in him for that.

 

[Stephen]

I prefer to speak for myself. While the actual gospel of salvation is essential, the whole Bible is not that. People can be saved and do get saved without the Bible. But the Bible is important as basis. It is the gospel that Jesus is our savior and we need to have our trust in him for that.

The gospel has to be preached. It is by hearing the gosperl and believing that we are saved not by reading a book.
"But how are men to call upon him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher? And how can men preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach good news!” But they have not all obeyed the gospel; for Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ." (Rom 10:14-17)

For the majority of Christian history very few people could read. Mass literacy is very recent.