• Amused
  • Angry
  • Annoyed
  • Awesome
  • Bemused
  • Cool
  • Crazy
  • Crying
  • Depressed
  • Down
  • Embarrassed
  • Enraged
  • Friendly
  • Geeky
  • Grumpy
  • Happy
  • Hungry
  • Innocent
  • Meh
  • Piratey
  • Poorly
  • Sad
  • Secret
  • Shy
  • Sneaky
  • Tired
  • Page 1 of 13 12311 ... LastLast
    Results 1 to 10 of 121

    World Religion & Speculative Theology - Thread: The Apocrypha: Does it belong in the Bible?

    1. #1
      NathanH83 is offline Apprentice Member
      Single
      Mood:
      ----
       
      Join Date
      May 2019
      Posts
      133
      CH Cash
      607
      Post Thanks / Like
      CH Cash
      (0 Banked)
      vBActivity - Stats
      Points
      427
      Level
      7
      vBActivity - Bars
      Lv. Percent
      47.38%
      Rep Power
      11

      The Apocrypha: Does it belong in the Bible?

      I think the Apocrypha belongs in the Bible. Other people say that it's doesn't. What do you say?

    2. Likes Andrew liked this post
    3. #2
      Andrew's Avatar
      Andrew is offline Expert Member
      Moderator
      35
      Mood:
      Awesome
       
      Join Date
      Aug 2017
      Posts
      4,325
      Country
      United States
      CH Cash
      10,323
      Post Thanks / Like
      CH Cash
      (0 Banked)
      vBActivity - Stats
      Points
      21,829
      Level
      41
      vBActivity - Bars
      Lv. Percent
      24.75%
      Rep Power
      629
      I say if it was good enough to deserve a painstaking Hebrew to Greek translation for the benefit of the Greek speaking Jew -and early Christian fathers and congregations held it as inspired -then it's good enough for me.
      Sadly through later rejection from post NT Jews (Non Christian) the scrolls were suddenly taken out of circulation [note: those writings would be the youngest of the OT books, written sometime within the 400 years before the birth of Christ, commonly dubbed as the 400 years of silence]
      And then sometime later a latin translator translated these books but since they were considered obscure they were placed in a special category called the Apocryphal books...
      I consider them canon and they would do more good than harm by adding it to protestant selection (canon), for instance if Lutherans were to accept them they could have properly interpreted and debunked the Catholic dogma of purgatory (it's not too late you can still do it) that would have made the RCC repent of this dogma the same way they stopped indulgence by challenging the church, exterminating future progenitors who hang on the idea of Jesus not suffering enough for our sins . The books also reference things such as 'demons' which if you hadn't noticed only first appeared when Jesus speaks of them, if you knew the OT verbatim WITHOUT these "extra" books you would be confused and dumbfounded and would wonder what Jesus was talking about.
      There are many others concerning prophesy and objections to doctrine such as OSAS and also concerning election and predestination..
      The the greek Septuagint was verified canon, how can something be verified as inspiration and then later rejected? Isn't that kind of like taking away from Gods words?
      What was left out of the Septuagint but added to Catholic bibles as divine is debatable but I believe something was afoot and obviously the Masoretic text has number typos in genealogy when compared to the more accurate Septuagint (which Jesus quotes from verbatim compared to the sloppy Masoretic text that was compiled from later scrolls and differ from the earlier Septuagint sources)
      It's a fascinating topic non the less..
      Last edited by Andrew; 09-15-2019 at 10:59 PM.

    4. #3
      Tigger's Avatar
      Tigger is offline Veteran Member
      58
      Married
      Mood:
      Piratey
       
      Join Date
      Jul 2015
      Posts
      1,436
      CH Cash
      58,082
      Post Thanks / Like
      CH Cash
      (0 Banked)
      vBActivity - Stats
      Points
      13,238
      Level
      33
      vBActivity - Bars
      Lv. Percent
      55.86%
      Rep Power
      431
      I like the apocryphal books for their historical qualities but they need to be segregated for doctrinal reasons.

    5. Likes psalms 91, Lämmchen, RichWh1 liked this post
    6. #4
      jsimms435's Avatar
      jsimms435 is online now Expert Member
      52
      Married
      Mood:
      Cool
       
      Join Date
      Jul 2015
      Posts
      3,970
      Country
      United States
      CH Cash
      10,061
      Post Thanks / Like
      CH Cash
      (0 Banked)
      vBActivity - Stats
      Points
      19,605
      Level
      39
      vBActivity - Bars
      Lv. Percent
      47.89%
      Rep Power
      534
      I don't really know much about it since i spend my time reading what I know is God's Word verses what I have doubts about

    7. #5
      Albion's Avatar
      Albion is online now Expert Member
      Married
      Mood:
      Friendly
       
      Join Date
      Sep 2017
      Posts
      3,757
      Country
      United States
      CH Cash
      19,298
      Post Thanks / Like
      CH Cash
      (0 Banked)
      vBActivity - Stats
      Points
      24,765
      Level
      43
      vBActivity - Bars
      Lv. Percent
      40.65%
      Rep Power
      734
      Quote Originally Posted by Andrew View Post
      I say if it was good enough to deserve a painstaking Hebrew to Greek translation for the benefit of the Greek speaking Jew -and early Christian fathers and congregations held it as inspired -then it's good enough for me.
      All right, but the problem was that only some of them did. The Jews of the Holy Land and the Jews of everywhere else differed on whether or not these books were inspired, and that carried over to the Christian Church which finally decided to put them into the Bible, but only provisionally. Finally, the Lutherans and Anglicans eliminated them from the Bible but still ordered them to be read and the Catholic Church itself kicked out some of the Apocrypha in response, although not all of those books. And then we have the other problem, which is that these are not like the rest of the Holy Scriptures, being essentially morality tales, and no doctrine is dependent upon what it written in them.

    8. Likes Lämmchen liked this post
    9. #6
      Lämmchen's Avatar
      Lämmchen is offline God's Lil Lamb
      Administrator
      Community Team
      52
      Married
      Gloria In Excelsis Deo
       
      Mood:
      Cool
       
      Join Date
      Jun 2015
      Posts
      20,675
      Country
      United States
      CH Cash
      218,199
      Post Thanks / Like
      CH Cash
      (477,854 Banked)
      vBActivity - Stats
      Points
      244,821
      Level
      99
      vBActivity - Bars
      Lv. Percent
      17.2%
      Rep Power
      1016
      The Apocrypha isn't just one book but different writings written during different periods. Which ones do you suggest should belong in the bible and why do you believe them to be divinely inspired?
      "Christianity does not require more work but more trust." Pr. Jonathan Fisk
      "Bearing fruit does not make you a branch. A branch is a branch because it grows from the vine." Pr. Jonathan Fisk
      "A Christian's life is not defined by what the Christian does. It is defined by Christ and what He has done for us." Pr. Rolf David Preus

    10. Likes Josiah liked this post
    11. #7
      Josiah's Avatar
      Josiah is offline Bronze Member
      Married
      Mood:
      Happy
       
      Join Date
      Jun 2015
      Posts
      8,949
      Country
      United States
      CH Cash
      123,042
      Post Thanks / Like
      CH Cash
      (0 Banked)
      vBActivity - Stats
      Points
      90,634
      Level
      71
      vBActivity - Bars
      Lv. Percent
      14.77%
      Rep Power
      1009
      Quote Originally Posted by NathanH83 View Post
      I think the Apocrypha belongs in the Bible. Other people say that it's doesn't. What do you say?

      WHICH Apocrypha?


      Would you please specifically LIST the books you regard as "Apocrypha" and by deletion, which you do not.
      We are justified by works - just not our own.

    12. #8
      Josiah's Avatar
      Josiah is offline Bronze Member
      Married
      Mood:
      Happy
       
      Join Date
      Jun 2015
      Posts
      8,949
      Country
      United States
      CH Cash
      123,042
      Post Thanks / Like
      CH Cash
      (0 Banked)
      vBActivity - Stats
      Points
      90,634
      Level
      71
      vBActivity - Bars
      Lv. Percent
      14.77%
      Rep Power
      1009
      Quote Originally Posted by Albion View Post
      Finally, the Lutherans and Anglicans eliminated them from the Bible but still ordered them to be read and the Catholic Church itself kicked out some of the Apocrypha in response, although not all of those books. And then we have the other problem, which is that these are not like the rest of the Holy Scriptures, being essentially morality tales, and no doctrine is dependent upon what it written in them.

      Um..... not exactly.....


      Functionally..... on a practical level.... you are correct. But unlike the Anglican Communion, Lutheranism has never taken a dogmatic stand here. It is important to note that the Lutheran Confessions VERY MUCH ON PURPOSE do not list which books we regard as canonical, the Lutheran Confessions say NOTHING about ANY Deuterocanonical book or ANYONE'S set of them (there are countless DIFFERENT "sets" accepted or unaccepted, officially or otherwise). Luther himself - PERSONALLY and INDIVIDUALLY - including some in his German translation (one MORE than the RCC has in its current unique tome) and shared HIS PERSONAL INDIVIDUAL opinion that these books are good to read and of much value but not to be used "canonically" that is as a rule for THEOLOGY, a common view in his time and largely formalized in the Anglican Church (albeit applied to more books), but I'd add, that NEVER has been affirmed by Lutheranism. Officially, Lutheranism is SILENT on this whole issue. The reality that our Lutheran Confessions say NOTHING about any of this is telling.


      Now, it IS true, many of the 300+ Lutheran denominations have officially embraced 66 books WHILE BEING SILENT about the status of any others. Frankly, I'm not sure if my synod has or has not done that, but I understand some have. But that would be a denominational thing and not a generality of Lutheranism (we look exclusively to the Lutheran Confessions for that). And it needs to be noted that officially embracing 66 does not mean officially rejecting others (although that's probably a reasonable conclusion in terms of practice). In PRACTICE, Lutheranism is functionally similar to the Anglican Communion (so your comment is fine) but not officially.


      On a personal note, in my Catholic years, these books OCCASIONALLY came up in the lectionary. Some Lutheran lectionaries included them, too. But otherwise, it seemed to me, Catholics gave them no notice. I recall no sermons from anything in them, no Bible studies on them, no mention of anything in them from any Catholic teacher. Odd... the first time I read some and participated in the formal Bible Study on them was after I became a Lutheran.




      .
      Last edited by Josiah; 09-12-2019 at 10:03 AM.
      We are justified by works - just not our own.

    13. #9
      Albion's Avatar
      Albion is online now Expert Member
      Married
      Mood:
      Friendly
       
      Join Date
      Sep 2017
      Posts
      3,757
      Country
      United States
      CH Cash
      19,298
      Post Thanks / Like
      CH Cash
      (0 Banked)
      vBActivity - Stats
      Points
      24,765
      Level
      43
      vBActivity - Bars
      Lv. Percent
      40.65%
      Rep Power
      734
      Quote Originally Posted by Josiah View Post


      Functionally..... on a practical level.... you are correct. But unlike the Anglican Communion, Lutheranism has never taken a dogmatic stand here. It is critical to note that the Lutheran Confessions VERY MUCH ON PURPOSE do not list which books we regard as canonical, the Lutheran Confessions say NOTHING about ANY Deuterocanonical book or ANYONE'S set of them (there are countless DIFFERENT "sets" accepted or unaccepted, officially or otherwise). Luther himself - PERSONALLY and INDIVIDUALLY - including some in his German translation (one MORE than the RCC has its current unique tome) and shared HIS PERSONAL INDIVIDUAL opinion that these books are good to read and of much value but not to be used "canonically" ...
      That, I guess, is what I was thinking of.


      In PRACTICE, Lutheranism is functionally is virtually identical to the Anglican Communion (so your comment is fine) but not officially.
      oooh, ick. "Anglican Communion." Among us, that's like me speaking of the ELCA as if it were your church and the all-in-all of Lutheranism. LOL


      ...it seemed to me, Catholics gave them no notice. I recall no sermons from anything in them, no Bible studies on them, no mention of anything in them from any Catholic teacher. Odd... the first time I read some and participated in the formal Bible Study on them was after I became a Lutheran.
      Yes. I agree. Despite the defiant stands that Catholic apologists often take with regard to the Apocrypha, the church itself mentions them almost never.

    14. Likes RichWh1 liked this post
    15. #10
      Arsenios's Avatar
      Arsenios is offline Expert Member
      Mood:
      ----
       
      Join Date
      Apr 2018
      Location
      Pacific North West
      Posts
      3,537
      Country
      United States
      CH Cash
      15,067
      Post Thanks / Like
      CH Cash
      (0 Banked)
      vBActivity - Stats
      Points
      10,452
      Level
      30
      vBActivity - Bars
      Lv. Percent
      38.46%
      Rep Power
      207
      Quote Originally Posted by NathanH83 View Post
      I think the Apocrypha belongs in the Bible.
      Other people say that it's doesn't.
      What do you say?
      Well, you can have a complete Bible...

      Or the depleted version...

      Original KJV included them...

      Puritans didn't like them...

      So if you prefer a partial Bible to a complete Bible...

      You can "Puritanize" your complete Bible from their presence...

      And rest self assured in your Puritanization...

      Like you, I prefer the complete Bible...

      And I fear the incomplete one...


      Arsenios
      Last edited by Arsenios; 09-12-2019 at 11:57 AM.

    16. Likes Andrew liked this post

    Bookmarks

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •