• 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 20 12311 ... LastLast
    Results 1 to 10 of 192
    1. #1
      NathanH83 is offline Apprentice Member
      Single
      Mood:
      ----
       
      Join Date
      May 2019
      Posts
      168
      CH Cash
      916
      Post Thanks / Like
      CH Cash
      (0 Banked)
      vBActivity - Stats
      Points
      472
      Level
      7
      vBActivity - Bars
      Lv. Percent
      83.17%
      Rep Power
      11

      What is the main reason why the Apocrypha doesn’t belong in the Bible?

      What is the main reason why Catholics believe it does belong?

    2. #2
      Josiah's Avatar
      Josiah is offline Bronze Member
      Supporting Member
      Married
      Mood:
      Happy
       
      Join Date
      Jun 2015
      Posts
      9,280
      Country
      United States
      CH Cash
      124,751
      Post Thanks / Like
      CH Cash
      (0 Banked)
      vBActivity - Stats
      Points
      94,085
      Level
      72
      vBActivity - Bars
      Lv. Percent
      9.9%
      Rep Power
      1092
      The RCC believes SOME of the Deuterocanonical books belong because it itself said so - unofficially at Florence in the 15th Century and officially at Trent in the 16th. No other denomination agrees with its unique embrace and unique Bible, nor with its stance that they belong cuz it itself says so.

      The EOC also accepts SOME of the Deuterocanonical books (but not the same set as the RCC now does) but it's not quite officially.

      The OOC churches also accept SOME of the Deuterocanonical books but not the same set as the EOC or RCC (in fact, not even the same as each other) but it's not quite officially.

      The Anglican Church also accepts SOME of the Deutercanonical books. More than the RCC, more than the EOC... it has it's own unique set and thus it's own unique Bible. Officially since the late 16th Century. But none of the Deuterocanonical books are accepted as canonical but only as Deutercanonical (secondary, under) - as important to read and of great value but not as canon for doctrine.

      The Lutheran Church has no stance on the Deuterocanonical books at all. Luther personally chose to include the UNIQUE set of ones used in Germany in his day (different that the RCC "set" at Trent, different than the EOC's set or OOC's set or the Anglican set, but the ones found in the Bibles in Germany in the 15th and 16th Century), there are IN his German translation, but he expressed his personal view that they are DEUTERO and not fully canonical, the same view later dogmatized by the Anglicans but never by Lutherans.

      Calvin officially rejected all of them and they were not included in most Reformed Bibles. Since Reformed Protestantism dominated in the USA, most Protestant Bibles sold in the USA did not have any set of Deutero books in them.




      ,
      We are justified by works - just not our own.

    3. #3
      Albion's Avatar
      Albion is offline Expert Member
      Married
      Mood:
      Friendly
       
      Join Date
      Sep 2017
      Posts
      3,855
      Country
      United States
      CH Cash
      19,825
      Post Thanks / Like
      CH Cash
      (0 Banked)
      vBActivity - Stats
      Points
      25,230
      Level
      43
      vBActivity - Bars
      Lv. Percent
      73.33%
      Rep Power
      746
      Quote Originally Posted by Josiah View Post
      The RCC believes SOME of the Deuterocanonical books belong because it itself said so - unofficially at Florence in the 15th Century and officially at Trent in the 16th. No other denomination agrees with its unique embrace and unique Bible, nor with its stance that they belong cuz it itself says so.

      The EOC also accepts SOME of the Deuterocanonical books (but not the same set as the RCC now does) but it's not quite officially.

      The OOC churches also accept SOME of the Deuterocanonical books but not the same set as the EOC or RCC (in fact, not even the same as each other) but it's not quite officially.

      The Anglican Church also accepts SOME of the Deutercanonical books. More than the RCC, more than the EOC... it has it's own unique set and thus it's own unique Bible. Officially since the late 16th Century. But none of the Deuterocanonical books are accepted as canonical but only as Deutercanonical (secondary, under) - as important to read and of great value but not as canon for doctrine.

      The Lutheran Church has no stance on the Deuterocanonical books at all. Luther personally chose to include the UNIQUE set of ones used in Germany in his day (different that the RCC "set" at Trent, different than the EOC's set or OOC's set or the Anglican set, but the ones found in the Bibles in Germany in the 15th and 16th Century), there are IN his German translation, but he expressed his personal view that they are DEUTERO and not fully canonical, the same view later dogmatized by the Anglicans but never by Lutherans.

      Calvin officially rejected all of them and they were not included in most Reformed Bibles. Since Reformed Protestantism dominated in the USA, most Protestant Bibles sold in the USA did not have any set of Deutero books in them.




      ,
      The Anglican churches do not accept any of the Apocrypha as inspired writings or as part of the Bible. We do accept that there is something to be learned from these books, as is the case with all sorts of religious writings, but that's all.

      The comment about the church accepting some of them or of accepting MORE of the Apocrypha than either the RCC or EOC, both of which accept as scripture almost all of them, is a surprise..

      And as for the idea that Anglicans have a "unique" Bible, that's not true, unless that was an unusual way of saying that the most popular Bible translation--the King James Version--was translated by the Church of England. But even if that were the meaning, this translation is used by almost every denomination, so it cannot be considered unique to the Anglican churches.
      Last edited by Albion; 12-17-2019 at 05:04 PM.

    4. #4
      Josiah's Avatar
      Josiah is offline Bronze Member
      Supporting Member
      Married
      Mood:
      Happy
       
      Join Date
      Jun 2015
      Posts
      9,280
      Country
      United States
      CH Cash
      124,751
      Post Thanks / Like
      CH Cash
      (0 Banked)
      vBActivity - Stats
      Points
      94,085
      Level
      72
      vBActivity - Bars
      Lv. Percent
      9.9%
      Rep Power
      1092
      Quote Originally Posted by Albion View Post
      The Anglican churches do not accept any of the Apocrypha as inspired writings or as part of the Bible. We do accept that there is something to be learned from these books, as is the case with all sorts of religious writings, but that's all.

      .... exactly as I wrote.

      The 39 Articles accepts a FEW of them as DEUTEROcanonical - as good to read but NOT as canon for doctrine. It was the typical opinion .... Luther PERSONALLY shared the very same opinion (but the Lutheran Church never dogmatized it as the Anglican Church did) albeit for a different "set" (Luther's "set" in his German translation was not the "set" the Anglican 39 Articles embraced).



      And as for the idea that Anglicans have a "unique" Bible, that's not true

      Friend, actually it IS accurate. The books listed in the 39 Articles is UNIQUE, a unique "set." The books included in the 1611 KJV was unique - unlike any other Bible ever existing. It's a unique set of books. It has far more books in it than Luthers'... more than the Catholic Council of Florence or the Council of Trent embrace, more (I think) than the EOC's but less than most OOC's.


      Deuterocanonical books in the Anglican Church: 14
      Deuterocanonical books in the Catholic Church: 7
      Deuterocanonical books in Luther's translation: 8
      Deuterocanonical books in the Greek Orthodox Bible: 13
      Deuterocanonical books in the Ethiopean Orthodox Bible: 15
      Etc.
      Etc.
      Etc.




      .
      Last edited by Josiah; 12-17-2019 at 06:12 PM.
      We are justified by works - just not our own.

    5. #5
      Albion's Avatar
      Albion is offline Expert Member
      Married
      Mood:
      Friendly
       
      Join Date
      Sep 2017
      Posts
      3,855
      Country
      United States
      CH Cash
      19,825
      Post Thanks / Like
      CH Cash
      (0 Banked)
      vBActivity - Stats
      Points
      25,230
      Level
      43
      vBActivity - Bars
      Lv. Percent
      73.33%
      Rep Power
      746
      Quote Originally Posted by Josiah View Post
      .... exactly as I wrote.

      The 39 Articles accepts a FEW of them as DEUTEROcanonical - as good to read but NOT as canon for doctrine.
      Is your meaning here that 14 is a "few" and that "accepts" means "don't accept as scripture?"


      actually it IS accurate. The books listed in the 39 Articles is UNIQUE, a unique "set."
      You said that the Anglican church has "its own unique Bible." It doesn't. Because none of the Apocrypha is included in the Authorized edition of the Bible, it cannot be "unique." It is instead the same in that respect as the Bibles used in most other churches.

      The books included in the 1611 KJV was unique - unlike any other Bible ever existing.
      This statement is simply false. There are 66 books in the KJV and always were. No others were ever considered to be part of the Bible. There are, in fact, several grievous errors in that post as regards the claims about the Anglican Church.

      What's more, the Articles of Religion (which you referred to several times) clearly states what I am pointing to here.
      Last edited by Albion; 12-17-2019 at 10:55 PM.

    6. #6
      Andrew's Avatar
      Andrew is offline Expert Member
      Moderator
      Supporting Member
      35
      Mood:
      Awesome
       
      Join Date
      Aug 2017
      Posts
      4,533
      Country
      United States
      CH Cash
      11,502
      Post Thanks / Like
      CH Cash
      (0 Banked)
      vBActivity - Stats
      Points
      22,402
      Level
      41
      vBActivity - Bars
      Lv. Percent
      68.34%
      Rep Power
      631
      I find it interesting how much "canon" has consumed different denominations.. According to the Jews only the Torah (first 5 books of Moses) are "canon" (God's authority) and the rest of the writings are used solely for edification.. this edification however concerns prophecy and there is prophecy in the Apocrypha/Septuagint and not just Jewish Idioms to be taken out of context but literal prophecy.. Jews today easily dismiss Jesus as Savior because their corrupt Masoretic uses a slightly and less specific type of paraphrase that does NOT link Jesus to prophecy as we Christians accept, to the Jew they can convince themselves through language barriers and very technical loopholes that Jesus is not the Christ.
      It's nobodies fault but the Jews, their fathers did this during the time of Christ and there are many good Jews who are sold into the bondage of "Sola Torah" and thus God will deal with them and redeem those of Israel who are of Israel..
      None of your churches will agree on canon because it's a oxymoron of a word, made up, no such thing exist just ask the early Christians who were martyred for their beliefs!
      Name one pre Christian canon of books and you will discover none, the Talmud is the continuum of the OT just as our NT Gospel is the final authority over the OT "school master"..
      I'm not defending the Catholics bible view at all, I'm just suggesting you take a break and actually read, learn and consider what the ante Nicene church fathers believed about these books! Yes they started to become a little theological but the early "university" of Christianity was 100% accepting of ALL early Hebrew text sources which included these "extra" books outside the Torah and was part of the Tanach!
      Aquila the Jewish convert from Christianity revised the original Greek translation into the Torah alone and the Masoretic came waaaaaaay later on down the road but Aquilas GREEK translation in 150AD replaced the FIRST GREEK translation in the greek speaking synagogues (Septuagint/Greek Tanach (OT)..
      The Jews were already fighting among themselves over the resurrection and the Sabbath by the time Christ came, the Pharisees took the Torah figuratively (finding loopholes) while the the elders and followers of Zadok (Sadducees) took the law literally and argued against the Pharisees but after 70 AD the Sadducees had no temple to hold priesthood over and the Pharisees became high priest and declared to write and pass down their oral beliefs and traditions through the Talmud, which blasphemies our Lord in great detail!
      So when Greek speaking Christians began using Hebrew prophecies to witness to Jews that Christ is the Messiah the rejecting high priest authorities began to white wash whatever they could get away with without "lying" (using loopholes)... Their defense to this day is that only through the original Hebrew language can Gods word be truly Holy (Canon)..
      So ask yourself "do any of our translations even hold water?", the Hebrew answer is NO. Hence John the Baptist and Jesus were just greek myths/exaggerations made to compete with the God of Abraham.. not only that, but Jesus was a rogue idolatrous Jew who created a mere cult along with John, this is also an excuse some Jews claim today why the genealogies changed because it was nearing the year 6000 from Adam and they feared the spread of Messianic cults.. The Masoretic did it all by that time, we are actually closer to the year 7000 and not like the creationist view of 6000 years..
      Call me stupid, but call your early Christian martyrs stupid too while you are at it, because according to their massive volumes of literature, they had no problem with accepting and teaching from the "Apocrypha"..
      Last edited by Andrew; 12-18-2019 at 07:31 AM.

    7. #7
      Andrew's Avatar
      Andrew is offline Expert Member
      Moderator
      Supporting Member
      35
      Mood:
      Awesome
       
      Join Date
      Aug 2017
      Posts
      4,533
      Country
      United States
      CH Cash
      11,502
      Post Thanks / Like
      CH Cash
      (0 Banked)
      vBActivity - Stats
      Points
      22,402
      Level
      41
      vBActivity - Bars
      Lv. Percent
      68.34%
      Rep Power
      631
      A good example, speaks on the Anglican church view btw, only Hebrew can be "canon" according to this Pharisee offspring/Talmudic Jew @Albion

      Last edited by Andrew; 12-18-2019 at 04:43 AM.

    8. #8
      Josiah's Avatar
      Josiah is offline Bronze Member
      Supporting Member
      Married
      Mood:
      Happy
       
      Join Date
      Jun 2015
      Posts
      9,280
      Country
      United States
      CH Cash
      124,751
      Post Thanks / Like
      CH Cash
      (0 Banked)
      vBActivity - Stats
      Points
      94,085
      Level
      72
      vBActivity - Bars
      Lv. Percent
      9.9%
      Rep Power
      1092
      Quote Originally Posted by Albion View Post
      Quote Originally Posted by Josiah


      .... exactly as I wrote.

      The 39 Articles accepts a FEW of them as DEUTEROcanonical - as good to read but NOT as canon for doctrine. It was the typical opinion .... Luther PERSONALLY shared the very same opinion (but the Lutheran Church never dogmatized it as the Anglican Church did) albeit for a different "set" (Luther's "set" in his German translation was not the "set" the Anglican 39 Articles embraced).




      Friend, actually it IS accurate. The Anglican Church DOES have a unique Bible. The books listed in the 39 Articles is UNIQUE, a unique "set." The books included in the 1611 KJV was unique - unlike any other Bible ever existing. It's a unique set of books. It has far more books in it than Luthers'... more than the Catholic Council of Florence or the Council of Trent embrace, more (I think) than the EOC
      's but less than most OOC's.


      Deuterocanonical books in the Anglican Church: 14
      Deuterocanonical books in the Catholic Church: 7
      Deuterocanonical books in Luther's translation: 8
      Deuterocanonical books in the Greek Orthodox Bible: 13
      Deuterocanonical books in the Ethiopean Orthodox Bible: 15
      Etc.k, Etc., Etc.



      .


      Is your meaning here that 14 is a "few" and that "accepts" means "don't accept as scripture?"

      1 Perhaps "SOME" would have been a better word than "FEW". But there are perhaps 20-30 books out there regarded by some as DEUTEROcanonical, so 14 is only SOME of them. "Few" is perhaps too subjective.


      2. I never said the Anglican Church accepts anything as "Scripture" did I? I never even mentioned that word (nor does the opening post). What I said is that the Anglican Church officially accepts a unique set of 14 books as DEUTEROcanonical (not as canonical). As I shared, "deutero" means secondary or under.. in theology, it means books held in esteem, as worthy of reading and knowing, but not as canonical - as the canon/rule/norma normans for theology. As we all know, the Anglican Church as has UNIQUE Bible tome, one that contains 80 books in it (all listed in the Thirty-Nine Articles, the defining document of Anglicanism) - but as I noted and stressed, specifically 14 of them are regarded NOT as canonical but as DEUTEROcanoncial - worthy to be read (even included in the Anglican lectionary, read in church during the Sunday worship readings... and at times used as sermon texts) BUT not as the rule or canon or norma normans for theology, NOT the source and norm for faith and morals. As I noted, this was a very typical view in the 16th Century, Luther's own personal opinion (albeit he only embrace 8 - not 14 - such books) but while Lutheranism never dogmatized (or accepted on any level) that common opinion, Anglicanism did.




      You said that the Anglican church has "its own unique Bible." It doesn't.

      Friend, that's simply incorrect. Compare the tomes with "BIBLE" on the cover with all the following:
      Reformed Bibles (following the content mandated by the Westminister Confession)
      Luther's German Translation
      A post-Trent Catholic tome.
      Any Orthodox tome.
      Friend, there is ONLY ONE Bible in the universe containing 80 books.... and it's the Anglican one.



      This statement is simply false. There are 66 books in the KJV and always were.

      The authorized KJV had/has 80 books in it.

      Just as Luther's had 74
      Just as the Reformed tomes all had 66

      Again, as you know, I never said the Anglican Church accepts these (or anything) as SCRIPTURE, I said they embrace them in their unique Bible. The word "Scripture" never appears in the post you reference. I specifically said the Anglican Church does NOT accept this specific unique set of 14 books as canonical, I stressed only as DEUTEROcanonical. But it is a UNIQUE set of them...


      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._James_Version
      http://anglicansonline.org/basics/th..._articles.html
      http://christopherbryanonline.com/th...anglican-note/




      What's more, the Articles of Religion (which you referred to several times) clearly states what I am pointing to here.

      Friend, read article 6 of the Thirty-Nine Articles. Check the links offered here. Note the first that states, "There are 80 books in the King James Bible." Yes, many sold in the USA only have 66 but that's because most that buy the KJV are not Anglicans and thus the publishing houses don't unique those but the Authorized King James had and has and always had had 80 books in it. 66 as Canonical, 14 as Deuterocanonical. 80 is a unique number of books, no other Bible under heaven has exactly 80 books in it. Friend, it's just the reality.




      .
      Last edited by Josiah; 12-18-2019 at 10:34 AM.
      We are justified by works - just not our own.

    9. #9
      Albion's Avatar
      Albion is offline Expert Member
      Married
      Mood:
      Friendly
       
      Join Date
      Sep 2017
      Posts
      3,855
      Country
      United States
      CH Cash
      19,825
      Post Thanks / Like
      CH Cash
      (0 Banked)
      vBActivity - Stats
      Points
      25,230
      Level
      43
      vBActivity - Bars
      Lv. Percent
      73.33%
      Rep Power
      746
      Quote Originally Posted by Josiah View Post
      1 Perhaps "SOME" would have been a better word than "FEW". But there are perhaps 20-30 books out there regarded by some as DEUTEROcanonical, so 14 is only SOME of them. "Few" is perhaps too subjective.
      Well, I called attention to that word only to say that there are NO additions to the 66 Bible books. "Few" necessarily means that there are some.

      It doesn't matter if the thought is that there are 14 by comparison to someone else, or 7 or 20 or any other number. No Deuterocanonical books have ever been Bible books since the KJV was produced. They exist, yes, but they aren't books of the Bible.

      2. I never said the Anglican Church accepts anything as "Scripture" did I?
      I have been trying to work through the wording you used in order to see if there is a misunderstanding that comes only from the choice of terms. When I use the words Scripture or inspired, it is to make clear my point of disagreement. YOU used the word "Bible," which I am sure most people understand to mean the same thing.

      Be that as it may, the following, which you wrote, is in error--

      The books listed in the 39 Articles is UNIQUE, a unique "set." The books included in the 1611 KJV was unique - unlike any other Bible ever existing. It's a unique set of books. It has far more books in it than Luthers'... more than the Catholic Council of Florence or the Council of Trent embrace, more (I think) than the EOC's but less than most OOC's.
      As I am writing this, I am looking at the King James Version of the Bible, certified true to the 1611 work, and its listing of the books of the Old Testament and, also, the books of the New Testament. There are 39 of the former and 27 of the latter, so how can this be called by you "UNIQUE," "its own unique set," and "unlike any other Bible ever existing?" It cannot be.

      What I said is that the Anglican Church accepts 14 books as DEUTEROcanonical (not as canonical).
      Alas, that is not what you said, which is why I felt I needed to set this matter straight.

      Friend, read article 6 of the Thirty-Nine Articles. Check the links offered here. Note the first that states, "There are 80 books in the King James Bible." Yes, many sold in the USA only have 66 but that's because most that buy the KJV are not Anglicans and thus the publishing houses don't unique those but the Authorized King James had and has and always had had 80 books in it.
      I do not know what you have been reading. It may be something from a Roman Catholic source, but in any case you are not citing Article VI.

      Note, by the way, that what you say is in Article VI makes a reference to the "King James Version," which is a slang term that the Articles never use. The proper term for this translation of the Bible is "Authorized Version (AV)." The terms "God's word" and "holy Scripture" appear in the Articles, but "King James Version" never does. Yet your alleged quote makes use of it.

      I just read the first and second of your links--as requested--and they do not say what you claimed. The DeuteroCanonical books are listed, but there is no suggestion that they are part of the canon. It's quite the opposite, in fact. That they are excluded is made more than clear.

      So it's apparently just a misunderstanding on your part. I hope, therefore, that I have helped you and that other readers are set straight about this matter (if they even care about this piece of trivia).
      Last edited by Albion; 12-18-2019 at 11:13 AM.

    10. #10
      Josiah's Avatar
      Josiah is offline Bronze Member
      Supporting Member
      Married
      Mood:
      Happy
       
      Join Date
      Jun 2015
      Posts
      9,280
      Country
      United States
      CH Cash
      124,751
      Post Thanks / Like
      CH Cash
      (0 Banked)
      vBActivity - Stats
      Points
      94,085
      Level
      72
      vBActivity - Bars
      Lv. Percent
      9.9%
      Rep Power
      1092
      Quote Originally Posted by Albion
      Quote Originally Posted by Josiah


      1. Perhaps "SOME" would have been a better word than "FEW". But there are perhaps 20-30 books out there regarded by some as DEUTEROcanonical, so 14 is only SOME of them. "Few" is perhaps too subjective.
      Well, I called attention to that word only to say that there are NO additions to the 66 Bible books. "Few" necessarily means that there are some.

      It doesn't matter if the thought is that there are 14 by comparison to someone else, or 7 or 20 or any other number.

      Hum, whether you think it "matters" or not isn't the point. What I posted is that the Anglican church embraces a specific and UNIQUE "set" of DEUTEROcanonical books. That's what I stated and you seemed to disagree.

      Read Article VI of the 39 Articles (the defining document of the Anglican Church). Hum.... it specifically lists 80 books. Eighty. Specifically. Now, you can check out ANY OTHER CHURCH in the universe and you won't find specifically 80. So it has a unique tome.

      And if you read Article VI of the 39 Articles, you will not some NOT mentioned by the RCC's Council of Florence or Trent, NOT mentioned by Luther, NOT mentioned by the Greek Orthodox Church.... and some missing that ARE mentioned elsewhere. It is unique.

      And if you look at say the Ethiopean Orthodox Church Bible, you will find MORE books than in the Anglican Bible.

      That's what I said. Friend, you offered nothing to show what I said is wrong





      Quote Originally Posted by Albion
      Quote Originally Posted by Josiah


      2. I never said the Anglican Church accepts anything as "Scripture" did I?
      Be that as it may, the following, which you wrote, is in error--

      The books listed in the 39 Articles is UNIQUE, a unique "set." The books included in the 1611 KJV was unique - unlike any other Bible ever existing. It's a unique set of books. It has far more books in it than Luthers'... more than the Catholic Council of Florence or the Council of Trent embrace, more (I think) than the EOC's but less than most OOC's. As I am writing this, I am looking at the King James Version of the Bible, certified true to the 1611 work, and its listing of the books of the Old Testament and, also, the books of the New Testament. There are 39 of the former and 27 of the latter, so how can this be called by you "UNIQUE," "its own unique set," and "unlike any other Bible ever existing?" It cannot be.

      No. It's not "in error."
      I'm looking at the Table of Contents from the Authorized Version of 1611 and ... um.... 80 books.
      See https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org...Book-Names.php Scroll down to the scan of the actual page of content.

      Also read Article VI of the 39 Articles. Count the number of books. I count 80. Eighty listed. Officially, formally. By name. Count 'em.



      The Anglican Church - specifically, officially, formally - states: "And the other Books the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following:

      The Third Book of Esdras,
      The rest of the Book of Esther,
      The Fourth Book of Esdras,
      The Book of Wisdom,
      The Book of Tobias,
      Jesus the Son of Sirach,
      The Book of Judith,
      Baruch the Prophet,
      The Song of the Three Children,
      The Prayer of Manasses,
      The Story of Susanna,
      The First Book of Maccabees,
      Of Bel and the Dragon,
      The Second Book of Maccabees.

      They ARE listed. They ARE in the official King James Bible. They are listed - specifically, by name - right there in the Table of Contents. Contained in the tome. I'm looking at the very page of CONTENT.
      YES! Of course! As I stressed and clearly stated, they are noted as DEUTEROcanonical and not canonical - specifically as I stated.
      And yes, 14 is UNIQUE, as I noted.

      But the 39 Articles stress the same point I have throughout this thread: These are NOT accepted as canonical but only as DUETEROcanonical. They are books included in the Anglican Bible but they are not canonical (the rule, the source, the norma normans for theology). I stressed that. And noted Luther had the same opinion (albeit for 8 and not 14 Books) but Lutherans never officially dogmatized that whereas the Anglicans did.



      Quote Originally Posted by Albion
      The DeuteroCanonical books are listed, but there is no suggestion that they are part of the canon.

      EXACTLY as I stated.

      By definition, DEUTEROcanonical is not canonical, they would be canonical if they were canonical. I would have stated they were accepted as canonical if I meant that, I stressed (putting it in all caps) that they are embraced as DEUTEROcanonical. And I defined what is meant by DEUTEROcanonical.




      Friend.... I am scratching my head wondering what your disagreement is.... why you are having an "issue" with me (we typically get along very, very well - LOL).

      I'm going to chuck this up to your misunderstanding me - and apologize for not being clearer.









      A blessed Advent to you and yours.


      - Josiah






      .
      Last edited by Josiah; 12-18-2019 at 11:42 AM.
      We are justified by works - just not our own.

    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
    •