Did Jesus celebrate a holiday that comes from the apocrypha?

[Andrew]

Technically, that would be Unitarian since that religious society has no confessional requirements and considers everyone who is a freethinker but doesn't have some other affiliation to be, by definition, a Unitarian.

But maybe "other church" would be better for our purposes.

One thing's for certain, though. SOMEONE had to input "Anglican" in this case. Tapatalk members are not simply assigned a faith icon at random.

Mine said agnostic and Josiah had to tell me about it, another's also said agnostic and he had to change it. Nathan says he attends a church that isn't Pentecostal (considered non protestant) he said something about a protestant church

 

[Albion]

Mine said agnostic and Josiah had to tell me about it, another's also said agnostic and he had to change it. Nathan says he attends a church that isn't Pentecostal (considered non protestant) he said something about a protestant church

I agree that his comments go off in a variety of different directions, so that it is impossible for us to identify his faith as clearly Protestant (which does have some boundaries, as I believe you were also thinking); and it is presumptuous to say it's Non-denominational because that was never claimed by him. And he is committed to the Catholic version of Scripture.

I know that "Christian" is the usual fallback position, but I don't like that myself for the simple reason that it doesn't actually say much of anything to the reader except that the person isn't a Muslim, etc. or an Atheist. That's not saying much on a forum that's called Christianity Haven! LOL

To me, "other church" -- his own -- comes closest in this case.






.

 

[Andrew]

I agree that his comments go off in a variety of different directions, so that it is impossible for us to identify his faith as clearly Protestant (which does have some boundaries, as I believe you were also thinking); and it is presumptuous to say it's Non-denominational because that was never claimed by him. And he is committed to the Catholic version of Scripture.

I know that "Christian" is the usual fallback position, but I don't like that myself for the simple reason that it doesn't actually say much of anything to the reader except that the person isn't a Muslim, etc. or an Atheist. That's not saying much on a forum that's called Christianity Haven! LOL

To me, "other church" -- his own -- comes closest in this case.






.

Supports Catholic scripture? He just adheres to the Septuagint as inspired, as do I, waaay for the Constantine made Christianity the state religion of Rome and the Catholic church as we know it today was first settled

 

[Albion]

Supports Catholic scripture? He just adheres to the Septuagint as inspired, as do I,...

What I said was the Catholic VERSION of Scripture.

It seems like re-wording the other guy's post in order to make it easier to challenge is a practice that's becoming epidemic around here.

 

[Andrew]

What I said was the Catholic VERSION of Scripture. It seems like re-wording the other guy's post in order to make it easier to challenge is a practice that's becoming epidemic around here.

The Catholic version calls it a second canon, Nathan obviously doesn't like to use the word "apocrypha", perhaps he leans more to East Orthodox

 

[Albion]

The Catholic version calls it a second canon, Nathan obviously doesn't like to use the word "apocrypha"....

Neither does the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[NathanH83]

The Catholic version calls it a second canon, Nathan obviously doesn't like to use the word "apocrypha", perhaps he leans more to East Orthodox

I lean more towards the Ethiopian Orthodox canon than anything.
Jude quoted Enoch.
But I lean towards the Eastern Greek Orthodox more than the Catholic one. So yes, you’re right about that.

Catholics took books out of the Bible. Even the King James apocrypha contains books which that the Catholic Bible does not contain.

So, to say I lean towards the Catholic canon is not an honest thing to say.

What’s Catholicism got to do with it anyway? These books were authored by Jews many years before Christ, long before there was a Catholic Church.

People really have an unhealthy obsession with Catholicism.

The books are JEWISH, people!

 

[Albion]

Catholics took books out of the Bible. Even the King James apocrypha contains books which that the Catholic Bible does not contain.

So, to say I lean towards the Catholic canon is not an honest thing to say.

What’s Catholicism got to do with it anyway? These books were authored by Jews many years before Christ, long before there was a Catholic Church.

People really have an unhealthy obsession with Catholicism.

The books are JEWISH, people!

If someone were to insist that the Book of Mormon should be considered divine revelation and perhaps added to the Bible, would it be dishonest or obsessive to think that he leans in the direction of the opinion that's held by the Mormon Church?"

:O_O:

 

[NathanH83]

What I said was the Catholic VERSION of Scripture.

It seems like re-wording the other guy's post in order to make it easier to challenge is a practice that's becoming epidemic around here.

What makes you think I adhere to the Catholic version?

1 and 2 Maccabees were not authored by Catholics. The Catholic Church didn’t exist when they were authored by the Jews and added to the Greek Septuagint, which were the Jewish scriptures for Greek speaking Jews years before Christ.

AIN’T NOTHIN’ CATHOLIC ‘BOUT IT!

The Greek Orthodox Church accepts 1 and 2 Maccabees. They’re not Catholic.

The Ethiopian Orthodox Church accepts 1 and 2 Maccabees. They’re not Catholic.

The Anabaptists accept 1 and 2 Maccabees as scripture, and they’re Protestant!!
The Amish too!!

Why do people always couple Catholicism together with the apocrypha?

They’re not the same thing!

Get off your Anti-Catholic high-horse, and look to the early Jewish Christians like Paul who clearly considered 2 Maccabees to be scripture, based upon what he says in Hebrews 11:35.

Enough with Catholicism!
Stop talking about Catholicism!
You’re obsessed with Catholicism!

I’m talking about JEWISH scripture!!! (Which modern-day, anti-Christ Jews reject)

 

[NathanH83]

If someone were to insist that the Book of Mormon should be considered divine revelation and perhaps added to the Bible, would it be dishonest or obsessive to think that he leans in the direction of the opinion that's held by the Mormon Church?"

:O_O:

There’s nobody else who accepts the Book of Mormon, except Mormons.
Bad example!

Lots and lots of Non-Catholics accept Maccabees.

You’re comparing apples and oranges.

 

[Albion]

There’s nobody else who accepts the Book of Mormon, except Mormons.

So, your answer to my question is "No," If the position taken is like that of church X and unlike churches A, B, and C, there is nothing amiss with concluding that that person leans toward the view taken by church X. It is, in fact, unavoidable.

 

[Albion]

Lots and lots of Non-Catholics accept Maccabees.

Name them for us (their churches, that is).

 

[Andrew]

Name them for us (their churches, that is).

The early Christians didn't have a denomination so are you assuming that all non Catholics who reads these books as canon are not Christian? :/

 

[NathanH83]

Name them for us (their churches, that is).

I just did. See my comment above. You want me to type all that again?

 

[NathanH83]

So, your answer to my question is "No," If the position taken is like that of church X and unlike churches A, B, and C, there is nothing amiss with concluding that that person leans toward the view taken by church X. It is, in fact, unavoidable.

What is this? Math class?

If Greek Orthodox, Ethiopian Orthodox, Anabaptists, and Amish all accept Maccabees, then yes, it’s illogical to assume that just because someone accepts Maccabees then they must be Catholic.

Yes, that’s illogical. Look up David Bercot.

 

[Albion]

If Greek Orthodox, Ethiopian Orthodox, Anabaptists, and Amish all accept Maccabees, then yes, it’s illogical to assume that just because someone accepts Maccabees then they must be Catholic.

It's strange that you omitted the largest church in the world--the Roman Catholic Church--which belongs on your list, but yes, there are also the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Old Catholics, the Ethiopian church and some others, all of which are Catholic by classification.

And against that, you have named Anabaptists and Amish, two splinter movements that are hardly characteristic of Protestantism.

So, the shoe does fit, and now you have also confirmed my point.

 

[Albion]

I just did.

It's pretty clear that "Anabaptists and Amish" do not constitute "Lots and lots of non-Catholics," but that was your claim.

 

[NathanH83]

It's strange that you omitted the largest church in the world--the Roman Catholic Church--which belongs on your list, but yes, there are also the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Old Catholics, the Ethiopian church and some others, all of which are Catholic by classification.

And against that, you have named Anabaptists and Amish, two splinter movements that are hardly characteristic of Protestantism.

So, the shoe does fit, and now you have also confirmed my point.

Oh. Ok. So Anabaptists are Catholic now.

Oh, and they’re just a splinter group. Right.
The largest church in my city has Anabaptist and Mennonite roots. Oh, but they’re just a small, insignificant splinter group. Right.

 

[Andrew]

It's strange that you omitted the largest church in the world--the Roman Catholic Church--which belongs on your list, but yes, there are also the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Old Catholics, the Ethiopian church and some others, all of which are Catholic by classification.

And against that, you have named Anabaptists and Amish, two splinter movements that are hardly characteristic of Protestantism.

So, the shoe does fit, and now you have also confirmed my point.

You know what was the biggest church in Pauls time? The church in Rome, and Clement wrote letters to them mentioning Judith and Esther side by side without distinction

 

[Albion]

Oh. Ok. So Anabaptists are Catholic now.

No. They and the tiny Amish community are the only ones on your list who are NOT Catholics!! What's more they do not constitute "lots and lots of non-Catholics." I do not know how you can possibly mix this up.


To embrace the Catholic version of the canon of Scripture as you do is to be sympathetic to the Catholic selection. It's not more complicated than that. And it's just a statement of fact.