The 73 canonical books of Holy Scripture.

[MennoSota]

What about 616?
I actually like the extra books, Bel and the Dragon is an excellent story

That's right...it's "Baal and the Dragon", not Puff the Magic Dragon.

 

[Andrew]

That's right...it's "Baal and the Dragon", not Puff the Magic Dragon.

:/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bel_and_the_Dragon

It's considered as the 14 chapter of Daniel.
I like it because it defrauds the false priest as they are caught eating the food left out for the god they held superstition over the people.
It's like I said a good story and I could care less about it being canonised by Catholics tho I respect them for it because it gave me access to it, I probably would have never have came across it without them.
I just like the story and that's it

 

[psalms 91]

:/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bel_and_the_Dragon

It's considered as the 14 chapter of Daniel.
I like it because it defrauds the false priest as they are caught eating the food left out for the god they held superstition over the people.
It's like I said a good story and I could care less about it being canonised by Catholics tho I respect them for it because it gave me access to it, I probably would have never have came across it without them.
I just like the story and that's it

I have no problem with the Apocrapha as it has much history in it and some very good stuff as well.

 

[Andrew]

I have no problem with the Apocrapha as it has much history in it and some very good stuff as well.

Thank you.

 

[Albion]

Agreed--just so long as no doctrines are based on the Apocrypha. As has probably been stated before, the Anglican and Lutheran churches still do use and recommend the Apocrypha, so long as this qualification is understood.

 

[MennoSota]

Agreed--just so long as no doctrines are based on the Apocrypha. As has probably been stated before, the Anglican and Lutheran churches still do use and recommend the Apocrypha, so long as this qualification is understood.

Why have them if there is no doctrine?
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for...doctrine..."
There is no value to having it in the canon.
If we used books that were good reads, we could add Pilgrims Progress or Desiring God or etc.

 

[Lamb]

Luther said, "Apocrypha, that are books which are not considered equal to the Holy Scriptures, but are useful and good to read."

 

[Albion]

Why have them if there is no doctrine?

These books are essentially morality tales. As the 39 Articles state, they are profitable for the study of morals and manners.

 

[MennoSota]

These books are essentially morality tales. As the 39 Articles state, they are profitable for the study of morals and manners.

Okay...so is Pilgrims Progress. In fact, there is likely much more theology in Pilgrims Progress.
The lack of any theological value or inspiration from God is a sure sign that the apocryphal books are not a part of the canon.

 

[Albion]

I consider that to be a very poor analogy. The Apocryphal books are more significant than any single book produced by any writer almost 2000 years after the founding of the church. And they were considered to be scripture by at least part of the Hebrew population in Christs time, even if we do not consider them to be inspired. You are, of course, under no obligation to read them if you choose not to.

 

[Josiah]

Luther said, "Apocrypha, that are books which are not considered equal to the Holy Scriptures, but are useful and good to read."

Correct.

But it's good to note (IMO) that Luther shared that as personal opinion, it's HIS own opinion... it's nowhere in the Lutheran Confessions. Officially, Lutheranism has no stance at all on them but FUNCTIONALLY we seem to apply Luther's "take." BTW, this seems to be the historic position, as well. Which is PART of the reason why the disagreements over them has NEVER been an issue.


Catholics, which in my experience actually use these LESS than Lutherans and Anglicans do, only bring them up to bash a minority of Protestants who unofficially reject them, Catholics SCREAMING at the top of their lungs, "You've ripped out books from the Bible cuz you are claiming fewer books than my unique Post-Trent RCC Bible has!!!!!! You BAD! You BAD!!!!!" It's a silly argument. The RCC one they have has FEWER books than any Orthodox church, FEWER than the Anglican Church has, and FEWER than Luther's German translation tome has so by that rubric, who has "ripped out" books from the Bible because they have FEWER books in their tome????? And of course, not only does the RCC now have FEWER books in it than the Orthodox and Anglicans but even fewer than it itself had for 1000 years (Catholics both ADDED and then eventually RIPPED OUT a 28th NT book, the Epistle to the Leodiceans).


The historic fact is..... there very quickly developed a functional consensus around 66 books (by our count), not officially (only a few denominations have ever taken any official action on this and NEVER as the whole church) but functionally. There are other books, called DEUTEROcananical (the word "deutero" means secondary or under or appendix) never considered authortative like the 66. The RCC bucked this historic consensus at the Council of Trent by being the first and only denomination on the planet in 1551 to officially declare THEIR unique set of these deuterocanonical books as NOT deutero at all (although Catholics still use that historic term for them, just strip the word of its meaning) for the sole reason that it felt one sentence in one of those books supported it's late, unique Dogma of Purgatory (which it doesn't, as any Eastern Orthodox Church will point all - all of which accept that book as DEUTERO but reject the unique, late RCC dogma of Purgatory). This is just an example of anti-Protestantism which lead the singular RC denomination to reject 1500 years of history and tradition in HOPES of causing trouble for the OOC and EOC and Lutherans and Anglicans in their rejection of Purgatory. Much of the RCC's little meeting at Trent was like that.



- Josiah




.

 

[Lamb]

Correct.

But it's good to note (IMO) that Luther shared that as personal opinion, it's HIS own opinion... it's nowhere in the Lutheran Confessions. Officially, Lutheranism has no stance at all on them but FUNCTIONALLY we seem to apply Luther's "take." BTW, this seems to be the historic position, as well. Which is PART of the reason why the disagreements over them has NEVER been an issue.


Catholics, which in my experience actually use these LESS than Lutherans and Anglicans do, only bring them up to bash a minority of Protestants who unofficially reject them, Catholics SCREAMING at the top of their lungs, "You've ripped out books from the Bible cuz you are claiming fewer books than my unique Post-Trent RCC Bible has!!!!!! You BAD! You BAD!!!!!" It's a silly argument. The RCC one they have has FEWER books than any Orthodox church, FEWER than the Anglican Church has, and FEWER than Luther's German translation tome has so by that rubric, who has "ripped out" books from the Bible because they have FEWER books in their tome????? And of course, not only does the RCC now have FEWER books in it than the Orthodox and Anglicans but even fewer than it itself had for 1000 years (Catholics both ADDED and then eventually RIPPED OUT a 28th NT book, the Epistle to the Leodiceans).


The historic fact is..... there very quickly developed a functional consensus around 66 books (by our count), not officially (only a few denominations have ever taken any official action on this and NEVER as the whole church) but functionally. There are other books, called DEUTEROcananical (the word "deutero" means secondary or under or appendix) never considered authortative like the 66. The RCC bucked this historic consensus at the Council of Trent by being the first and only denomination on the planet in 1551 to officially declare THEIR unique set of these deuterocanonical books as NOT deutero at all (although Catholics still use that historic term for them, just strip the word of its meaning) for the sole reason that it felt one sentence in one of those books supported it's late, unique Dogma of Purgatory (which it doesn't, as any Eastern Orthodox Church will point all - all of which accept that book as DEUTERO but reject the unique, late RCC dogma of Purgatory). This is just an example of anti-Protestantism which lead the singular RC denomination to reject 1500 years of history and tradition in HOPES of causing trouble for the OOC and EOC and Lutherans and Anglicans in their rejection of Purgatory. Much of the RCC's little meeting at Trent was like that.



- Josiah




.

Which books do the RCC not use? I haven't heard that before.

 

[Arsenios]

There is a kind of ordering of Biblical Books... Beginning with the Pentateuch of the OT, and then the adding of the rest - It was the Jews who birthed Christ with their extended Bible, while the Woman at the Well [Photini], of the Samaritans, only allowed the first 5... Salvation came TO them, but not FROM them...

In the New Testament, the Gospels hold the position of Primacy, paralleling the Pentateuch, and then after these, the pastoral Epistles, then the General Epistles for all, followed by Revelation, this last never read in the Churches...

The Orthodox are not particularly concerned with the deutero-canon - Understood from the pov of the Orthodox phronema, they are entirely "Scriptural"... Understood as a matter of vocabulary, grammar, syntax, historical intent, and on and on, they can end up with real issues... But then, in that case, so does the whole Bible...

Arsenios

 

[psalms 91]

The only real issue with the bible is do you have faith to believe it or not

 

[Josiah]

Which books do the RCC not use? I haven't heard that before.

Functionally, in my experience, they don't use any of them. They are in the lectionary (as they are in nearly all Lutheran churches - LCMS being an exception) but that's it. I NEVER heard even one mentioned in my Catholic years.... no studies of them, no nothing of, from or by any of them. The ONLY time they came up in my Catholic experience is in reference to Purgatory (they quote one sentence in one of the DEUTERO books - but it does them no good whatsoever) and the general comment that Luther "ripped these out of his German translation!" and document that by pointing out that many NIV translations don 't have them - and this proves Lutherans have a bad bible because that NIV has fewer books in it than their post-Trent RCC one. Other than that, nope - they are entirely ignored.




.

 

[Lamb]

Functionally, in my experience, they don't use any of them. They are in the lectionary (as they are in nearly all Lutheran churches - LCMS being an exception) but that's it. I NEVER heard even one mentioned in my Catholic years.... no studies of them, no nothing of, from or by any of them. The ONLY time they came up in my Catholic experience is in reference to Purgatory (they quote one sentence in one of the DEUTERO books - but it does them no good whatsoever) and the general comment that Luther "ripped these out of his German translation!" and document that by pointing out that many NIV translations don 't have them - and this proves Lutherans have a bad bible because that NIV has fewer books in it than their post-Trent RCC one. Other than that, nope - they are entirely ignored.




.

That's really strange. My husband is Catholic and his past churches have had bible studies and they've discussed sections from those books.

 

[MennoSota]

I consider that to be a very poor analogy. The Apocryphal books are more significant than any single book produced by any writer almost 2000 years after the founding of the church. And they were considered to be scripture by at least part of the Hebrew population in Christs time, even if we do not consider them to be inspired. You are, of course, under no obligation to read them if you choose not to.

Pilgrims Progress is more read than any of the apocryphal books. It has had more impact in the faith than any of the apocryphal books.
Conclusion, the apocryphal books are insignificant for eternity.

 

[Albion]

Pilgrims Progress is more read than any of the apocryphal books.

So is the phone book. That's not much of an argument.

 

[MennoSota]

So is the phone book. That's not much of an argument.

The phone book may be at the same level as the apocryphal books.
By your admission, the apocryphal books provide no theology. They are just stories with a morality tale. You and I could do the same with no inspiration from God. Even non-Christians can spin a morality tale. It doesn't make the stories inspired by God.
Pilgrims Progress is closer to being inspired by God than the apocryphal books. The proof is in the vast number of readers who have been blessed by the book. It is an allegorical masterpiece that has never been out of print since its inception.

 

[Albion]

The phone book may be at the same level as the apocryphal books.

Fine, but your contention was that the number of times something has been read determines its worth. If that were so, Pilgrims Progress would be way, way down the list.

By your admission, the apocryphal books provide no theology.

Wrong again. And I did not say that.