Poly
I think you and I are closer to one mind than Gaudere might yet apprehend (though her comprehension is mind boggling). You already know my view, of course, that the “second coming” has already occured, and within the lifetime of the disciples, just as Jesus promised.
“God is Spirit. Worship Him therefore in Spirit and in Truth.” — Jesus
As regards Satan, I admire him, and I treasure the rare occasions when he acknowledges me.
Some former pastors of mine had said that the entire Bible is true.
But now, after much thought, and reading, I realize that some of it is Not meant for today(re: not keeping kosher).
The main message, like jesus said, is"Love God with all your heart, and your neighbor as yourself."
Good points, Satan.
Frankly, I think both of you are heathens.
I mean, having a mind open to logical thought, trying to make a difference in your actions as well as your words, willing to admit you are or might be wrong, willing to listen and even learn and apply those lessons from other walks of life - from both people of differing religions as well as those who profess none…
You two make me know more and more that the ones who find themselves within my target sights can’t be right.
Yer putz,
Satan :wally
I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Two months, two weeks, five days, 18 hours, 35 minutes and 18 seconds.
3230 cigarettes not smoked, saving $403.87.
Life saved: 1 week, 4 days, 5 hours, 10 minutes.
Actually, there’s another objection to the term “fundamentalist,” an objection that Catholic moi will spell out.
“Fundamentalists” generally believe that the Bible contains everything people need for salvation, and that all the other stuff (the institutions of the Catholic Church, theology, sacraments, etc.) is either frivolous (at best) or near Satanic. They believe the Bible renders the Catholic CHurch and its leaders unnecessary.
But that begs the question- who decided what books and letters constituted “the Bible”? Why is the Gospel of John in there but not the Gospel of Thomas? WHy is the letter of Jude in there, but not the Book of ENoch? Who decided what the Bible would be? Why… the fathers of the Catholic Church did!
SO… a fundamentalist is someone who rejects the authority of the Catholic Church, but adheres to a book compiled by the CHurch he disdains!
Umm, actually, astorian, the catholic Bible is considerably different that the KJV, or the RSV (which is based upon KJV), written for protestants. The KJV is THE Bible to most prot. and all fundies.
Satan
“Therefore every teacher of the law who has been instructed about the kingdom of heaven is like the owner of a house who brings out of his storeroom new treasures as well as old.” — Jesus
I assume you’re talking about the apocrypha? I’m just asking this for my own personal benefit (I don’t think it’s really related to the discussion in this thread), but my understanding is that the original King James Version (1611?) contained the apocrypha, with the belief that they had didactic value but were not canonical. If I am mistaken, I hope someone will correct me.
I’m sad… here I thought you liked me Brian…
Even if that were the case, Arnold (and I honestly don’t know), while there may be books the Protestants leave out that the Catholics retain, there are no books that the Catholic Church excluded that Protestants later readopted. Have to go with astorian on this one.
The Mormons, now, are something else altogether, but we won’t go there.
Agreed pldennison. My post is more in response to what Danielinthewolvesden had said, namely that the catholic Bible is considerably different that the KJV. In my mind they are not that different. The KJV originally contained the apocryphya, according them a lesser status. In any event I don’t believe that there are that many doctrinal issues that are based on the apocrypha.
From Satan:
Did you mean Joseph Smith (well, he did have an older brother named Alvin)?
No,no no. The KJV is also a different TRANSLATION, than the Catholic verison, and both contain a few different books from each other, too. Thus the wording in the KJV is different, in many places. The books in the Catholic version, which are not in the KJV, are sometimes called the Apocrypha, such as Tobit, and Judith. Also the Titles are different in the catholic version, ie 1, 2, 3, 4 Kings, instead of 1&2 Samuel, and 1&2 Kings. In general, the KJV is a later, and better translation, but the RSV is later & better than the KJV, but hath not the poetic language. The ultimate Bible is probably the Anchor Bible.
Eh?
“sometimes called the Apocrypha?” No sir, they ARE the Aprocypha, or at least the books that traditionally have been called as such. This is the only real difference between the Catholic and Protestant versions of the Bible.
I don’t have my reference materials handy, but the basic translation differences between versions commonly used by Catholics and Protestants is mostly unintentional. The english translation of the Bible favored by the Catholic church for years is the Duay version (not sure if I’m spelling that right) which is based on the Vulgate translation, which is a Latin version of the original greek new testament and the Septuingant greek translation of the orgininal hebrew old testament. The knock on this version is its been through so many translations that some of the subtleties of the text have been lost.
The King James version was an attempt to translate directly from the original languages. The knock on the KJV is many of the translators did not understand much of the idioms of the ancient languages. I tend to agree, and I also do not like the archaic language used, though it is quite poetic. I favor more modern direct attempts at translating the original language, like the New American Standard and the New International Versions. That said, I have some limited expereince in researching back to the original languages (though not an expert by any stretch), and have discovered that the KJV probably comes the closest to the sense of the original language on a case by case basis.
And to clarify astorian’s sweeping assertion regarding the differences between Catholic and Reformation-style view of biblical authority, evangelicals (at least those with half a brain and some sense of tact) do not completely disregard or disdain church history, tradition, or the heirarchy of any given church, even the Roman Catholic Church. However, Catholics believe that the sum of these things as they are “bundled” by the Church, and referred to as “tradition,” is equal in authority to scripture. The teachings of the reformation conclude that scripture alone is the final authority.
In addition, there are some pretty significant catholic doctrinces that find their origin or foundation in the Aprocypha. The teachings on purgatory and prayer for the dead are two examples.
Also, the concept that the Catholic church was solely responsible for the canon of scripture is a little misleading. While there was a church council that established that certain books of the bible were or were not in the canon, for the most part, this was simply a reflection of the usage at the time. The controversy was stirred when some fringe elements and “heretical teachers” were insisting that further books needed to be added, or a few excluded. The finished product produced by the church in those early days was really no different than what the Christendom had already established as holy writ through accepted common usage. The church was giving a stamp of approval, and telling the dissenters to drop the dissent.
The Apochrypha, however, is a different story. I don’t think the original church council that accepted the canon of scripture put its full stamp of aproval on the Apochrypha. This is because these books had not been established by accepted common usage. Particularly, many of the early church leaders objected to thier inclusion in the old testament because jewish authorities did not recognize them as scripture (which is ultimately why Protestants do not accept them as scripture today). If I understand correctly, the Apochryphal books did not gain official sanction and elevation to scriptural status by the Catholic church until the church council that immediately followed the reformation. (Was that the Council of Trent?) By that time, the canon of the Bible most Protestants accept had been in wide use for centuries.
I’d like to comment more on the OP’s concept, but have little time now. Perhaps in a few days.
Peace, ya’all!
Soxfan59
John 16:13
Oh, my stars and garters!
Okay, first there was the Torah, then the Prophets, and then the Writings. And the canon for these was set for Judaism shortly after the time of Christ. AD 90, at Jamnia, is the tradition, and while that’s not quite the precise story, it approximates the truth closely enough for present purposes.
Long before this, one of the early Ptolemies had underwritten a bunch of rabbis in Alexandria translating the Jewish scriptures into Greek. This was the Septuagint. The contents of the stuff usually called the Apocrypha were included in this.
Now, the choice of what books Christians would include in the New Testament was made on a catch-as-catch-can basis over the first 150 years, and was finalized as a protest against an idiot named Marcian who excluded about 2/3 of the present New Testament.
St. Jerome, who translated the Vulgate, held to the old Jewish canon, as opposed to the broader Septuagint canon, when he did the OT.
The early church used all the Septuagint books more or less freely, recognizing that there was a narrower canon but that there was something worthwhile to the broader one.
Early church councils did not address the canon question, simply because there was no question.
The Reformers opted for the Jewish canon, in part because of Jerome’s viewpoint and a desire to get back to the Hebrew original texts (so far as they were known). Because the question had come up, the Council of Trent then defined the canon for Catholics in the broader usage.
The term Apocrypha is used by Catholic scholars to refer to the Hebrew books that nobody includes, like the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs and Enoch. It is used by Anglicans and Methodists to refer to that collection of books that is kind of Bible J.G. – not part of the canon but worth reading and use as scripture in services from time to time. (Methodist articles of religion retain the old Church of England language somebody quoted above as regards use of the Apocrypha.) Lutherans, IIRC, read them on occasion but don’t count them as Scripture. Thoroughgoing Protestants of other viewpoints simply discount the books entirely…I’d lay odds that there are not 100 Baptists in America that have read anything from the Apocrypha for Biblical interest.
And yes, there are a couple of books that made it into the Anglican/Methodist Apocrypha that are not recognized by Catholics, specifically I and II Esdras.
Now, can we get back to the OP?