Skip to main content

.

The Bible was pulled together book by book, so in one sense you could say

books were added to the work in progress, the Bible. Nothing was taken out

of the accumulated scripture until the seventeenth century. Genesis was the

first book approved and then the other four were added to complete the

Pentateuch part of the OT. Pentateuch means "five books" in Greek.

 

The Deuterocanonical seven books were added as each one was considered.

The Jews didn't want them for the simple fact they were too Messianic for

their beliefs. Especially the book of Wisdom with the death of Christ or the

book of Ecclesiasticus when speaking of the Mother of Jesus.

 

These seven books written in Greek were easier for the Apostles to

teach from and better for converts to understand. Scrolls were hard to

come by for travel and were also hard to travel with on the road.

 

 

The Jews didn't care whatsoever what the first Christians thought, so why

would a true Christian reject a Bible that was completed in the year 382,

1200 years later because the Jews didn't agree with the message in it. 

Unless of course he wanted to start a new religion.

 

Apocrypha means "false," there's nothing false about books used by the

Apostles but rejected by the Jews because of the Messianic content.

 

Nothing was added to the Bible by way of the Catholic Church since the year

382. The Council of Trent which started in the year 1545 was to dogmatize the

Bible to keep it in it's original form.

 

This is just a small part of the bibles history..

 

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

 

(Bill Gray note:  In the following paragraph, the Roman Catholics come in and muddy the water -- trying to force feed the Apocrypha into Scripture -- for the must have that to support most of their traditions, doctrines, and teachings)

 

The Apocrypha always was scripture billie, you don't know history

or you're lying. I know it's both but who cares.

Vic, my Friend,

 

Did I miss something?   I do not see where I posted ANYTHING in this "not pregnant" (it has a PERIOD) 100% plagiarized discussion you posted.   Yet, you are quoting me as though I had posted!   Someone is most certainly confused.

 

But, since you have brought up the subject of the Apocrypha -- the Roman Catholic commentary needed to support virtually all the Roman Catholic traditions, doctrines, and teachings -- please show us proof of your claim that the Apocrypha is inspired Biblical canon.

 

No, I am not asking for some Vatican generated proof.  I am asking for objective non-Rome proof of the canonicity of the Apocrypha.

 

Bless your confused little heart!

 

Bill

Bible - 66 BOOKS

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Bible - 66 BOOKS
Originally Posted by Bill Gray:

Vic, my Friend,

 

Did I miss something?   I do not see where I posted ANYTHING in this "not pregnant" (it has a PERIOD) 100% plagiarized discussion you posted.   Yet, you are quoting me as though I had posted!   Someone is most certainly confused.

 

__________________
LOL!!!!  That would be you.  How could he be quoting you on something you hadn't posted?
Here's your Kleenex.

bill kleenex

Attachments

Images (1)
  • bill kleenex

Vic, my Friend,

 

Not so, my Friend.   I wrote:

 

But, since you have brought up the subject of the Apocrypha -- the Roman Catholic commentary needed to support virtually all the Roman Catholic traditions, doctrines, and teachings -- please show us proof of your claim that the Apocrypha is inspired Biblical canon.

 

No, I am not asking for some Vatican generated proof.  I am asking for objective non-Rome proof of the canonicity of the Apocrypha.

 

And, all you have offered as proof -- is some plagiarized dissertation written by some Vatican clerk and just repeating the same old party line.   That is almost as believable as Obama saying he has proven he is a natural born American.  Well, duh!

 

And since we all know that Jerome, when he translated Scripture into Latin for the Roman Catholic church -- left out the Apocrypha because HE KNEW it is not Bible canon.  He only included it when the Pope, who was paying his commission -- forced him to include it in the Latin Vulgate.

 

Why did the Pope insist that Jerome include the Apocrypha?  Because without the Apocrypha and other Roman Catholic Traditions -- there would be no Roman Catholic church. 

 

Probably 90% of the Roman Catholic doctrines, dogmas, traditions, and teachings -- come from the Apocrypha.  So, the Pope had a choice -- force Jerome to include the Apocrypha in the Latin Vulgate -- or hang up his Pope hat and go home.  He wanted to stay in the Vatican, so he forced Jerome.  And, that, my Friend, is how the Roman Catholic church survived to this day.

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

Bible - 66 BOOKS

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Bible - 66 BOOKS
Originally Posted by Bill Gray:

Vic, my Friend,

 

Not so, my Friend.   I wrote:

 

But, since you have brought up the subject of the Apocrypha -- the Roman Catholic commentary needed to support virtually all the Roman Catholic traditions, doctrines, and teachings -- please show us proof of your claim that the Apocrypha is inspired Biblical canon.

 

No, I am not asking for some Vatican generated proof.  I am asking for objective non-Rome proof of the canonicity of the Apocrypha.

 

And, all you have offered as proof -- is some plagiarized dissertation written by some Vatican clerk and just repeating the same old party line.   That is almost as believable as Obama saying he has proven he is a natural born American.  Well, duh!

 

And since we all know that Jerome, when he translated Scripture into Latin for the Roman Catholic church -- left out the Apocrypha because HE KNEW it is not Bible canon.  He only included it when the Pope, who was paying his commission -- forced him to include it in the Latin Vulgate.

 

Why did the Pope insist that Jerome include the Apocrypha?  Because without the Apocrypha and other Roman Catholic Traditions -- there would be no Roman Catholic church. 

 

Probably 90% of the Roman Catholic doctrines, dogmas, traditions, and teachings -- come from the Apocrypha.  So, the Pope had a choice -- force Jerome to include the Apocrypha in the Latin Vulgate -- or hang up his Pope hat and go home.  He wanted to stay in the Vatican, so he forced Jerome.  And, that, my Friend, is how the Roman Catholic church survived to this day.

 

And the beautiful thing about all the BS you just said is you know it's a lie.

Jerome wasn't forced to do anything, he just had an opinion about the

Hebrew text. A large group decided what books were in or out and the

Pope agreed. Jerome was not the Pope and you don't what you're talking

about. You don't know the difference between the Bible and your little

golden books about Tom Mix you old fart. Quick whining about all this

alleged name calling. You have called me every insulting thing you can

come with and I know it's because you live me.

 

 

 

quote:  Originally Posted by INVICTUS:
And the beautiful thing about all the BS you just said is you know it's a lie.   Jerome wasn't forced to do anything, he just had an opinion about the Hebrew text.   A large group decided what books were in or out and the Pope agreed.  Jerome was not the Pope and you don't what you're talking about.

Vic, my Friend,

 

Do you have a source which proves what you have posted?   Or in this just another of your "spit out anything" response -- hoping someone will believe you?

 

Let me offer you one of my proofs -- taken from a Roman Catholic web site:

 

Jerome and the Apocrypha
http://www.justforcatholics.org/a108.htm

Question:  St Jerome was persuaded, against his original inclination, to include the deuterocanonicals in his Vulgate edition of the Scriptures.  What are your comments?

Answer:  True, yet he classed the Apocrypha in a separated category.  He differentiated between the canonical books and ecclesiastical books, which he did not recognize as authoritative Scripture.  This is admitted by the modern Catholic church:

My Friend, that is my proof.  Where is YOUR proof?  Or are you going to say that this Roman Catholic web site -- is lying?

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

Bible - 66 BOOKS

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Bible - 66 BOOKS
Last edited by Bill Gray

 

Jerome didn't really reject those books. He did believe in Hebraica veritias,

Hebrew truth. He believed that the Scriptures written in Hebrew were

superior and gave a better witness to Christ. He had a different opinion about

the seven deuterocanonical books but agreed to the authority of the Church

and the pope and included them in his translation.

 

Jerome was criticized for his views on the Septuagint, and he flew in the face

of most scholars of the time. This doesn't have anything to do with the fact that

most Jews at that time spoke Greek and the books written in Greek can and in 

this case were used by Jesus and the Apostles. Jerome with his OCD about

the Hebrew text doesn't change the content of the Bible that the Holy Spirit

is responsible for from the start to completion of the birth of the Holy Scripture.

What you have is a bible, a book, could be any book. I have the Holy Bible,

this can only be the only Holy Scripture justified by the Holy Spirit.

 

True to your Calvinist beliefs and evil life is the fact you can't do what your

creator, martin Luther also couldn't do is change the Bible and change

history. Your Holland Calvinist cult doesn't have anything to do with the

truth of the matter.

 

you say

Probably 90% of the Roman Catholic doctrines, dogmas, traditions, and teachings -- come from the Apocrypha. 

 

You have never disproven a Catholic doctrine dogma, tradition, or teachings.   

 

you say

  yet he classed the Apocrypha in a separated category.  He differentiated between the canonical books and ecclesiastical books, which he did not recognize as authoritative Scripture.  This is admitted by the modern Catholic church:

 

Nobody is saying Jerome didn't have an opinion. The grounds of his opinion

aren't strong enough to support what he wished to do.

Do you see the ancient or modern Catholic Church change the Holy Bible,

the only one sanified by way of God.

 

You and your boy Luther can do whatever you want with your book but

remember, the Holy Bible spoke against that action.

Vic, my Friend,

 

In my previous post, I asked:

 

Do you have a source which proves what you have posted?   Or in this just another of your "spit out anything" response -- hoping someone will believe you?

 

Let me offer you one of my proofs -- taken from a Roman Catholic web site:

 

Jerome and the Apocrypha
http://www.justforcatholics.org/a108.htm

 

And, all you did was to regurgitate your previous plagiarized post.  So, let me offer you more proof of Jerome's position on the Apocrypha:

 

The Old Testament “Apocrypha”in Jerome’s Canonical Theory

JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

By Dr. Edmon L. Gallagher
http://www.academia.edu/262759...mes_Canonical_Theory

In his preface to Samuel and Kings (the Prologus Galeatus), Jerome sets forth a theory of the Old Testament canon that allows for no room between the canonical books and the apocrypha. However, Jerome elsewhere maintained a more neutral or even positive view of some of the non-canonical books, even accepting their use within the ecclesiastical liturgy.  Jerome’s seemingly inconsistent attitude toward some books he classies as “apocrypha” has led scholars to posit a development in Jerome’s canonical theory, such that his earlier position was accepting of books that he later excluded, and to suppose that Jerome’s use of the word “apocrypha” in the Prologus Galeatus relied on a neutral definition of the term. 

 

This paper examines the evidence for these claims and finds them wanting.  While Jerome consistently regarded the books labeled “apocrypha” in the Prologus Galeatus as outside the canon, he chose to propagate an especially harsh judgment against these books especially in this preface.  The confusion arising from Jerome’s comments may be explained as a consequence of a multi-faceted plan to realign the church’s Old Testament with the Hebrew Bible, a plan that Jerome articulates only partially on any given occasion.

In the “helmeted preface” (Prologus Galeatus, henceforth Prol. Gal.) to his new Latin translation of the Hebrew Bible, Jerome explains to his readers the structure and contents of the Jewish biblical canon.1  Part of the purpose of this list is, Jerome says, ut scire valeamus, quicquid extra hos est, interapocrifa seponendum (“so that we may know that whatever is outside these [books] should be consigned to the apocrypha”; lines 53–54).

 

He then provides a list of books thus included among the apocrypha, these being the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Judith, Tobit, the Shepherd of Hermas, and 1 and 2 Maccabees. 2  Jerome further says of these seven books, non sunt in canone (“they are not in the canon”; line 55).

 

Now, do you have any valid information to refute what I have posted?   Or will you just continue to copy/paste what you have already attempted to "throw against the wall"?

 

Since Jerome and Pope Damasus (366–384 AD) were the two key players in the Latin Vulgate -- and Jerome was against including the Apocrypha -- the only logical conclusion can be that Pope Damasus FORCED him to include the Apocrypha in the Latin Vulgate, the official Bible of the Roman Catholic church for a very long time.

 

So, since I have shown you this proof -- what proof do you have to refute it?

 

Or will you just resort to your typical response and start defecating all your insults, name calling, and your repeated anthem, "You are a liar!"   

 

So, my question to you:  Do we stay on an adult level and have a constructive discussion -- or will your stay at the child level?

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

Bible - 66 BOOKS

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Bible - 66 BOOKS

I not sure why your Holland Calvinist crap cult brain can't understand this.

It doesn't matter what you or Jerome think about any important or not so

important matter of decision for the future of the Christian Church.

 

There never were TWO key players in making that decision, only one person

could and that was (thank God) the Pope. The evidence to enter all seven

deuterocanonical books completely out weighted the silly complaint about

they weren't Hebrew text. One of many reasons there aren't 30,000 different

denominations of Catholics.  Well boo hoo. Well that and the fact the Jews

didn't want them because they were too messianic in the nature of Christ.

That means too much Jesus talk.   

 

Was it your boy Luther that came up with the word "Apocrypha?"

Was that the same guy that changed the wording of the bible?

Took out of the bible the books of James, Hebrews, Jude and Revelation.

Why would those books out? Any thoughts on why?

 

 

Vic, my Friend,

 

As usual, you regurgitate -- but, nothing comes out but your childish rants.  The Roman Catholic church has no support for their many doctrines, dogmas, teachings, and traditions -- except the Apocrypha, a set of non-canonical books.

 

And, you have no support for your rants -- except your copy/paste plagiarisms from the Vatican -- or you own simple minded, inane, childish tantrums.

 

Sorry, my Friend, no cigar!

 

Bless your confused little heart!

 

Bill

Bible - 66 BOOKS

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Bible - 66 BOOKS
When BG post information from "justforcatholics.org" please note that this is a heretical site with errors.  The goal of this site is to convert Roman Catholics to Protestants.  What I've seen of this site thus far is disinformation.  

BG, speaking about a women's bodily functions as comedy in public is tasteless and vulgar.

Best, hello.  :-)

Hi David,

 

If the JustForCatholics web site is a Protestant site -- I was not aware of that.  I posted from it thinking it was a Roman Catholic web site.  Still, the info shown in that web site is accurate, as attested to in the other web site I posted:

 

The Old Testament “Apocrypha”in Jerome’s Canonical Theory

JOURNAL OF EARLY CHRISTIAN STUDIES

By Dr. Edmon L. Gallagher
http://www.academia.edu/262759...mes_Canonical_Theory

 

The two web sites agree.  Do you have any web sites which truthfully refute what is stated about Jerome and the Apocrypha.

 

Next, you tell me, "BG, speaking about a women's bodily functions as comedy in public is tasteless and vulgar."

 

I have addressed no woman on this discussion until you came back.  So, how could I be addressing a "woman's bodily function"?  I was addressing Vic -- and to the best of my knowledge, Vic is male.

 

That said, why would speaking of a woman's monthly cycle be tasteless and vulgar?  I don't consider it to be so.  God designed women to have a monthly cycle and to have other differences from men.  God had a perfectly good reason to give women a monthly cycle.  So, why would you consider it gross, tasteless, and vulgar? 

 

I consider women to be wonderfully made and beautiful -- and believe God did a great job when He created woman.   Now, are you saying that the wonderful creature God created -- is gross?   Not so, my Friend. 

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

quote:  Originally Posted by House of David:
Gid's design is not meant for your condescending humor.

SPEAKING OF HUMOR!

Friends_Piggy

 

Enough said!  David, I still view you as a Friend, although a very misled Friend.

 

My Friend, I pray that you and your family are having a fantastic Fourth of July!

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Friends_Piggy
Last edited by Bill Gray

Vic, my Friend,

 

When I use a wee bit of humor to tease David when she wrote, "Gid's design is not meant for your condescending humor" -- how is that twisting her words?

 

It is obvious that it is a typo error and I am sure that when David recognized what she had written -- she had a laugh also.

 

My Friend, do you have nothing better to do -- than to attempt to create a disagreement between forum members?

 

But, then, you did tell us some months ago that many of the copy/paste articles you post -- are done just to start an argument.  So, it would seem are the majority of your simpler "Vic's words" posts.

 

Bless your antagonistic little heart!

 

Bill

madboy

Attachments

Images (1)
  • madboy

Vic, my Friend,

 

NO problem!  Just continue to regurgitate whatever is in your soul -- as you do when you just copy/paste your own writings.  Funny though.   YOU are the only person I know who plagiarizes himself!   Now, that has to be some kind of record.

 

And, my Friend, if you ever realize that you have no relationship with Jesus Christ -- then maybe you will realize your need to get into His Word, the Bible.   And, He does not mind you plagiarizing Him at all.  Matter of fact, He encourages it.  That should make YOU feel very welcome!

 

Bless your little plagiarized heart!

 

Bill

Almost Believer

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Almost Believer

Hi David,

 

Anyone could easily recognize what had happened.  Personally, I just thought it was cute -- and I joked about it.  I know that you have great respect for the name of God -- and that you just made a typo.

 

But, then Vic had to jump in with his, "David, billie always twist what you say and will add words to justify for his screw up.  He'll always blame everyone else for his mistakes."

 

Now, what was said between you and me that could possibly justify that statement?  That man lives just for the pleasure of trying to stir up an argument between folks.  I am not sure what kind of world he lives in -- but, it seems that his only joy in life is to cause trouble.

 

I believe that you and I know that I was not trying to make anything big out of your typo.  That could happen to anyone, especially with those tiny keys.  That is why I refuse to do texting, my hands are too big for such small keys.  I would be hitting 3 keys at a time.  Matter of fact, I do not like to use my wife's small notebook computer for the same reason, the keyboard is too small.

 

Anyway, you made a typo, I joked about it -- and we are still Friends, in spite of Vic's attempt to cause trouble.

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

Shalom

Attachments

Images (1)
  • Shalom

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×