Celibacy

Originally posted by galveston75
So do you not think the Bible is inspired by God and is God not able to make sure what is in it is by him totally? Why would he allow such a book to be pinned and then survive as it has over the centuries with all that have tried to destroy it and still mock it today even by ones here on this forum?

you miss the point i do not say the collection of books making up what we call the bible is faulse i say its truth. but you seem to ignore the others ive brought to your attention, they were ignored when the books were brought together by the roman catholic faith and stand as a guide to start your journey to god not as you seem to be stopping there. i love reading the testerments and i get more every time i read them, but other works by prophets need to be given a higher placement outside the learned and be shown

Originally posted by galveston75
The faith that I have in God and his ability to control what was written in the Bible and his ability to control it to this day. Not saying that all Bibles are correct in every word because some translations have been tainted to favor some doctrines such as the trinity which is not a Bible teaching.

Are you aware that Protestants, Catholics and Orthoodx Christians all have different bibles? I am not talking about different 'translations'. I am talking about canons. Catholics and Orthodox Christians have, for example, the book of Maccabees. How do you know which bible is correct?

Originally posted by Conrau K
Are you aware that Protestants, Catholics and Orthoodx Christians all have different bibles? I am not talking about different 'translations'. I am talking about canons. Catholics and Orthodox Christians have, for example, the book of Maccabees. How do you know which bible is correct?

Maccabees may be used as an historical suppliment to the Holy Bible, but
is not considered inspired by God and is therefore not included.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Maccabees may be used as an historical suppliment to the Holy Bible, but
is not considered inspired by God and is therefore not included.

Well, Catholics and Orthodox Christians do consider it inspired and they easily outnumber Protestant Christians.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Well, Catholics and Orthodox Christians do consider it inspired and they easily outnumber Protestant Christians.

I guess that must settle it then.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I guess that must settle it then.

Isn't is just arrogance on your part to dismiss the Book of Maccabees as an uninspired biblical supplement when in fact the majority of Christians do consider it inspired?

Originally posted by Conrau K
Isn't is just arrogance on your part to dismiss the Book of Maccabees as an uninspired biblical supplement when in fact the majority of Christians do consider it inspired?

The arrogance stems more from his unswerving bias and inconsistent justification (or hypocrisy even) for rejection than the weight of numbers behind the book. Reveal Hidden Content

Originally posted by Conrau K
Isn't is just arrogance on your part to dismiss the Book of Maccabees as an uninspired biblical supplement when in fact the majority of Christians do consider it inspired?

Only if you class all of Christianity as one religion.

If different denominations are considered different religions then he is simply claiming that your holy book isn't divinely inspired, while his is...

Whether you consider that to be arrogant, given all religions with a 'divinely inspired' holy book claim the same...

Up to you...


I would point out at this stage that everyone who believes in a particular god, but not in all the others (postulated to exist by other religions) is an
non-believer for every god but one....
Atheists just took it one step further....

Originally posted by Conrau K
Isn't is just arrogance on your part to dismiss the Book of Maccabees as an uninspired biblical supplement when in fact the majority of Christians do consider it inspired?

I was not aware that it was inspired. I thought it was just a history like
the works of Josephus.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Well, Catholics and Orthodox Christians do consider it inspired and they easily outnumber Protestant Christians.

The so-called apocryphal books have been rejected by the Jews since day one. And one would have to wonder why neither Jesus nor any of the disciples, nor Paul, ever made a single mention of any of the writings.

The Catholics (very controversially) decided on their own to canonize the books and that alone is just not substantive enough for folks like me to accept them as the Holy Word of God.

I don't think of them as evil or even bad per se, I just do not consider them inspired by God. And besides, the books in some parts, clash with the teachings of the rest of the bible - i.e. charity and deeds forgive sins and give everlasting life... not so says the whole of the rest of the bible. Also I just read which I didn't know before this post that the book of Judith calls Nebuchadnezzar king of the assyrians. That is a glaring error.

Originally posted by sumydid
The so-called apocryphal books have been rejected by the Jews since day one. And one would have to wonder why neither Jesus nor any of the disciples, nor Paul, ever made a single mention of any of the writings.

The Catholics (very controversially) decided on their own to canonize the books and that alone is just not substantive enough for folks like me t ...[text shortened]... that the book of Judith calls Nebuchadnezzar king of the assyrians. That is a glaring error.

The so-called apocryphal books have been rejected by the Jews since day one. And one would have to wonder why neither Jesus nor any of the disciples, nor Paul, ever made a single mention of any of the writings.

Well, this is untrue. Unlike Christianity, Judaism has never had a biblical canon. There was never anything remotely like an ecclesiastical hierarchy which had the power to canonise. The closest thing to an actual biblical canon is the Septuagint, which not only was a translation of existing Hebraic scriptures but also a collation. And, yes, the Book of Maccabees appears in the Septuagint, clearly invalidating your claim that it was 'rejected by the Jews since day one'.

Nor is it surprising that Paul omits mention of this book. While the Pauline epistles are replete with Scriptural quotes, quotations are rarely made explicitly nor does Paul ever set out to quote every book. Paul isn't ever interested in the question of canonicity. There are several books he doesn't quote and there are several books he alludes to but does not quote. The point is immaterial though because Paul is not deliberately endorsing any canonical text.

The Catholics (very controversially) decided on their own to canonize the books and that alone is just not substantive enough for folks like me to accept them as the Holy Word of God.

Just a question to the rest of the spirituality forum, is there anyone remotely aware of the existence of Orthodox Christianity? Since Orthodoxy is the dominant Christian church in Eastern Europe (particularly Greece and Russia), why is it that Christians on this forum continually ignore them?

And besides, the books in some parts, clash with the teachings of the rest of the bible - i.e. charity and deeds forgive sins and give everlasting life... not so says the whole of the rest of the bible. Also I just read which I didn't know before this post that the book of Judith calls Nebuchadnezzar king of the assyrians. That is a glaring error.

I don't believe the Book of Maccabees claims that deeds forgive sins. Not even a Catholic could accept that. I guess you are alluding to Maccabees' affirmation of the doctrine of purgatory and the efficacy of prayers for the dead. Even so, you can hardly expect a Catholic to think that this conflicts with Scripture. That's really just egging the Catholic on.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I was not aware that it was inspired. I thought it was just a history like
the works of Josephus.

Unlike the histories of Josephus, though, the Book of Maccabees appears in most bibles. In Catholic and Orthodox bibles, it is not identified as apocryphal.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]The so-called apocryphal books have been rejected by the Jews since day one. And one would have to wonder why neither Jesus nor any of the disciples, nor Paul, ever made a single mention of any of the writings.

Well, this is untrue. Unlike Christianity, Judaism has never had a biblical canon. There was never anything remotely like an ecclesiastic to think that this conflicts with Scripture. That's really just egging the Catholic on.[/b]

I don't see how you connect the dots. How am I completely ignoring Orthodox Christians, when I merely say the apocryphal books were canonized by the Catholic Church?

I mean, if your intent is to blur the line that separates the Roman Cathollic Church from the Church of England, that's one thing; but my understanding is that it was specifically the Catholics that canonized the books in the Council of Trent. If you're trying to say yes, but the Roman Catholics back then were essentially Orthodox Christians that's something else entirely.

I'm not completely ignoring the Orthodox Christian religion when I say the apocryphal books were canonized by the Catholic Church; anymore than I would be completely ignoring Catholics by saying Protestants believe in salvation by faith by grace.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I was not aware that it was inspired. I thought it was just a history like
the works of Josephus.

How does one become aware that something is inspired? Are you told by someone else? Do you know it intuitively? Do you just check whether it is in your Bible like galveston75?

Originally posted by sumydid
I don't see how you connect the dots. How am I completely ignoring Orthodox Christians, when I merely say the apocryphal books were canonized by the Catholic Church?

I mean, if your intent is to blur the line that separates the Roman Cathollic Church from the Church of England, that's one thing; but my understanding is that it was specifically the Cathol ...[text shortened]... completely ignoring Catholics by saying Protestants believe in salvation by faith by grace.

Let's return to your earlier comment:

The Catholics (very controversially) decided on their own to canonize the books and that alone is just not substantive enough for folks like me to accept them as the Holy Word of God.

On their own. Well, that is a total marginalisation of Orthodoxy. The Orthodox too regard the apocryphal books as canonical. The Catholic Church did not in isolation canonise these books. The Oriental churches (which separated in the fourth century) and Orthodox churches (separated roughly between the 10th and 14th centuries) had canonised these books independently.

I mean, if your intent is to blur the line that separates the Roman Cathollic Church from the Church of England

I don't understand. The Church of England has no connection to Orthodox Christiantiy. I am not at all blurring the distinction between Anglicanism and Catholicism.