King James was a Fraud...

[Jozak]

I would like to know by what authority did the Anti-Catholic King James have to take 7 books out of the original bible, that was compiled at the Synod of Hippo in 393 AD, and create his own. Maybe the fundementalists can find their passage in ther KJV that says do not add or take away anything from this book. It would seem the doctrine of Sola Scriptura they champion so heartedly is coming back full circle and biting them in the butt. Any thoughts?

[tom]

Maybe the fundementalists can find their passage in ther KJV that says do not add or take away anything from this book.
Yeah, what's up with that. Or how about those wacky catholics that say any other christian denomination besides catholics are going to hell, or what happened to the part that says rosary beads and other lucky charms are what you need. Haven't read the part that says the pope is infallible, those wacky fundies must have yanked that out. We all know that the bible clearly states that the virgin Mary is equal to Jesus, it says so in the book of ooooh, what was it again? And I hear there's alot of people that are pissed off about the part that was ommitted saying it was okay to molest alter boys as long as ya go to confessional afterwards.

[Jozak]

Yeah, what's up with that. Or how about those wacky catholics that say any other christian denomination besides catholics are going to hell, Just from that quote itself I can tell you have not one clue about the Catholic Church. That's flat out not true. I was always brought up that any Christian of another denomination could go to heaven, and the Vatican teaches that as well. (It was changed at Vatican II council)

or what happened to the part that says rosary beads and other lucky charms are what you need. We never said you NEED them, Rosaires help you keep track of what prayers you are on, there is nothing "lucky" about them.

Haven't read the part that says the pope is infallible, those wacky fundies must have yanked that out.Try reading writings of the early church fathers. No, those wacky fundies didn't take them out of anywhere, they just totally disregard that and every other pre-bible tradition Catholics and Orthodoxes have kept for over 1500 years.


We all know that the bible clearly states that the virgin Mary is equal to Jesus, it says so in the book of ooooh, what was it again? The Catholic Church in it's 2000 year exsistance has never, nor will it ever, teach Mary is equal to Christ. She's not. We just honor her and giver a lot of respect, unlike Protestants.


And I hear there's alot of people that are pissed off about the part that was ommitted saying it was okay to molest alter boys as long as ya go to confessional afterwards.Well now that I know I am not dealing with a scholar here, I can sort of laugh at this broad generalization of all Catholic priests, most ignorant people generalize like that anyway. It's been done to Blacks, Jews, Catholics, Protestants, everyone, you are just part of the problem.

[mynameiskc]

i dont' suppose kind james and his counsel was any less worthy of making such judgements as the original catholics who put the book together. since coming here i've read some of the "apocrypha." while there's some interesting stuff, much of it makes my head ache in irritation.

[mynameiskc]

and i rather like meditative aids like rosaries. it's the idea that 'saint' refers to only very very special people, instead of all of christ's followers that bothers me.

i also very much miss incense in the services. after all those scriptures referring to the sacredness of incense, how is it that so many protestant denominations have suddenly decided that incense is some luxury of ego? after all, incense triggers so much mental activity, and scent remembrance is an extremely valuable way to trigger specific moods and thought patterns. when you walk into a church and you smell the incense, you know where you are. your mind changes the way it works.

also, what's up with the anger against wine? how did wine become evil among protestants? i know all sorts of protestants that get al lupset and say that the wine referred to in the bible was grape juice. if that is true, then why the warning in leviticus to be careful not to drink too much? sugar high? hardly likely, since several times in the OT someone got so drunk off "grape juice" as to cause some very nefarious goings on. so, whatever, christ was drinking wine, not grape juice.

as for communion, christ said the bread and wine were his body and blood. that's good enough for me. even symbolicly, since it still tastes like bread and wine to me. otherwise i wouldn't be able to deal with the body getting stuck in my teeth.

[BlackBillBlake]

I would like to know by what authority did the Anti-Catholic King James have to take 7 books out of the original bible, that was compiled at the Synod of Hippo in 393 AD, and create his own. Maybe the fundementalists can find their passage in ther KJV that says do not add or take away anything from this book. It would seem the doctrine of Sola Scriptura they champion so heartedly is coming back full circle and biting them in the butt. Any thoughts?
He ie James did it as part of the movemennt to establish an English national church with him at the top. It was part of a political process, the 'cult of the english state' , originated by Henry 8th, carried forward to great effect by Elizabeth 1st. They wanted to turn the church into a state cult, to identify the Tudor dynasty with it, and hence to claim a kind of Divine power for themselves. It all ended up in the mud of world war 1.

Another point though is why not also include in the cannon the Gnostic Gospels, such as that of St. Thomas, which have come to light in recent times? They are surely as authentic as the canonical gospels, and arguably more so, as there has been no chance of either erors in copying, or deliberate editing over the centuries.

[the zen-man puck]

I always thought King James was bi-sexual.

[Jozak]

i dont' suppose kind james and his counsel was any less worthy of making such judgements as the original catholics who put the book together. since coming here i've read some of the "apocrypha." while there's some interesting stuff, much of it makes my head ache in irritation.
The people who compiled the bible togethar we're Saints, Early Church fathers, and very, very holy men. King James was a political figure and had ZERO authority whatsoever. Who was he to take out parts of the bible!?!?!

[Epiphany]

it's the idea that 'saint' refers to only very very special people, instead of all of christ's followers that bothers me.
Christ's followers are saints

this is a great article:
http://www.keyway.ca/htm2002/saints.htm

[Epiphany]

I would like to know by what authority did the Anti-Catholic King James have to take 7 books out of the original bible?
Seven?

Lost books of the Bible, referred to IN the Bible:

1. The war of the Lord - Numbers 21:14
2. Book of Jashpher - Joshua 10:13
3. Acts of Solomon - I Kings 11:41
4. Book of Nathan the prophet - I Chronicles 29:29
5. Prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite - II Chronicles 9:29
6. Book of Gad - I Chronicles 29:29
7. Book of Nathan, Vision of Iddo - II Chronicles 9:29
8. Book of Shemaiah and Iddo the Seer - II Chronicles 12:15
9. Book of Jehu - II Chronicles 20:34

"The New Testament has 263 direct quotes and 360 allusions to passages in the Old Testament, but there is not one reference to any of the books of the Apocrypha."

[BlackBillBlake]

The people who compiled the bible togethar we're Saints, Early Church fathers, and very, very holy men. King James was a political figure and had ZERO authority whatsoever. Who was he to take out parts of the bible!?!?!
Since Henry 8th had already split with Rome and had himself appointed head of the Chuch of England, James did have legal authority to dictate the content of the cannon. However, I agree he had no mandate from God to do so. And from my studies of history, it seems that there was very little appetite for reform among the ordinary christian people of England prior to Henry's 'reformation' - in fact it caused great confusion and led to terrible persecutions (on both sides).
The thing was a matter of political expediency only - and now today's protestants are left with a church which has been effectively mutilated, with the removal of the Saints (I don't regard all followers of Jesus as such) , the Blessed Virgin, and much else that is deeply spiritual in the Catholic tradition.

[mynameiskc]

The people who compiled the bible togethar we're Saints, Early Church fathers, and very, very holy men. King James was a political figure and had ZERO authority whatsoever. Who was he to take out parts of the bible!?!?!
ALL is politics. even among holy men, all is politics. what made king james, a devout lover of christ, any less holy? any less a saint. i know you're catholic, and your views of saints is very different than mine. in my sense, james' council was no less capable of reviewing and editing the bible. i've read some of what was discarded, and i agree.

[Jozak]

What are you talking about? The apocrypha refers to the 7 deutaronimical books that are not included in the king james version bible. they were taken out when king james had his bible completed.

the catholic bible, on the other hand, uses all books that were officially declared the bible as we know it today at the synod of hippo in 393 AD.The Synod of Hippo was the first Church council to produce an official list of canonical books. And by the way, that is true of the New Testament books, as well as the Old Testament books. This is striaght historical fact, and you cannot argue with them, try as you may Epiphany.


"Besides the canonical Scriptures, nothing shall be read in the church under the title of divine writings. The canonical books are: – Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings [i.e., 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Kings], the two books of Chronicles, Job, the Psalms of David, the five books of Solomon [i.e., Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus], the twelve books of the Prophets [i.e., Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi], Isaiah, Jeremiah [including Baruch], Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras [i.e., Ezra, Nehemiah], two books of the Maccabees. The books of the New Testament are: – the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles of S. Paul, one Epistle of S. Paul to the Hebrews, two Epistles of S. Peter, three Epistles of S. John, the Epistle of S. James, the Epistle of S. Jude, the Revelation of S. John. Concerning the confirmation of this canon, the transmarine Church [i.e., the Roman church] shall be consulted.” ----Synod of Hippo, Canon 29, A.D. 393

So, back to my original question: What authority did king james have again?:rolleyes:

[Jozak]

Since Henry 8th had already split with Rome and had himself appointed head of the Chuch of England, James did have legal authority to dictate the content of the cannon. However, I agree he had no mandate from God to do so. And from my studies of history, it seems that there was very little appetite for reform among the ordinary christian people of England prior to Henry's 'reformation' - in fact it caused great confusion and led to terrible persecutions (on both sides).
The thing was a matter of political expediency only - and now today's protestants are left with a church which has been effectively mutilated, with the removal of the Saints (I don't regard all followers of Jesus as such) , the Blessed Virgin, and much else that is deeply spiritual in the Catholic tradition.
Exactly, its sad. They are missing out on so much.

[Epiphany]

Then how come it doesn't make mention of the books I named that are listed in the Bible?

[BlackBillBlake]

ALL is politics. even among holy men, all is politics. what made king james, a devout lover of christ, any less holy? any less a saint. i know you're catholic, and your views of saints is very different than mine. in my sense, james' council was no less capable of reviewing and editing the bible. i've read some of what was discarded, and i agree.
King James a saint? I think not! Look at it like this - he personally aproved of methods of punishment that are and were wholly unacceptable. This 'lover of Christ' authorized burnings at the stake, hanging/drawing/quatering and so on. Example, Guy Fawkes and the other gunpowder plotters.

And to what end? Simply to establish the power of the new Stuart Dynasty, and to build up even more the idea of english nationalism.

I doubt James would have given you his shirt if you were in need - more likely a flogging for having the insolence to ask!

Luther may have had some valid points, but his agenda was quickly appropriated by purely political interests. The Kings of Europe resented their vasalage to the Pope, and here was a way to increase their power. Henry 8th of England broke from Rome for no other reason than the Pope's quite correct desicion to refuse him a divorce. There was no religious reason behind it. Prior to his conflict with the Pope, Henry had been a staunch defender of the Catholic Faith against the would be reformers - he was awarded the title 'defender of the faith' by the Pope, a title still born by British Monarchs today.
Even if their faith is mainly in gold.....

And for the ordinary people - just confusion.

[mynameiskc]

sorry man, i'm still not buying that 'saint' means anything but a believer in christ. considering what the catholic popes have been willing to do in their pursuit of their own interests and for the interests of the church, i'm no more willing to give them credit for being perfect than i am for james. god works his will despite our own.

[BlackBillBlake]

sorry man, i'm still not buying that 'saint' means anything but a believer in christ. considering what the catholic popes have been willing to do in their pursuit of their own interests and for the interests of the church, i'm no more willing to give them credit for being perfect than i am for james. god works his will despite our own.
Even if you don't accept the Catholic idea of saints, James would hardly even qualify as a Christian, given the human rights abuses, to use todays terminology, that he sanctioned. That extends to Popes too - I am not saying they were perfect - many Catholics today, including leading theologians such as Hans Kung, accept that the Papacy passed through a period of corruption, and political self-seeking. Mistakes were made, but the modern Church post Vatican II has sought to redress these historical abuses.
James was just another European monarch, nominally Christian, but utterly disregarding the basic humanistic teachings of Jesus. For him, it was all a question of political expediency - nonetheless - I do quite like the King James Bible, it has a certain poetic quality which is mostly lacking in modern versions. But I harbour no illusions about the real nature of the Stuart kings of England. Tyranical monsters.

[mynameiskc]

and yet god still works through us. i'm in full agreement that james wasn't perfect. people had a different concept entirely about the sanctity of human life back then. like i said. god works his will despite our own. we can't escape it. he's really good at it.

[Alsharad]

After a bit of research, I discovered some really interesting information. You can read all about it here:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm

The relevant part is where it talks about the Hellenistic Jews and their Palestinian counterparts. The Hebrew Bible contained the same books as those used by Protestants today. The more progressive Hellenistic (Alexandrian) Jews formed what the Roman Catholics use today (it was in Greek, not Hebrew). The OT mentioned by Josephus seems to refer to the Palestinian (Hebrew) Bible.

Here are my thoughts: So, as to what James' authority was, it was the tradition of the Palestinian Jews and possibly (probably) that the Hebrew Bible was the Scriptures that Christ used and read from. If it was good enough for Christ, why add the Hellenistic additions?

On the Synod of Hippo, I know that this council was the first council to produce what is currently used in Roman Catholic teachings. What I disagree with is the statement that they were the first council to release a canonical statement. What about the Synod of Laodicea?

Still more research to do, but this is a great topic!

[Jozak]

After a bit of research, I discovered some really interesting information. You can read all about it here:

The relevant part is where it talks about the Hellenistic Jews and their Palestinian counterparts. The Hebrew Bible contained the same books as those used by Protestants today. The more progressive Hellenistic (Alexandrian) Jews formed what the Roman Catholics use today (it was in Greek, not Hebrew). The OT mentioned by Josephus seems to refer to the Palestinian (Hebrew) Bible.

Here are my thoughts: So, as to what James' authority was, it was the tradition of the Palestinian Jews and possibly (probably) that the Hebrew Bible was the Scriptures that Christ used and read from. If it was good enough for Christ, why add the Hellenistic additions?
First of all, this isn’t even true. Most of the deuterocanonical books were originally written in Hebrew, and only later translated into Greek (along with the rest of the Hebrew Old Testament)--This was called the Septuagint. The Septuagint was the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. According to the Protestant International Bible Commentary:



Interestingly the completed LXX (Septuagint) not only contained the 39 books of the Hebrew canon; it also contained other books as well, books commonly called apocryphal . . . books that for the most part were written in Hebrew and translated into Greek. (Only Wis., 2 Mac. and Ad. Est. were originally composed in Greek.)


Gerald F. Hawthorne, “Canon and Apocrypha of the Old Testament,” International Bible Commentary, ed. F.F. Bruce, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1986), 34.


Also, even if we exclude the deuterocanonical books, the rest of the Old Testament was not written exclusively in Hebrew. Many parts were also written in Aramaic (e.g., Ezra 4:8-6:18; Daniel 2:4-7:28). Since when does the word of God have to be only in Hebrew.

Furthermore, even if this arguement WERE true, the Jews are the one who did not beleive Christ was the son of God, so their opinion does not hold much water with me.


On the Synod of Hippo, I know that this council was the first council to produce what is currently used in Roman Catholic teachings. What I disagree with is the statement that they were the first council to release a canonical statement. What about the Synod of Laodicea?

Still more research to do, but this is a great topic!
The council of Hippo was the FIRST COUNCIL THAT COMPILED THE BIBLE as we know it today, it is a historical fact. The Church Councils at Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) both listed the deuterocanonical books as Scripture, which was simply an endorsement of what had become the general consensus of the Church in the west and most of the east. The point is, the apocryphal books were used for over 1100 years by BOTH Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians until that punk Martin Luther decided they were not good enough, and King James decided they were to Catholic and concurred with Luther.

[mynameiskc]

jozak, when you're old enough, i wanna have your baby. that was a great post.

[gnrm23]

he's old enough...
;)

[mynameiskc]

i think i ran him off. i'll just be a babysitter, then.

[BlackBillBlake]

he's old enough...
;)
Yeah - but he's a Catholic, so she'd have to agree to marry him first!

[Jozak]

KC I would love to have your baby, but we'd have to raise Catholic ;)

[mynameiskc]

lol. anything for you, darlin'. ;)

[Alsharad]

First of all, this isn’t even true. Most of the deuterocanonical books were originally written in Hebrew, and only later translated into Greek (along with the rest of the Hebrew Old Testament)--This was called the Septuagint. The Septuagint was the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. According to the Protestant International Bible Commentary:
How messed up is this? I am quoting Roman Catholic sources and you are quoting Protestant sources. LOL. Did you read that entire article? BTW, I know what the Septuagint is, but everything that I have found shows that the Septuagint was NOT used by Palestinian Jews (and therefore NOT used by Christ).

Also, even if we exclude the deuterocanonical books, the rest of the Old Testament was not written exclusively in Hebrew. Many parts were also written in Aramaic (e.g., Ezra 4:8-6:18; Daniel 2:4-7:28). Since when does the word of God have to be only in Hebrew.
Did I say they had to be written in Hebrew? I meant Hebrew as in "Palestinian Jew." Sorry for the mixup. No, the word of God does not have to be written in Hebrew.

Furthermore, even if this arguement WERE true, the Jews are the one who did not beleive Christ was the son of God, so their opinion does not hold much water with me.
ad hominem. Whether the Jews believed Christ or not is not a reasonable means to discredit their scriptures. The idea is that the scriptures Christ learned and taught from and read to others in synagogue did NOT contain the Apocrypha. If Christ didn't use them and read them for instruction, why should we?

The council of Hippo was the FIRST COUNCIL THAT COMPILED THE BIBLE as we know it today, it is a historical fact. The Church Councils at Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) both listed the deuterocanonical books as Scripture, which was simply an endorsement of what had become the general consensus of the Church in the west and most of the east. The point is, the apocryphal books were used for over 1100 years by BOTH Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians until that punk Martin Luther decided they were not good enough, and King James decided they were to Catholic and concurred with Luther.
Have you actually looked for their reasons for rejecting the Apocrypha? James, I don't know much about, but Luther was a scholar, a priest, and a monk. He would have written VERY detailed reasons as to why he rejected the Apocryphal books. I haven't looked into it myself, so I cannot answer the question for you (unfortunately).

[BlackBillBlake]

Have you actually looked for their reasons for rejecting the Apocrypha? James, I don't know much about, but Luther was a scholar, a priest, and a monk. He would have written VERY detailed reasons as to why he rejected the Apocryphal books. I haven't looked into it myself, so I cannot answer the question for you (unfortunately).
I doubt very much that James personally had much input into this process. It was rather done on his behalf by others, scholars and so on. I repeat my previous point that James was simply a worldly monarch who was engaged in a process of appropriating the teaching of the church and altering it to suit his political agenda.

[Jozak]

How messed up is this? I am quoting Roman Catholic sources and you are quoting Protestant sources. LOL. Did you read that entire article? BTW, I know what the Septuagint is, but everything that I have found shows that the Septuagint was NOT used by Palestinian Jews (and therefore NOT used by Christ).They were included in the Septuagint which was the "Bible" of the Apostles, period. Again, I will gladly take the word of the apostoles over the Palestinian Jews who did not beleive Christ was the son of God. Even St. Augustine beleived the Septuagint was apostolically-sanctioned and inspired, and this was the consensus in the early Church.



Did I say they had to be written in Hebrew? I meant Hebrew as in "Palestinian Jew." Sorry for the mixup. No, the word of God does not have to be written in Hebrew.

ad hominem. Whether the Jews believed Christ or not is not a reasonable means to discredit their scriptures. The idea is that the scriptures Christ learned and taught from and read to others in synagogue did NOT contain the Apocrypha. If Christ didn't use them and read them for instruction, why should we?It certainly is reasonable, and it is not ad hominem at all. You are leaving out a very important fact: The Jews did not define a canon of their Scriptures until 70 AD, after the coming of Christ. Since then, The Roman Catholic Church, ( or Christianity as a whole, whichever you beleive) has been the institution empowered with all authority (cf. Matthew 16:18-19; 18:18; Ephesians 3:10; Acts 15). What the Jews may or may not have decided in a council after Christ in 70 AD, is, as I said before..... irrelevant. They rejected Christ. Why should I trust their authority over the Apostoles, their bible the Septuigant, and early church fathers/saints?

Have you actually looked for their reasons for rejecting the Apocrypha? James, I don't know much about, but Luther was a scholar, a priest, and a monk. He would have written VERY detailed reasons as to why he rejected the Apocryphal books. I haven't looked into it myself, so I cannot answer the question for you (unfortunately).You want to know the REAL reason Luther rejected the Apocrypha? He removed the deuterocanonical books from his Bible due to their clear teaching of doctrines which had been recently rejected by Protestants, such as prayers for the dead (Tobit 12:12, 2 Maccabees 12:39-45 ff.; cf. 1 Corinthians 15:29), intercession of dead saints (2 Maccabees 15:14; cf. Revelation 6:9-10), and intermediary intercession of angels (Tobit 12:12,15; cf. Revelation 5:8, 8:3-4). Luther and the other reformers made NO SECRET of this.

Luther even tried to throw out other books of the Bible which are accepted as canonical by all Protestants. He considered Job and Jonah "mere fables", and Ecclesiastes "incoherent and incomplete". He wanted Esther to be "tossed into the Elbe" river!!! WHO DID THIS GUY THINK HE WAS? A P*U*N*K*; that is what he was.

As I have stated before---393 AD--first bible completed, and all 7 apocryphal books included. Since this council also finalized the 66 canonical books which all Christians accept, it is quite absurd for Protestants to delete seven books from this authoritative Canon, they cant have it both ways. If they are going to accept the council, they have to accept all of it, otherwise, they need to admit their bible is incomplete.

[Alsharad]

There were people who rejected the Apocrypha BEFORE Luther, you know? St Jerome was probably the biggest name.

The problem is that it is VERY hard (I think impossible) to reconcile some concepts in the Apocrypha with some Old and New Testament concepts. For example, Purgatory vs. "Absent from the body is to be present with the Lord." And no, it wasn't cut and dried universal acceptance until Luther, either. There were debates both for and against. It wasn't until Luther and the Council of Trent that the Roman Catholic church was "forced" to state their position.

You will probably disagree with what I said, Jozak, but I am pulling my info from Roman Catholic, Protestant, and secular sources (several different ones) and they all seem to agree. I liked what I found here:

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/sbrandt/canon.htm

" We have arrived at an awkward position. The Jewish canon seems not to have been closed, and Christians relied on the decidedly larger but somewhat uncertain canon of the LXX -- until the time of Jerome when at which time many felt that the Jewish canon was more worthy of attention. One is left with a canon that remained uncertain until a very late period consisting of two parts. A list of books which all were certain about and a list of several more that had an uncertain status. Some regarded the deuteros as being merely apocryphal or non-canonical (following Jerome's preface), but others regarded as Scripture (following Augustine or Origen) or perhaps as quasi-Scripture. For this reason I find the claim that Protestants removed books from Scripture to be roughly as exaggerated as the claim that Catholics added the books at the Council of Trent. The truth, it seems, was that an ambiguity truly existed which was very difficult to resolve. This ambiguity persisted until the time of the Reformation at which time Trent was called upon to make a pronouncement with regard to their status. Trent did not attempt a careful examination of history or archeology, but based it first on the fact that the books were read alongside other sacred books in worship and had been since the beginning, and second the pronouncements of previous councils. In other words, it trusted that the Holy Spirit would be most efficacious in working through the universal practice of reading the books in the Churches, or in authoritative pronouncements accepted by many Churches rather than the individual opinions of Jerome, those following him, or the beliefs of the Hebrews."

[Jozak]

There were people who rejected the Apocrypha BEFORE Luther, you know? St Jerome was probably the biggest name.
Ah....he did oppose them, but then he changed his mind. Besides, he was one of the very few early church fathers who opposed it.

The problem is that it is VERY hard (I think impossible) to reconcile some concepts in the Apocrypha with some Old and New Testament concepts. For example, Purgatory vs. "Absent from the body is to be present with the Lord." And no, it wasn't cut and dried universal acceptance until Luther, either. There were debates both for and against. It wasn't until Luther and the Council of Trent that the Roman Catholic church was "forced" to state their position.
You will probably disagree with what I said, Jozak, but I am pulling my info from Roman Catholic, Protestant, and secular sources (several different ones) and they all seem to agree. I liked what I found here:

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/sbrandt/canon.htm

Nonsense. The council of Trent was not FORCED to do anything. Your article even says this:
"Several local councils of the Church were to endorse the books later to be endorsed by Trent. These were, the Council of Rome (AD 382), Hippo (AD 393), and Carthage (AD 397 and 419). The Council of Nicea II (AD 797) approved everything said by Carthage (AD 419)."

Let's hypothetically say that the charge is true, that the Council of Trent added or was forced to recognize the 7 disputed books in 1546. The fact is Luther rejected the Apocrypha as early as 1519. It was that year Luther had a debate with J. Maier Eck about purgatory. When confronted with 2 Maccabees 12:46 as a proof passage, Luther said that this book was not Scripture. This was fairly difficult for him to say if the book did not get added/recognized until 1546.



Ever since the Councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage in the late 4th century AD, Christians were taught that the deuterocanonical books are Scripture. It was not, however, until 1546 that these books were solemnly and dogmatically defined AGAIN as belonging to the canon, because it was not until then (Reformation) that the inspiration of those books was called into question. As I said before, the 7 disputed books contain lots of scriptural proof for "different" Catholic doctrine, especially purgatory. Long story short, Luther decided it be better to side with the Jews concerning the canon, so as to justify his breaking with Church teaching concerning certain doctrines. What Luther did, then, was simply cowardly. When given biblical proof for a doctrine he disagreed with, he asserted that, "Well, these books shouldn't be in the Bible." But that's easy. Someone could argue that the Virgin Birth of Jesus is not in the Bible. When confronted with passages from Matthew and Luke, the person could just say, "Yeah, well, those books don't belong in the Bible, though." This is possibly the most foolish thing I have heard in the history of Christianity. All the council of Trent did was RE AFFIRM what had been commonly accepted by Christians for hundreds of years, prior to the Reformation. You can say they were argued, but the fact is they were in the ORIGINAL CANON of the bible. Hell, you could argue about Revelation, and many people did, what's the difference? Should they have taken out Revelation as well? People have this notion that if you don't like something, with the bible let's say, you can just take it out and create a new one. Luther or King James did not have the authority to do so.

[Soulless||Chaos]

The people who compiled the bible togethar we're Saints, Early Church fathers, and very, very holy men. King James was a political figure and had ZERO authority whatsoever. Who was he to take out parts of the bible!?!?! and the popes not a political figure?
what right did the catholics have to take parts out? there is a lot of shit missing from the bible... you didnt translate the originals so how do you know what you call the bible is really the bible? it could easily have been altered to be of better use in controlling the populace, which it has consistently been used for throughout history

[Jozak]

and the popes not a political figure?
In Medieval Times Popes were ecclestial as well as political figures sometimes. King James had no ecclestial authoirty whatsoever (besdies running the church of England which I think is fraudulent anyway) to remove 7 books out of the original bible.


what right did the catholics have to take parts out?
We didn't take ANYTHING out of the bible, have you even read the last (how many pages this is)???? The whole point of the thread was proving this! I suggest you either re-read my original post or start educating yourself.


there is a lot of shit missing from the bible...
What are you talking about? You need to be specific and cite facts to prove what you are saying, which I don't even know what is. There were dozens of books that did not make the "Cut" when the bible was compiled for the first time, but the early church fathers had to pick ones that would do the best job. Everyone used the same bible up until the 1500's when Martin Luther decided to take them out, and then later when King James decided not to include them in his bible as well. It's absurd to give any justification for removing books out of the original bible becasue it does not fit your political/religious agenda.


you didnt translate the originals so how do you know what you call the bible is really the bible? it could easily have been altered to be of better use in controlling the populace, which it has consistently been used for throughout history
Who is "YOU"? ME PERSONALLY? WHO? Specify. The original bible was in Latin first, then slowly over time was translated into other languages.