The Bible Alone?

[eternally-gratefull]

But then I'm forced to ask this question. What about the Christians in medieval and Dark Age Europe? Most of them had never even seen or touched a Bible in their lives much less had the opportunity to read it. Assuming of course they were on of the select few who could read at all.

The same thing which Jesus did while he was here. And the apostles did. They gathered together "usually at a tabernackle, or a place of meeting" and read the word together. It is obvious that even in NT times, All churches were able to read the OT, And even the nt as it was being distributed letter by letter to all the churches.

If scripture is not our basis of faith and the church. then we have no basis. Only mens opinion.

 

[SantoSubito]

I have read most of them. Although they are GREAT historical readings. There are to many reasons why they are not considered scripture. For one they have things in them which contradict other aspects of scripture. It has the jews doing things like making penance for sin so God will save them, yet no where in the law is this said to be a prerequisite. That is why many do not consider them inspired words of God.

But again. They are great historical readings, especially maccabees. I use it all the time.

The only "contradictions" that I've ever been shown are only contradictions because they don't mesh with protestant doctrine. Which is hardly a reason to say they should be left out; considering the canon was formed long before protestants ever existed.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

The only "contradictions" that I've ever been shown are only contradictions because they don't mesh with protestant doctrine. Which is hardly a reason to say they should be left out; considering the canon was formed long before protestants ever existed.

They should be left out because they contradict other aspects of scripture. Gods word can not contradict. Or do we leave ourselves with a flawed scripture?

Then again scripture is not the roman churches basis for doctrine. So I guess it does not suprise me that people would want a tainted word of God.

 

[SantoSubito]

They should be left out because they contradict other aspects of scripture. Gods word can not contradict. Or do we leave ourselves with a flawed scripture?

Then again scripture is not the roman churches basis for doctrine. So I guess it does not suprise me that people would want a tainted word of God.

Like I said above they only contradicts certain aspects of scripture when said aspects are interpreted in a protestant light. When they are interpreted in a Catholic/Orthodox light there is no contradiction.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Like I said above they only contradicts certain aspects of scripture when said aspects are interpreted in a protestant light. When they are interpreted in a Catholic/Orthodox light there is no contradiction.

They Contradict the OT law. Which is neither catholic nor protestant. Thats good enough for me to believe they are not scripture!

 

[Scotth1960]

They Contradict the OT law. Which is neither catholic nor protestant. Thats good enough for me to believe they are not scripture!

Martin Luther contradicts the OT law to neither take away or to add to the word of God.
He adds to the word of God by saying "alone" in Romans 3:28. And he takes away from the word of God by believing the epistle of James should be removed from the New Testament.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Martin Luther contradicts the OT law to neither take away or to add to the word of God.
He adds to the word of God by saying "alone" in Romans 3:28. And he takes away from the word of God by believing the epistle of James should be removed from the New Testament.

What does Martin Luther have to do with extra biblical books? So because one man made a mistake it is ok for others to do this??

Sometimes your reasoning's astound me!

 

[endofallfears]

If I had to choose between losing the Bible, or losing the Eastern Orthodox Church, I would have to keep the Bible and lose the EOC.

 

[Scotth1960]

What does Martin Luther have to do with extra biblical books? So because one man made a mistake it is ok for others to do this??

Sometimes your reasoning's astound me!

If you reject these books as Apocrypha, it was not the consensus of the Church Fathers or an ecumenical council that told you to reject them. Some traditions come from men, not from apostolic traditions of the Church. Luther and the Reformers invented the faith that called certain books Apocrypha that had been part of the Old Greek canon of the Bible. It was their opinion. Not the tradition of the Church. Luther tried to reform Rome. A noble intention. But he did not succeed. Rome as it was before the schism is the Orthodox Church. Rome used to be Orthodox Christian, but gradually fell away from the "faith once delivered unto the saints" (Jude 3) and began introducing (Augustinian) errors and heresies. Take care.

 

[Scotth1960]

If I had to choose between losing the Bible, or losing the Eastern Orthodox Church, I would have to keep the Bible and lose the EOC.

If you lose the Church, you lose the "pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Tim 3:15), because, according to the Bible, it is the Church that is the pillar and ground of the truth. If you lose that, you lose the correct meaning and true interpretation of the Bible. You are left with private opinions and the "traditions of men", and false doctrines and heresies. Not the "faith once delivered unto the saints" (Jude 3). It is impossible to correctly understand the Bible without the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit lives in the Body of Christ, the Church. Dear endofallfears, Look at the Protestant world. They can't even agree on what the Bible means.
They have 30,000 competing, disagreeing sects/denominations. Go figure.
The Orthodox Church is all united around the All-Holy Trinity, and confesses the same Faith, the Creed of Constantinople I (381 AD) without the Filioque.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

If you reject these books as Apocrypha, it was not the consensus of the Church Fathers or an ecumenical council that told you to reject them. Some traditions come from men, not from apostolic traditions of the Church. Luther and the Reformers invented the faith that called certain books Apocrypha that had been part of the Old Greek canon of the Bible. It was their opinion. Not the tradition of the Church. Luther tried to reform Rome. A noble intention. But he did not succeed. Rome as it was before the schism is the Orthodox Church. Rome used to be Orthodox Christian, but gradually fell away from the "faith once delivered unto the saints" (Jude 3) and began introducing (Augustinian) errors and heresies. Take care.

I reject the apocrypha because it contradicts the rest of scripture. Not because this person said this or that person or church said that. You can do as you wish. But if you want a faulty scripture. follow the apocrypha

 

[Scotth1960]

I reject the apocrypha because it contradicts the rest of scripture. Not because this person said this or that person or church said that. You can do as you wish. But if you want a faulty scripture. follow the apocrypha

Have you proven that these books contradict the rest of Scripture? Why should I take your word for it what these books say? How do you know they contradict the rest of Scripture? How do you know it's a "faulty scripture"? Why should I accept what you say?
Also, what does John 15:26 say (mean), according to you? If you get that right, you're moving in the direction of the truth.
What do you have to say about these other books?
Please take some time to study this.
No body has proven to me whether I should accept or reject these books. I haven't found any things in them that are objectionable.

 

[Scotth1960]

I reject the apocrypha because it contradicts the rest of scripture. Not because this person said this or that person or church said that. You can do as you wish. But if you want a faulty scripture. follow the apocrypha

Dear eternallygratefull,
Here's a site with disagrees with your presupposition that these books are "apocrypha" or that they are false.
Deuterocanonical Books/ Apocrypha objections
http:// completelybiblical.blogspot.com/2009/07/deuterocanonical-booksapocrypha.html

Take care.

Scott Erie PA

 

[Scotth1960]

Scott: could you cut and paste The OC's Decalogue please? (no hurry). is it different from Rome's?

thanks.

Dear Zone,

Please see: The Ten Commandments by Rev. George Mastrantonis
The Ten Commandments — Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America

Take care.

In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington

 

[Scotth1960]

the NT was written by the direct inspiration and guidance of The Holy Spirit, and the Apostles were those who had SEEN JESUS CHRIST.

Dear Zone, Regarding the Reformation, Jordan Bajis writes:
"The Reformers were men moved by a desire to give God glory, and to set men free in Christ.

There is no question about this. The Reformation successfully protested the popular

doctrine of indulgences. The movement countered distorted teachings and traditions

unique to the papacy. In these respects the Eastern Orthodox Christians see the

Reformation as "... a great movement of liberation from false categories imprisoning the

Christian gospel." (John Meyendorff, The Catholicisity and the Church, "The Significance

of the Reformation in the History of Christendom" (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary

Press, 1983); p. 76.).

"From the Eastern point of view, the theological consequences of the Reformation are the

inevitable result of the separation of the Christian East and West. Instead of Rome's

limiting itself to one historic tradition, she could have had the historic consensus and

continuity to speak from other views as well. For example, the Medieval Church could

have had a living reference to many early fathers who wrote in Greek. Unfortunately,

Rome's detachment from the East led it to center its vision solely on Augustine. This

vantage point alone could have suggested correctives that may have changed the whole

course of the reform movement.

"Had the Church of the West been in conversation with the East, perhaps then it could

have pursued another way other than schism. But such communication would have been

nearly impossible. Eastern Orthodox nations were virtually cut off from the Western

world. The Moslem conquest of the Middle East, and Constantinople (the center of Eastern

Orthodox Christianity) preoccupied he attention of Eastern Christians. The pillaging that

occurred against Orthodox Christians during the Crusades made them distrustful of the

West. Russia, a huge nation consisting of vast numbers of Orthodox, technologically and

culturally isolated itself from the West. All this did not allow for theological dialogue. For

all practical purposes, the West did not even know that the Eastern Church existed, much

less have opportunity to think about her perspectives" (Jordan Bajis: page 19: Common

Ground: An Introduction to Eastern Christianity For the American Christian. Minneapolis,

MN: Light & Life Publishing Company, 1996.).


God bless us all. Amen. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Dear eternallygratefull,
Here's a site with disagrees with your presupposition that these books are "apocrypha" or that they are false.
Deuterocanonical Books/ Apocrypha objections
http:// completelybiblical.blogspot.com/2009/07/deuterocanonical-booksapocrypha.html

Take care.

Scott Erie PA

'Thanks scott. I don't listen to men though. I have studied this extensively. I even have a copy of the apocrypha. I have probably read this persons ideas anyway. And even if I did not read his words. I know what the apocrypha says, And it contradicts what the law says. No where in the law are the jews told to make penance for God to save them. Yet we read in the apocrypha that they made penance so that maybe God would save them from an invading army. This is against the law of moses. Why would god have in his word his people making penance. when it is not even required by the law? It is a contradiction. That is ALL I need to know.

 

[Scotth1960]

'Thanks scott. I don't listen to men though. I have studied this extensively. I even have a copy of the apocrypha. I have probably read this persons ideas anyway. And even if I did not read his words. I know what the apocrypha says, And it contradicts what the law says. No where in the law are the jews told to make penance for God to save them. Yet we read in the apocrypha that they made penance so that maybe God would save them from an invading army. This is against the law of moses. Why would god have in his word his people making penance. when it is not even required by the law? It is a contradiction. That is ALL I need to know.

You say all that. But you don't cite any Scriptures. It should be readily available if it says what you say it says. All I know is what Ezekiel 18 says. That should be enough. I don't know that these books contradict that. I haven't read that far so I really can't just reject these books as spurious unless some one shows me the truth. Maybe they are okay because the Church uses them. And I trust the Church. Not private individuals' opinions.
No prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation 2 Peter 1:20.

 

[SantoSubito]

They Contradict the OT law. Which is neither catholic nor protestant. Thats good enough for me to believe they are not scripture!

And theses contradictions are what exactly? Because i'd be willing to wager they are on my list of "Common Protestant Objections to the Deuterocanon."

 

[SantoSubito]

'Thanks scott. I don't listen to men though. I have studied this extensively. I even have a copy of the apocrypha. I have probably read this persons ideas anyway. And even if I did not read his words. I know what the apocrypha says, And it contradicts what the law says. No where in the law are the jews told to make penance for God to save them. Yet we read in the apocrypha that they made penance so that maybe God would save them from an invading army. This is against the law of moses. Why would god have in his word his people making penance. when it is not even required by the law? It is a contradiction. That is ALL I need to know.

What is throwing ashes on your head, clothing yourself in sackcloth, and fasting if not penance? The Israelites did these things in the OT because God had seen fit to punish them by sending foreign armies. So in order to show God that they were sorrowful for their sins they did penance in order that God might turn back the armies. That's why all the prophets told the Israelites to fast, clothe themselves in sackcloth, and sit in ashes because if they didn't God would punish them for their sins. But if they did these things God would turn back his wrath from the Israelites.

You read about this kind of thing all the time in the Prophets; so honestly how could you miss it? Have you been reading the Torah then skipping to the NT?

 

[zone]

What is throwing ashes on your head, clothing yourself in sackcloth, and fasting if not penance? The Israelites did these things in the OT because God had seen fit to punish them by sending foreign armies. So in order to show God that they were sorrowful for their sins they did penance in order that God might turn back the armies. That's why all the prophets told the Israelites to fast, clothe themselves in sackcloth, and sit in ashes because if they didn't God would punish them for their sins. But if they did these things God would turn back his wrath from the Israelites.

You read about this kind of thing all the time in the Prophets; so honestly how could you miss it? Have you been reading the Torah then skipping to the NT?

Isaiah 61:1
The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me, because the LORD has anointed me to bring good news to the poor; he has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to those who are bound;

Isaiah 61:3
to grant to those who mourn in Zion— to give them a beautiful headdress instead of ashes, the oil of gladness instead of mourning, the garment of praise instead of a faint spirit; that they may be called oaks of righteousness, the planting of the LORD, that he may be glorified.

Luke 4
Jesus Rejected at Nazareth
16 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up. And as was his custom, he went to the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and he stood up to read. 17 And the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him. He unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written,

18 “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
because he has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives
and recovering of sight to the blind,
to set at liberty those who are oppressed,
19 to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”

20 And he rolled up the scroll and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him. 21 And he began to say to them, “Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.”


John 10:9
I am the door. If anyone enters by me, he will be saved and will go in and out and find pasture.

John 10:10
The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly.