-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
- Status
K
Uh, I don't care to read them. I just like Ray Comfort's view of things: we broke the Ten Commandments, we deserve Hell. Jesus paid the price for our sins. Accept His payment. Accept Him. Live for Him.
Why read anything outside the Bible? If it was written after the books of the Bible, then refer to Galatians 1:6-10. There is nothing new. Don't tell me what was written in 150, 1600 or 50 days ago by some guy in Italy. If it doesn't line up with Scripture, I ain't reading it.
Why read anything outside the Bible? If it was written after the books of the Bible, then refer to Galatians 1:6-10. There is nothing new. Don't tell me what was written in 150, 1600 or 50 days ago by some guy in Italy. If it doesn't line up with Scripture, I ain't reading it.
S
Disclaimer? It's been in there before people heard of disclaimers... it is from the Spetuagint version which was originally written in Kione Greek byt Greek-speaking Jews in Alexandria, Egypt. Greek-Speaking Christians thought it was mighty nifty and used it along with the letters they were getting from the Apostles in Greek. Then around 70 AD the Jews decided they wouldn't use any scriptures which were not originally written in Hebrew, so they tossed out those books found in the Septuagint which did not have purely Hebrew text (such as the deuterocanon/apocrypha which was in Greek). The Christians had by this time decided they were not a Jewish sect and not bound by Jewish laws, so they kept their version of the Old Testament (Septuagint with the apocrypha/deuterocanon). I dunno...maybe they wrote a disclaimer, like "Hey, the Jews use a different version, but we're not Jews...so...whateva."
The book of Tobit is kinda goofy...who lets a bird poo in their eye? Honestly?
The book of Tobit is kinda goofy...who lets a bird poo in their eye? Honestly?
S
Apocrypha (from the Greek word ἀπόκρυφα, meaning "those having been hidden away"[1]) are texts of uncertain authenticity, or writings where the authorship is questioned. When used in the specific context of Judeo-Christian theology, the term apocrypha refers to any collection of scriptural texts that falls outside the canon. Given that different denominations have different ideas about what constitutes canonical scripture, there are several different versions of the apocrypha. During sixteenth-century controversies over the biblical canon the word "apocrypha" acquired a negative connotation, and it has become a synonym for "spurious" or "false." This usage usually involves fictitious or legendary accounts that are plausible enough to be commonly considered as truth. For example, Laozi's alleged authorship of the Tao Te Ching, Napoleon Bonaparte's self-coronation rather than at the hands of Pope Pius VII, and the Parson Weems account of George Washington and the cherry tree, are all considered 'apocryphal'.
S
After the Protestant and Catholic canons were defined by Luther and Trent respectively, early Protestant and Catholic editions of the Bible did not omit these books, but placed them in a separate Apocrypha section apart from the Old and New Testaments to indicate their status.
In a nutshell, the Roman Catholic church has never had any biblical support for its teachings such as purgatory, prayers for the dead, works for salvation, etc. However, these false teachings are found in the Apocryphal books, so the Council of Tent in 1546, canonized them proclaiming them to be "sacred" books. This supposedly gave them support for there erroneous teachings. It is always the clear mark of a cult or false church to add extra biblical revelations to the Bible in order to seek to justify their false teachings. Historically, the Roman Catholic church did not accept these books for the first 1300 years of their history. The reason they changed their position was that during the Reformation the teachings of Catholicism came under scrutiny by people who were studying God's word, they could find no mention in the Bible of a place called Purgatory, prayers for the dead, paying of indulgences and other practices of the Roman church. The Roman Church practice of accepting of money, called "indulgences" for the payment of sins especially came under attack as being unbiblical. History shows that accepting indulgences brought a great deal of money into the coffers of the Roman Catholic Church. A Roman Catholic could actually purchase a indulgence in advance and then go out an commit his sin. It was this unbiblical practice that was one of the reasons that Martin Luther wrote his "Ninety-five Thesis" and tacked it to the door of the Wittenburg church door. His action sparked the Reformation which began in 1517 which was the also the beginning of Protestantism.
In a nutshell, the Roman Catholic church has never had any biblical support for its teachings such as purgatory, prayers for the dead, works for salvation, etc. However, these false teachings are found in the Apocryphal books, so the Council of Tent in 1546, canonized them proclaiming them to be "sacred" books. This supposedly gave them support for there erroneous teachings. It is always the clear mark of a cult or false church to add extra biblical revelations to the Bible in order to seek to justify their false teachings. Historically, the Roman Catholic church did not accept these books for the first 1300 years of their history. The reason they changed their position was that during the Reformation the teachings of Catholicism came under scrutiny by people who were studying God's word, they could find no mention in the Bible of a place called Purgatory, prayers for the dead, paying of indulgences and other practices of the Roman church. The Roman Church practice of accepting of money, called "indulgences" for the payment of sins especially came under attack as being unbiblical. History shows that accepting indulgences brought a great deal of money into the coffers of the Roman Catholic Church. A Roman Catholic could actually purchase a indulgence in advance and then go out an commit his sin. It was this unbiblical practice that was one of the reasons that Martin Luther wrote his "Ninety-five Thesis" and tacked it to the door of the Wittenburg church door. His action sparked the Reformation which began in 1517 which was the also the beginning of Protestantism.
S
I would like to point out that the Council of Tent was the first time the Catholic Church put it's official stamp on the entire canon of the Bible, not just the deuterocanon. It might seem odd to us that it would take 1500+ for anyone to say what was or was not officially in the Bible, but up to this point, there was no serious question as to what belonged in the Bible and what did not among Western Christians until the generally accepted books of the Bible were questioned, rejected, and so on. Once this started, someone decided "hey, we gotta set some things in stone here before anyone else gets trigger happy." This at least prevented people from doing things like removing Revelations and the Epistle of James as Luther wanted to do originally.
I would also like to provide the definition of an indulgence since few people get it right, even today's average poorly informed yet self proclaimed Catholics:
An indulgence is something which does not forgive sins. It does not get anyone out of hell. When people would confess their sins, they would be given a penance, something to do to make amends. They were already forgiven by God, but amends still had to be made to the community (the Church, fellow Christians). Society was much more harsh and rigourous in the Middle Ages, so common penances would be to fast for a year, to wear the clothes of a beggar for a few years, to stand outside of the church before services so that you could show your guilt and humility as an example to others, and so on. These penances took a very long time and the danger of death in those days was rampant. You could catch the plague, and boom, dead. So, the idea of indulgences came about. What these did was remit the temporal punishment due for sin, ie, they shortened the time of penance. So, if my penance was to sit on the church steps with a sign that read "I stole from my neighbor" for a year, the indulegence might cut that down to a months time or do away with it altogether.
With the belief in purgatory, what an indulgence is believed to do is cut down the amount of purgation needed for one's soul in purgatory. Indulgences do not forgive sins, and they are useless to anyone in hell for people in hell have already rejected God's graces in life and have been judged accordingly. Idulgences may not be bought or sold, they are only merited from a sincere desire to amend one's life, to confess one's sins with a contrite heart, to do one's penance with humility and piety, and to worship Christ in the manner fitting to him.
Now, in the time of Luther, there were many individual priests and bishops, and probably the pope of that time, who had their eye on earthly things and not heavenly things. They took advantage of the sinful nature of man and man's desire to see heaven, and decieved the average joe by claimig that sins could be forgiven by pay, and that a way to heaven could be bought. This was wrong. It should not have happened, but it did happen, and Luther was justified in his digust for these abuses. Learned Catholics tend to have a high respect for Luther on this point. I just wanted to clear that up because a think a lot of people do not understand what an Indulgence is according to the real Catholic definition.
I would also like to provide the definition of an indulgence since few people get it right, even today's average poorly informed yet self proclaimed Catholics:
An indulgence is something which does not forgive sins. It does not get anyone out of hell. When people would confess their sins, they would be given a penance, something to do to make amends. They were already forgiven by God, but amends still had to be made to the community (the Church, fellow Christians). Society was much more harsh and rigourous in the Middle Ages, so common penances would be to fast for a year, to wear the clothes of a beggar for a few years, to stand outside of the church before services so that you could show your guilt and humility as an example to others, and so on. These penances took a very long time and the danger of death in those days was rampant. You could catch the plague, and boom, dead. So, the idea of indulgences came about. What these did was remit the temporal punishment due for sin, ie, they shortened the time of penance. So, if my penance was to sit on the church steps with a sign that read "I stole from my neighbor" for a year, the indulegence might cut that down to a months time or do away with it altogether.
With the belief in purgatory, what an indulgence is believed to do is cut down the amount of purgation needed for one's soul in purgatory. Indulgences do not forgive sins, and they are useless to anyone in hell for people in hell have already rejected God's graces in life and have been judged accordingly. Idulgences may not be bought or sold, they are only merited from a sincere desire to amend one's life, to confess one's sins with a contrite heart, to do one's penance with humility and piety, and to worship Christ in the manner fitting to him.
Now, in the time of Luther, there were many individual priests and bishops, and probably the pope of that time, who had their eye on earthly things and not heavenly things. They took advantage of the sinful nature of man and man's desire to see heaven, and decieved the average joe by claimig that sins could be forgiven by pay, and that a way to heaven could be bought. This was wrong. It should not have happened, but it did happen, and Luther was justified in his digust for these abuses. Learned Catholics tend to have a high respect for Luther on this point. I just wanted to clear that up because a think a lot of people do not understand what an Indulgence is according to the real Catholic definition.
- Status