/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>679177

Just think of it as the 'Expanded Universe' for Christians

How can we know for sure?

>>679179

>Christ used it

>Apostles used it

>Early Church used it

>There is no 39 canon book list in history except anti-Christian one made by Jews

>The first time Church explicitly made official canon, it was 73 books in total

>Same list was confirmed by Nicea II, Florence and Trent

>>679177

>Adding

They were part of every Bible for a millennia and a half. They got rejected later by protestants (following the lead of Talmudists) because they weren't written in Hebrew but in Greek. You know, the same language as every book of the NT.

>>679189

Alright, I"ll check it out after I finish NT. I thought KJV had the Apocrypha books, but mine missing it. I noticed how Gotquestions said Tobit is incorrect by stating that alms giving purges sin but Christ says so in Luke 11:41. So I don't know what's up

>>679198

The Jewish cannon at that time or before Christ?

Where's my Clement 1 or Shepherd of Hermas?

>>679201

The Jews didn't have a canon at the time of Christ. They only did that after when they were trying to differentiate themselves from the nascent Christianity. The Jews rejected the deuterocanonical books because they were written in Greek, not Hebrew. Obviously from a Christian perspective being written in Greek isn't an issue. The deuterocanonical books were included in the Septuagint, which was the version that the apostolic fathers used as a reference.

From a Christian perspective there is no good reason to exclude them. The Jews excluded them because they weren't Jewish enough, but why should that be a problem for Christians? Excluding them because they're not in the masoretic text is dumb because the masoretic text is corrupt and was compiled with a distinctly anti-Christian bias, a bias that still permeates many protestant bibles with their translation of Isaiah 7 and Psalm 22

>>679173

>Only Hebrew's holy books were laid on onto the temple

>Non of the apocryphal books were in the temple.

>Jesus believed that Jews were responsible for following God's word

>No one asked what books were God's word, because they already knew

>Jesus pretty much confirms the Tanakh in Matthew 23:35 for the first death was recorded in Genesis and the last book of the "writings" (2 Chronicles)

Thus

The apocryphal aren't inspired, which means not part of the word of God

>>679217

The Babylonian Tamuld actually affirms these books, believe it or not:

> King Ptolemy once gathered 72 Elders. He placed them in 72 chambers, each of them in a separate one, without revealing to them why they were summoned. He entered each one's room and said: "Write for me the Torah of Moshe, your teacher". God put it in the heart of each one to translate identically as all the others did.

https://www.sefaria.org/Megillah.9a?lang=bi

>>679177

Sounds good to me. The more information the better. Treating the way different books are grouped together into a single bound volume as sacrosanct seems like a later innovation to me since in medieval times various sorts of texts might have been included into the biblical manuscripts that were being used such as Josephus for example.

>>679199

The KJV does have translations of the apocrypha but they aren't always included in all printed copies as occurs with other bibles as well.

I just wish there were a compilation done following the Hebrew syntax and what have you but that also include the verses or readings that may not be in the Masoretic text but still found in the DSS, Septuagint, and the Samaritan Pentateuch. Perhaps such a thing could be a project for the future.

>>679228

each man decides/discovers the Word of God for himself, even if you decide to follow a tradition, it is you who decides, so take responsibility for your choices and don't pass the buck to another party.

You can't absolve yourself of this responsibility and duty. No one can think for another.

Is it such a big deal? Even Catholics and Orthodox recognize there is a difference of authority between the primary canon and the deuterocanon. Even if the deuterocanon is inspired, it is not on the same level as the primary canon (and in all cases, the central scripture is the 4 gospels). Greek Orthodox consider the deuterocanonical books "anagignoskomena" or "authorized to read" while Slavic Orthodox consider them "non-canonicals", but in both cases they're included in Bibles and used liturgically like the texts of the primary canon.

Really, the true issue here is on where the Bible's texts's authority comes from. Catholics and Orthodox would say that a text is or isn't inspired based on its usefulness for the community liturgically and its agreeing to the already received tradition (which is why even a text like the Protoevangelion of James isn't considered inspired by anyone even though it's valuable to the tradition, and why different traditions receive different canons - Ethiopian, Georgian, Latin and Russian Bibles all being different). The Bible isn't a Quran, something that fell from the sky at once and that stands above the rest of the tradition, but rather a part of tradition itself, or rather the "head" of the tradition, where all the dogma finds its source (but that still needs to be interpreted and expressed by the rest of the tradition: councils, patristics…) The Bible is a dynamic document, that developped following the liturgical needs of the community, rather than a single document that fell upon every community at once.

>>679235

Tell that to OP, not me,

>>679219

The Septuagint was only the Torah. The other texts (Nevi'im, Ketuvim, deuterocanon) were translated anonymously by Jews during the centuries up to Christ, and there wasn't a single well-made collection of texts (in other words, no such thing as a "Bible"). Jews decided to settle on a single official collection of books in the 1st century after the fall of the temple, while Christians didn't think of putting a Bible together until the heretic Marcion tried it first in the 2nd century.

>>679243

1st century is an approximate date. Scholars think that it might only be the Ketuvim that was pinned down, and the Torah and Nevi'im were pinned down 2 centuries before Jesus. Others think that the whole canon was pinned down in the 3rd century. My point isn't about when the Jews pinned down their canon, but rather that it took them a while to decide to put all their holy texts together into a Bible.

>>679247

Tobit isn't the only book which denounces miscegenation though, its spread throughout the whole bible. Its one of Gods laws of nature. Howbeit, Tobit is pretty clear on the matter so those yellow fever cucks can't worm out of it as easily.

>>679177

>Why not add in the Book of Enoch

Ethiopians have it. I just find nephilim meme retarded, but several saints thought that they were human-angel offsprings so why not?

>Why not add

…Except that books mentioned in OP were always considered as part of the Bible, before certain German dude decided otherwise in XVth century. Oddly, several hundred year old dispute of ours with Catholics didn't include consideration of said books as scripture…maybe because they were part of the scripture and it was universally agreed upon.

>>679254

>several saints thought that they were human-angel offsprings

Wait what who?

>>679282

It would only make since if their human forms allowed for human offspring. A hybrid wouldn't have inhuman DNA, but we don't really have much evidence that angels' human forms are real bodies or not

>>679283

>A hybrid wouldn't have inhuman DNA

Then what would make it unique from normal humans, a different type of soul?

>>679255

>>679236

t. people who have never read St John of Damascus outside of a quote on Gotanswers.com and don't actually care what the church fathers have to say anyway

>>679199

>Tobit is incorrect by stating that alms giving purges sin but Christ says so in Luke 11:41. So I don't know what's up

Proverbs also says this. It's in chapter 13 or 14 IIRC.

>>679286

nibba I was reading the fountain of knowledge like 30 minutes ago

>>679282

St. Dmitry of Rostov is one of them and first one to pop in my mind. Really though, even he is saying it with a bit suspicion in his tone.

>>679283

I still think that it would be better to consider sons of God as decedents of Seth

Anywho, thats not the point, my point was that there is one church that accepts Enoch as part of the canon, through considers it as deuterocanonical. Asides this there was a debate about part where Enoch becomes angel, but this is from the third book that is considered a fanfic by every denomination.

>>679218

>Only Hebrew's holy books were laid on onto the temple

>Non of the apocryphal books were in the temple

The last time I checked the only book that was in Temple was Deuteronomy and it was in it by sheer accident

>Jesus believed that Jews were responsible for following God's word

>No one asked what books were God's word, because they already knew

And the same Jews translated OT into Greek. And the same jews converted and still used them.

39-books canon was used by Jews AFTER Christ. After all apostles but John were dead. And the same Jews made this canon while stateing that NT is not inspired.

>Jesus pretty much confirms the Tanakh in Matthew 23:35 for the first death was recorded in Genesis and the last book of the "writings" (2 Chronicles)

You do know that this is not the same Zachary, do you?

You do know that Christ used canon of Sadducees too, while speaking to them?

And you do know that Christ used deuterocanon? "Children of Wisdom" are mentioned once. In Sirach. Not to mention Wisodm 2 being practiclly copied by Matthew.

>>679236

Does not the Scripture say: ‘Burden not thyself above thy power’? (Sirach 13:2)

– Jerome, To Eustochium, Epistle 108

He who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the Story of Susanna, the Song of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. For I was not relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they [the Jews] are wont to make against us. (Against Rufinus, 11:33 [AD 402]).

>>679255

And hence it is that in the Old Testament the use of images was not common. But after God (Jn 1:14, Tit. 3:4) in His bowels of pity became in truth man for our salvation, not as He was seen by Abraham in the semblance of a man, nor as He was seen by the prophets, but in being truly man, and "after He lived upon the earth and dwelt among men, (Bar. 3:37) worked miracles, suffered, was crucified, rose again and was taken back to Heaven, since all these things actually took place and were seen by men, they were written for the remembrance and instruction of us who were not alive at that time in order that though we saw not, we may still, hearing and believing, obtain the blessing of the Lord. St. John of Damascus, An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book IV, Chapter XV

Some, again, have a prophetic sense, and of these some are in the future tense: for instance, He shall come openly, (Psalm 50:3) and this from Zechariah, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, (Zech. 9:9) and this from Micah, (Mic. 1:3) Behold, the Lord cometh out of His place and will came down and tread upon the high places of the earth. But others, though future, are put in the past tense, as, for instance, This is our God: "Therefore He was seen upon the earth and dwell among men," (Baruch 3:37) and The Lord created me in the beginning of His ways for His works (Prov. 8:22), and Wherefore God, thy God, anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows, and such like. (Psalm 14:7) St. John of Damascus, An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book IV, Chapter XVII

The divine Scripture likewise saith that 'the souls of the just are in God's hand’ [Wisdom 3:1] and death cannot lay hold of them." John Damascene, Orthodox Faith, 4:15

>>679262

It was talking about the book of revelation. Canon had not been created yet.

>>679173

look mom I posted it again!

>>679177

>Wow, adding to the Bible guys…

>Ignoring that the deuterocanon was used by early Christians

>Ignoring that the deuterocanon was called canonical when the Biblical canon was determined

>Ignoring that the deuterocanon was Jewish canon until after Christ

>Ignoring that Jesus Himself used verses from the LXX when quoting from OT books (logically meaning that He would have considered the LXX an authoritative source of scripture)

>Book of Enoch

It is actually quoted in the Catholic Epistle of St. Jude 1:14-15 (1 Enoch 1:9). While it isn't canonical, it is an interesting read and does have some theological value.

>Gospel of Thomas

Gnostic heresy. The only good bits are taken out of the canonical Gospels.

>>679282

Justin Martyr springs to mind.

>>684266

St. Augustine refuted it by quoting the next verse, wherein God says He left His mercy from the men, meaning that that "God's sons" was a euphemism for simply Godly men. Fallen angels were already fallen from the Fall, not from descending and consorting with women.

In any case, it's been a common idea that demons lay with humans in black mass rituals and the like, but they cannot reproduce, even if they are able to have material form for a time.