[Wondergirl]

... AND the direct answer you said you wouldn't get.

[Athos]

...AND the direct answer you said you wouldn't get.

Now, I wish it would have let me DISAGREE with you.

The original question was NOT directed to you! Geez!

[Wondergirl]

Now, I wish it would have let me DISAGREE with you.

The original question was NOT directed to you!! Geez!

You said, "Good question, but don't expect a direct answer."

So I gave you a direct answer.

[Athos]

You said, "Good question, but don't expect a direct answer."

So I gave you a direct answer.

I repeat - it was NOT directed at you. It referred to elscarta's question to another poster, which is very obvious in the context of the thread.

It's fine if you answer a question not directed at you - it's done all the time - but please don't conflate it with a question intended elsewhere. Thank you.

This is getting silly. Soon a moderator is going to swoop in and close the thread. I'm done with this particular tete a tete.

[450donn]

The decision to accept either 66 books or 73 was made by men for various reasons I will not go into here. That information can be found all over the Internet. God didn't mention to anyone specifically which books should be in the Bible.

Yes the books that are contained in the bible were decided upon my man. But if you believe in God Almighty then you also have to believe that HE is more than capable of telling a group of men which books they need to translate and place into one book, The Bible! There is no middle ground here, it is either one way or the other. Just like your walk with Jesus. It is all the way or not at all. There is no half a Christian!

[dwashbur]

The decision to accept either 66 books or 73 was made by men for various reasons I will not go into here. That information can be found all over the Internet. God didn't mention to anyone specifically which books should be in the Bible.

Yes. In the case of the Old Testament, the main criterion was whether the book was written by a genuine prophet. That's why the "extra" books in the Catholic canon aren't accepted by all, because their authorship couldn't be verified. Their presence in the Jewish canon was iffy, at best, and with few exceptions, the Jews rejected them as non-canonical.

For the New Testament, the question was whether the item was written by an apostle or a close companion of an apostle (in the case of Luke and Mark). A lot of writings made the claim, but the 27 in our Bibles made the cut according to the church councils that investigated the question. It took several centuries, and even by the fifth century some were open to question; Codex Sinaiticus, the oldest complete copy of the New Testament we have, includes the Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas, while Codex Alexandrinus, another very old complete copy, includes the epistles of Clement. Those four books ultimately fell out as non-canonical, and now they're part of the collection known as the Apostolic Fathers. Basically, the councils ultimately concluded that they were written in the century after the apostles passed off the scene, and hence didn't qualify as inspired writings.

[classyT]

JoeT,

Grumpy Joe, I'm not ignoring you, I read what you wrote. BUT... I feel I explained that the Apostle Paul was referring to the natural state of mankind because of original sin. In other words when we are ALL born that is our state. God IMPUTES righteousness unto to us when WE choose to have faith and believe HIM. It isn't willy nilly eeeny meeny minee mo. It is OUR choice... always has been, always will be.

[TUT317]

Yes the books that are contained in the bible were decided upon my man. But if you believe in God Almighty then you also have to believe that HE is more than capable of telling a group of men which books they need to translate and place into one book, The Bible! There is no middle ground here, it is either one way or the other. Just like your walk with Jesus. It is all the way or not at all. There is no half a Christian!

Hi Donn,

Does this mean that some denominations are 'half Christian'?

Regards

Tut

[classyT]

Ooooooooh... ( feeling like a kid in school raising my hand... pick me , pick me) can I answer that TUT? I know it isn't directed at me BUT..

The answer is absolutely NOT. No such animal.

But.. you can be a Christian and screw up.

[Athos]

Yes. In the case of the Old Testament, the main criterion was whether or not the book was written by a genuine prophet. That's why the "extra" books in the Catholic canon aren't accepted by all, because their authorship couldn't be verified. Their presence in the Jewish canon was iffy, at best, and with few exceptions, the Jews rejected them as non-canonical.

That is not the Catholic view. I think you should say whose view you are representing, especially since you are implying that the Catholic canon is somehow not legitimate.

[dwashbur]

That is not the Catholic view. I think you should say whose view you are representing, especially since you are implying that the Catholic canon is somehow not legitimate.

Are you for real? I DID say whose view I was representing: the Jewish one. I'm aware that it's not the Catholic view; I never said it was. What's going on here?

[JoeT777]

That is not the Catholic view. I think you should say whose view you are representing, especially since you are implying that the Catholic canon is somehow not legitimate.

Why should he 'declare' whose view he represents? You’re bright and should be able to figure it out. What difference does it make, you’ve got to remember others like to keep their light under a bushel - at least that’s the claim of the Evangelists; I haven’t figured out why. But any case made against the Church is essentially empty.

Notice too, to his credit, dwashbur has only stated what he believes and thinks; he hasn’t ‘bashed’ the Church, at least not yet.

JoeT

[arcura]

JoeT,
Right you are.
Fred

[elscarta]

I don't claim there is only 66 books, go to the bookstore and pick up a Bible. It starts in Genesis and it ends in Revelation.

But ClassyT,
If you went to a Catholic bookstore and picked up a Bible, then it would have 73 books in it not 66!

I didn't decided which books went into the Bible. I didn't decide it would be 66 books.

Actually in a way you did. You decided that the version which contains 66 is the correct version and the one that contains 73 is not! (Or for that matter any other version which contains a different number of books as there are more that just the Catholic and Protestant version of the Bible!)

I don't add to it and I don't take away from it.

Well someone must have either added to it or taken away from it, since there are two (main) conflicting versions of it!

I just believe it.

Again, you have chosen to believe that the particular version of the Bible with 66 books is the correct version. Without looking into the history of how the differences in the Bible came to be, and making an informed decision on which is actually the correct version, you run the risk of believing in a Bible that may actually have 7 less books in it than it should have and as you pointed out in a previous post:

In the very last commandment in the Bible God resolutely tells us not to add to nor take away from His Word.

“For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book: If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the Book of Life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book”
—Revelation 22:18-19

[dwashbur]

But ClassyT,
if you went to a Catholic bookstore and picked up a Bible, then it would have 73 books in it not 66!

Having once worked in a Christian bookstore (non-denominational) I can tell you it's not even necessary to go to a specifically Catholic bookstore.

I don't know all the ins and outs of why the Catholic church includes the books that are disputed by others (known as the Apocrpyha to non-Catholics). What I do know is, we all agree on what books are in the New Testament, and I consider that a good start.

[dwashbur]

Dwashbur,
With regards to Romans 3:10 I have an outstanding question at https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christ...ml#post2320432 which I rephrased at https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christ...ml#post2321755

Els,
I don't know if it's my browser or what's going on but I'm not finding any references to Romans 3:10 in either of those links. Maybe Firefox is taking me to the wrong place?

[Wondergirl]

Wondergirl,
did you not post two different definitions of the word "righteous"?

No. I posted two different uses, two ways the word can be understood -- one as an umbrella ("no one is righteous") and the other as personal (God noticed someone was righteous). The first damns the human race; the second says that God looks into an individual's heart.

[dwashbur]

No. I posted two different uses, two ways the word can be understood -- one as an umbrella ("no one is righteous") and the other as personal (God noticed someone was righteous). The first damns the human race; the second says that God looks into an individual's heart.

The difference is one of source: no one is righteous because no one can measure up to God's standard. But there have been individuals in the Bible who trusted God and their faith was counted as righteousness to them, e.g. Abraham. But nobody in history except Jesus is ever described as not having sinned.

[dwashbur]

All;

[snip]

How do you rectify your response with “Do we then destroy the law through faith? God forbid! But we establish the law.” (Romans 3:31)

Do you know that there is a difference between the law and the covenant? If the ‘Law’ is bad, then why did Paul say we needed to “establish the law”?

[snip]

Joe,
I want to discuss what you wrote but first I need a clarification: what does "establish" mean to you in this verse?

[JoeT777]

The difference is one of source: no one is righteous because no one can measure up to God's standard. But there have been individuals in the Bible who trusted God and their faith was counted as righteousness to them, e.g. Abraham. But nobody in history except Jesus is ever described as not having sinned.

Nobody in history except Jesus... and the Blessed Virgin Mary who was protected from sin... is ever described as not having sinned

JoeT