Deutero-canonical Books

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1213308' date='Mar 13 2007, 08:15 PM']Ooh... book of Enoch? Why have I heard of that before? What does everyone think of that? Any web links so that I can see an English translation of this (out of interest of course)?[/quote]

I havn't read it myself, so I wouldn't be able to direct you, I'm Oriental Orthodox thou and the Etheopian Orthodox Church is also Oriental Orthodox. Wait, I just found a link that might help [url="http://www.carm.org/lost/enoch.htm"]http://www.carm.org/lost/enoch.htm[/url] If I'm not mistaken, I think that Jude also quotes from the Assumption of Moses, which also isn't considered Divinely Inspired.

Reza

[NewReformation]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1213261' date='Mar 13 2007, 09:30 PM']When do the Baptists believe they were made?[/quote]

It varies. Many of the IFB and Landmark stripe believe in an Apostolic Succession of Baptist churches throughout history. They trace their history through various groups not directly identified as Baptist(and some of which are highly questionable). There are however several church historians(including Lutheran historians) who at least put forth the idea that Baptists can trace their roots to Waldensians. Some also believe that Baptists can be traced back to the Paulicians. I'm currently reading the Paulician church manual to discover precisely what they believed, and whether or not they can justly be described as Baptistic in their beliefs.

[Robbi]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1212194' date='Mar 11 2007, 03:40 PM']I've been having a problem with arguing their authenticity to my protestant friend. He merely dismisses them and says his church bible does not have them. Oh yeah and apparently they're extra books. I told him Luther was the one who took them out... Anywho I find this will be a hard argument to start because I do not know how to argue the substantiality of this scripture by using scripture. [b]Thats all some protestants will listen to... ''where does it say ___ in scripture??". [/b]Any help is appreciated. I put this on the Debate table because I want to hear from everyone on this. Thanks![/quote]

If they just want to use scripture, then ask them where is the inspired table of comments in the bible?
(At the same time you can ask for a table of contents for essential and non essential doctrines too...but thats for another discussion : )
They will have to rely on another source....Tradition! (though they might not admit it in so many words)
Once they realise that then the discussion wont get narrowed down to ''where does it say ___ in scripture??"

Best of luck!
Rob

Edited March 15, 2007 by Robbi

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1212194' date='Mar 11 2007, 09:40 PM']I've been having a problem with arguing their authenticity to my protestant friend. He merely dismisses them and says his church bible does not have them. Oh yeah and apparently they're extra books. I told him Luther was the one who took them out... Anywho I find this will be a hard argument to start because I do not know how to argue the substantiality of this scripture by using scripture. Thats all some protestants will listen to... ''where does it say ___ in scripture??". Any help is appreciated. I put this on the Debate table because I want to hear from everyone on this. Thanks![/quote]

Sorry if I'm repeating someone, but just a couple of points on the Council of Jamnia, which is the Jewish council that decided on the Hebrew canon. I think there's actually some dispute on it being a real council. Regardless, the reasons for them limiting the canon to the books they did had a couple of reasons. One, they were only using book that they could find the extant Hebrew manuscripts because they were trying to preserve the Hebrew language & culture. Archaeology, though, has found some Hebrew copies of the deuteros, so that reason can no longer be used. Second, they believed the deuteros were written too late and could not be used because they believed there were no more prophets. However, you notice quite a few prophecies being spoken in Luke. Zacharias prophesies about John, who is also a prophet. So that reason can't be used either. It is my understanding, though, that those were the main reasons for the deuteros being excluded, and the reasoning just doesn't hold up.

In case you can't tell, I took the time to analyze a lot of things while I was converting.

[N/A Gone]

[quote name='NewReformation' post='1213158' date='Mar 13 2007, 05:25 PM']Never Mind.[/quote]


sir? Please, im interested

[jeffpugh]

[quote name='Robbi' post='1213980' date='Mar 15 2007, 02:35 AM']If they just want to use scripture, then ask them where is the inspired table of comments in the bible?
(At the same time you can ask for a table of contents for essential and non essential doctrines too...but thats for another discussion : )
They will have to rely on another source....Tradition! (though they might not admit it in so many words)
Once they realise that then the discussion wont get narrowed down to ''where does it say ___ in scripture??"

Best of luck!
Rob[/quote]

Expand on the table of contents deal. I am interested

[quote name='Archaeology cat' post='1213986' date='Mar 15 2007, 05:08 AM']Sorry if I'm repeating someone, but just a couple of points on the Council of Jamnia, which is the Jewish council that decided on the Hebrew canon. I think there's actually some dispute on it being a real council. Regardless, the reasons for them limiting the canon to the books they did had a couple of reasons. One, they were only using book that they could find the extant Hebrew manuscripts because they were trying to preserve the Hebrew language & culture. Archaeology, though, has found some Hebrew copies of the deuteros, so that reason can no longer be used. Second, they believed the deuteros were written too late and could not be used because they believed there were no more prophets. However, you notice quite a few prophecies being spoken in Luke. Zacharias prophesies about John, who is also a prophet. So that reason can't be used either. It is my understanding, though, that those were the main reasons for the deuteros being excluded, and the reasoning just doesn't hold up.

In case you can't tell, I took the time to analyze a lot of things while I was converting. [/quote]

Yes I have heard about this... I also heard that the deutero-canonical books were used to proselytize the Jews in first few centuries and the Apostles used the books... I know I can throw that my friend's way and see what he says... Thanks for the info.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1214122' date='Mar 15 2007, 07:40 PM']Expand on the table of contents deal. I am interested
Yes I have heard about this... I also heard that the deutero-canonical books were used to proselytize the Jews in first few centuries and the Apostles used the books... I know I can throw that my friend's way and see what he says... Thanks for the info.[/quote]

No problem. It's what I learned when I was researching before converting. Let me know what your friend says, too. You never know when I might get in this debate. . .again.

[Paladin D]

Let's stick to the topic at hand, and not deviate from it. Debating [b]NewReformation[/b]'s signature is off-topic, and serves no purpose in this particular discussion.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Archaeology cat' post='1213986' date='Mar 15 2007, 03:08 AM']Sorry if I'm repeating someone, but just a couple of points on the Council of Jamnia, which is the Jewish council that decided on the Hebrew canon. I think there's actually some dispute on it being a real council. Regardless, the reasons for them limiting the canon to the books they did had a couple of reasons. One, they were only using book that they could find the extant Hebrew manuscripts because they were trying to preserve the Hebrew language & culture. Archaeology, though, has found some Hebrew copies of the deuteros, so that reason can no longer be used. Second, they believed the deuteros were written too late and could not be used because they believed there were no more prophets. However, you notice quite a few prophecies being spoken in Luke. Zacharias prophesies about John, who is also a prophet. So that reason can't be used either. It is my understanding, though, that those were the main reasons for the deuteros being excluded, and the reasoning just doesn't hold up.

In case you can't tell, I took the time to analyze a lot of things while I was converting. [/quote]

Great post my friend. What about the Council of Jamnia's condemnations on Christians as a whole and Luther adhereing to that council's cannon of the Bible?

Reza

[jeffpugh]

Here is some more stuff arguing the proper cannon.
[url="http://www.fisheaters.com/septuagint.html"]http://www.fisheaters.com/septuagint.html[/url]
Is Fisheaters any good for sources? (I know there are some outside ultra-trad links, but the site seems okay)

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1214235' date='Mar 15 2007, 03:22 PM']Here is some more stuff arguing the proper cannon.
[url="http://www.fisheaters.com/septuagint.html"]http://www.fisheaters.com/septuagint.html[/url]
Is Fisheaters any good for sources? (I know there are some outside ultra-trad links, but the site seems okay)[/quote]

Good link

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1214226' date='Mar 15 2007, 10:02 PM']Great post my friend. What about the Council of Jamnia's condemnations on Christians as a whole and Luther adhereing to that council's cannon of the Bible?

Reza[/quote]

Also an excellent point. Thank you for adding that.