What are the implications?

[ClubV12]

Seems to me, and maybe it's only rumor, that Luther rejected inclusion of Revelation in the cannon. No doubt it was a quite a rigorous debate among the King James scholars.

...but it's enough to let us know who wins in the end. In my former life, that would be the guy with the most toys. I didn't have a clue. :)

[Gail]

My understanding is that he did, at first, but then changed after a few years. I can't remember the reason why- I think it was when he learned to see Jesus in Revelation.

[phkrause]

Quote:

You are probably aware that it was a group of Catholic bishops that decided what would be in the Bible, not God. I can't say that God did not inpire them - He may very well have done so.

I prefer another explaination.

From Wikepedia:

Quote:

The Masoretic Text (MT, 𝕸, or \mathfrak{M}) is the authoritative Hebrew text of the Jewish Bible. While the Masoretic Text defines the books of the Jewish canon, it also defines the precise letter-text of these biblical books, with their vocalization and accentuation known as the Masorah. The MT is also widely used as the basis for translations of the Old Testament in Protestant Bibles, and in recent years (since 1943) also for some Catholic Bibles, although the Eastern Orthodox continue to use the Septuagint, as they hold it to be divinely inspired.[1] In modern times the Dead Sea Scrolls have shown the MT to be nearly identical to some texts of the Tanakh dating from 200 BCE but different from others.

The MT was primarily copied, edited and distributed by a group of Jews known as the Masoretes between the 7th and 10th centuries CE. Though the consonants differ little from the text generally accepted in the early 2nd century (and also differ little from some Qumran texts that are even older), it has numerous differences of both greater and lesser significance when compared to (extant 4th century) manuscripts of the Septuagint, a Greek translation (made in the 3rd to 2nd centuries BCE) of the Hebrew Scriptures that was in popular use in Egypt and Israel (and that is often quoted in the New Testament, especially by the Apostle Paul).[2]

Also, The Jews in the time of Christ, well before the beginning of the Roman Catholic Church had an accepted listing of the Old Testament Scripture.

Yes, that canon of the O.T. in the Eastern tradition (LXX) had the aprocraphal books.

excellent post Gregory, I was actually thinking that myself. The Jewish/Hebrew Tanach was already confirmed before.

[lazarus]

Don't forget that for most of the 19th century the KJV bible contained the apocrypha in the middle. Most Christians would have had the apocrypha in their Bibles. They would have been familiar with those books. Although not considered part of the canon they were considered important enough to be included.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

The Orthodox Bible has even more apocrypha than the Roman Catholic church.

There are some variations in the books that are included in the Apocrypha.

The list that I provided is pretty generally accepted. But, There are a couple of others that are sometimes included.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

Don't forget that for most of the 19th century the KJV bible contained the apocrypha in the middle.

True.

There is a reason that the Apocrypha was placed where it was. Do you know the answer to the question as to why it was placed where it was?

For 100 points, tell us.

Clue: In a previous post, someone gave the answer away. But, that answer was not explicit as the question had not been asked.

[Planey]

Gregory, could it be that the Apocrypha covered primarily the historical period between the Old and New Testaments, thus being placed between them?

Graeme

[ClubV12]

Counsel of Trent, something about rejecting Luthers position on the apocrypha. In order to show they had value (and to spite Luther I suspect) they were placed at the end of the Old Testament by order of the Catholic Church. Or something like that... I don't think it was so much about being in the middle as it was seen as a continuation of the Old Testament.

Perhaps you could think of this way.

Placing it in the middle could be an indication of not being sure where it should be placed, or if it should even be included at all.

Whereas, placing it as a continuation of the OT at the very least gives it a certain authority, if not equal too, close to being equal to, the OT. Such could have been the thinking of the Catholic Church at the time it was placed where it was!

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

Gregory, could it be that the Apocrypha covered primarily the historical period between the Old and New Testaments, thus being placed between them?

Exactly.

You have been awarded 110 points--the 100 that I offered and an extra 10 for your excellent response. :)

[Gregory Matthews]

ClubV12: Yes, the Council of Trent in 1546 made a final decision for the Roman Catholic Church. I did not award you points because I felt that you had complicated it more than needed. So, I gave the points to the simplest answer that I considered to be more accurate.

By way of interest: The Council of Trent, speaking in 1546, was the final answer. However, there were several earlier councils that addressed this issue that date back to about 382 A.D.

[ClubV12]

Gregory, I'm not exactly sure what the Catholic Church position is on the apocrypha then (or now). Do the Catholics really believe it's inspired or just interesting history? Are they simply following the time line of the history with it's placement or is it their intent to declare it a continuation of the inspired writings of the OT?

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

The status of the Apocrypha became a watershed issue between Roman Catholics and Protestants during the Counter-Reformation. It was at this time that the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) officially and infallibly canonized these books and pronounced an anathema (under God’s condemnation) on anyone who rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture, which would include all Protestants.[1] After listing the books which the RCC considers canonical, including the Apocrypha, the Council of Trent declared,

If anyone, however, should not accept the said books as sacred and canonical, entire with all their parts…and if both knowingly and deliberately he should condemn the aforesaid traditions let him be anathema.[2]

It was a gradual process that is thought to have began about 382 A.D. During the early part of that process the postion of the Church included both interesting history and inspired Scripture.

It was at Trent, in 1546, that the RC Church locked its position into concrete and came out with what I have quoted above.

You can "google" "Roman Catholic Church and the Apocrypha" and come out with a number of sources for the above--some actual Roman Catholic sources and other sources that are not Catholic.

As I have stated, there are differences as to exactly what is included in the Apocrypha. Those differences are minor.

[Gregory Matthews]

The Roman Catholic church is an interesting denomination that actually may allow more differences to exist than many people understand.

The hospital where I work distributes a Roman Catholic magazine to people interested in such. This magazine is not a Catholic offshoot, so to speak. I often look at that magazine and I may read sections that are of interest to me. One section is devoted to questions that Catholics raise about Catholic teaching. Those questions may address doctrinal issues that knowledgeable non-Catholics beleive are quite rigid.

At times I find the priest who responds to give much more flexability to the issue than I would have thought existed. I have read responses in which the Priest said that a specific doctrinal posisiton was not mandatory, or acknowledged that alternative doctrinal posiitons existed within the Roman Catholic Church.

[Gregory Matthews]

Club VI2, you have taken this discussion in a direction that causes me to mention Malachi Martin, who died in 1999.

Malachi Martin was ordained a Jesuit Priest who went to Rome and worked closely with Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI.

In time he began to question what he saw happening in Rome. He asked the Pope to release him from his vow of obedience to the Jesuit Order. The Pope granted the request to release him from his vow of obedience, allowed him to function independently but to retain his function as a Roman Catholic Priest and did not release him from his vow of chastity.

Martin then moved to the United States where he wrote multiple novels critical of the Roman Catholic Church. While these were works of fiction, there were generally considered to be factual accounts of what Catholic politics in Rome were like.

One of his novels was entitled THE FINAL CONCLAVE, which is the only one I have read as I usually do not read works of fiction. Reading that book with SDA eyesight, it became very clear to me how the Roman Catholic Church in the final end of time might find common ground with Protestantism. It was an eye-opener!

[ClubV12]

When I first joined the Seventh-day Adventist Church I came across all kinds of different reasons why the Church does or doesn't "really" do this or that. Along with every wind of doctrine on the 2,300 days (1335 future, 2520, etc). It was such confusion trying to sort it out I determined that I would stick to what the official declared position of the G.C. was the issues and doctrines, rather than an individuals (or Priests) take on what it all meant.

That has served me well. But now I understand that you can be allegiant and supporting while disagreeing with some of the particulars. That becomes especially true as you go down the ranks of leadership to the local Conference or Church. There are definitely some things I disagree with my local Conference, but I honor them and don't make an issue of it (well, not very loudly, place and time considered).

[Gregory Matthews]

Club V12: It sounds to me like Christian growth and maturity on your part.

:)

[Gail]

Club V12: It sounds to me like Christian growth and maturity on your part.

[phkrause]

When I first joined the Seventh-day Adventist Church I came across all kinds of different reasons why the Church does or doesn't "really" do this or that. Along with every wind of doctrine on the 2,300 days (1335 future, 2520, etc). It was such confusion trying to sort it out I determined that I would stick to what the official declared position of the G.C. was the issues and doctrines, rather than an individuals (or Priests) take on what it all meant.

That has served me well. But now I understand that you can be allegiant and supporting while disagreeing with some of the particulars. That becomes especially true as you go down the ranks of leadership to the local Conference or Church. There are definitely some things I disagree with my local Conference, but I honor them and don't make an issue of it (well, not very loudly, place and time considered).

[phkrause]

Originally Posted By: Gregory Matthews

Club V12: It sounds to me like Christian growth and maturity on your part.

[joeb]

When I first joined the Seventh-day Adventist Church I came across all kinds of different reasons why the Church does or doesn't "really" do this or that. Along with every wind of doctrine on the 2,300 days (1335 future, 2520, etc). It was such confusion trying to sort it out I determined that I would stick to what the official declared position of the G.C. was the issues and doctrines, rather than an individuals (or Priests) take on what it all meant.

That has served me well. But now I understand that you can be allegiant and supporting while disagreeing with some of the particulars. That becomes especially true as you go down the ranks of leadership to the local Conference or Church. There are definitely some things I disagree with my local Conference, but I honor them and don't make an issue of it (well, not very loudly, place and time considered).

That's why we are to pledge our allegiance to God alone. I'm glad to hear you say this as I've been worried about you seeing you say you were placing your allegiance with the church, rather than with Christ.

[ClubV12]

The Church is vitally important as it is the instrument through which God works to reach mankind. As I study the Old Testament the more I am impressed with the sacred duty to honor that body of believers ordained of God as His messengers to the world.

EVEN when the apostasy is in it's darkest hour. Daniel and the captivity in Babylon is an excellent example of never abandon your people, Gods people. The list is long for those who could have cut and run, but they stayed, choosing to suffer affliction with the people of God.