Deuterocanonical Apocrypha Index

THE "APOCRYPHA": WHY IT'S PART OF THE BIBLE
Basically there were several parts of the bible that were inconvenient for Martin Luther.

Many critics like to point out that the original King James had the Apocrypha in it as though that fact compromises its integrity. But several things must be examined to get the factual picture.

First, in the days in which our Bible was translated, the Apocrypha was accepted reading based on its historical value, though not accepted as Scripture by anyone outside of the Catholic church. The King James translators therefore placed it between the Old and New Testaments for its historical benefit to its readers. They did not integrate it into the Old Testament text as do the corrupt Alexandrian manuscnpts.

That they rejected the Apocrypha as divine is very obvious by the seven reasons which they gave for not incorporating it into the text. They are as follows:

1. Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.

2. Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.

3. These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord.

4. They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian Church.

5. They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many different places.

6. The Apocrypha inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection.

7. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation.

My BIL doesn't like my King James Bible because he says it is missing a few books.  I checked into it, he is write but they are all, VERY minor OT books on the likes of 3-4 pages long.

I figured I ain't missing much so I dont worry about it.

Sgat1r5

Gee sarge, I was kinda dissapointed when I saw the James Earl Jones audio bible was the KJV.
Maybe he'll get around to doin' a NAB version.

1. Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.

.

Wasn't it Aramaic, not Hebrew?

Old test. was written in hebrew, new test was translated from hebrew ,Aramaic, and greek.

The biggest differences in content are as noted above, with the inclision or exclusion of the Apocrypha.

There are many "versions" in circulation today.  King James Version, New King James Version, New International Version, Living Bible, Amplified Bible, New American Standard Bible, Phillips Translation, etc....

With the more modern translations/versions the goals have been accuracy in translation, readability, and understandability.  Different people have their own preferences.  Some are hard core KJV only.  Others prefer a modern language version because we don't speak that style of English anymore and the meanings of some words change over time.

I have a parallel Bible with King James, New International Version, New American Standard, and Amplified side by side.  The way it is laid out, there are two columns on each page, so you see four columns when you open it.  Each column is the same chapter/passage in each of the four versions.

When I read it I don't see contradictions.  Rather, I believe I'm getting a better overall understanding of what the original intent was.

These texts, of which there are 39, were mostly written down in Hebrew — Ezra and Daniel had elements in Aramaic. The oldest texts have oral traditions running back in time as far as 1000 BCE. the youngest book, Daniel, was written down 165 BCE. The selection of texts was decided upon at the synod in Jamnia in 90 CE, but this was more the final stage of a process that had been going on for a couple of centuries among Jewish scholars.

Everytime you go back and forth in language especially with diifferent scribes, you can drift away from the exact words, but he meaning can be close.

Even Hebrew of today is called modern Hebrew, it was reconstruted in the 1800s, if I recall from T*r*h class.  The new Testemant contains elements of Rabbincal teachings...One thing as a former Christian , and now a Jew who came home, we are the same. Jesus taught and lived as a Jew, he came to fulfill.

What get to me is the amount of people that get rich from him. I have a simple rule, you read the T*r*h, follow the 10 commandments, and listen to a Rabbi...you are a Jew...that makes a Christian still one of the Tribe.

Back to the original question, the bible was made up by men using the Holy Texts. They pick and choose. Have you ever read the Book of Thomas? the Book of Mary? they are on an esoteric level. they didn't make it into the New Testament

Also the Term Christian is like the term Jew.....a blanket, there are lots of different groups. You look at a Jew and have to realize the whole gamut of Jews, Ultra Orthodox, Orthodox, conservative, Lubbavitch, Reform, Reconstrutionist, and still more even some little groups.

I follow the Celtic Jews....they are long absorbed into the Roman Church. But for almost 400 years the Isles were Jewish. Built on a foundation of Jesus and James. What happened to their documents?

Thomas founded several Churches in India, what about them? What Bible do they use. They would not have the teachings of Paul I would suppose, Thomas was gone before Saul became Paul. Proof? there is no Proof in History, only theories

I can say one thing is that the structure of the Bible is politically motivated..We need ot look past that and at the teachings

Quoted: Thanks for the link... Does anyone else have any info on this topic?

Certain writings, such as the book of Machabees, were not necessarily agreed upon as divinely inspired scripture. The New Testament Canon is universal, but the Catholic Bible, for instance, contains writings like the book of Enoch and Machabees that do not really central to any Christian doctrine, and that are not quoted (save for Jude's quotation of Enoch) in the New Testament by Jesus or any of the other NT writers.

The OT's divine authority from the Christian perspective derives from the consideration given to it by Christ and the Apostles, who quoted from it liberally and who referred to it as Divinely Inspired and authoritative.

What the OT canon was in Jesus' day is not known exactly, but we do know that all the books currently seen in the KJV and derivatives were quoted in the NT, establishing them as authoritative.  

When people speak of "versions" of the Bible, they are most likely not speaking of books being left out, but are speaking of different translations.

The translations available to us today are FAR superior to the 1611 version of the KJV, as we have access to better manuscripts than the KJV writers and men like Tyndale ever had access to. Translation from one language to another is necessarily complicated. Hebrew, for instance, has several words that are generically translated as "pit" in the KJV English, but the Hebrew words are now known to be very specific. They had specific words to describe a hunting pit and a different word to describe a structure like a root cellar, but the KJ translators translated both of those words as "pit".

We see the same with the word "love". It is well known that the Greek language has several specific words that are generically translated as the English word "love", but each of the Greek words has a very specific and detailed description in mind that the English word does not convey.

The translations of the Bible we see today (NKJV, NIV, NASV, Amplified, etc...) are attempts to best deal with the intricacies of those translational issues. Grammar and sentence structure is also radically different in other languages, meaning that the grammar and sentence structure must also be "normed" before the text will make any sense to the reader. Still, there are translations that are literally word for word without concern for grammar or sentence structure, such as Young's Literal Translation.

Personally, I use 5 main translations for study: KJV, The New King James Version (my favorite), the NASB, Amplified, and the NIV bibles. I also use Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, Vine's, Thayer's, and several other original language dictionaries and various commentaries to help flesh out Bible study.

In years of searching, I have yet to see a real deception in the KJV or NKJV or NIV or Amplified versions of the Bible, though I have at time seen word choices that were not as specific as I would like. (Often other languages have a single word to describe something there is no word for in the English language, and that only a sentence or two can hope to explain, a reason why I like the Amplified Bible as a study tool...)

The selection of texts was decided upon at the synod in Jamnia in 90 CE, but this was more the final stage of a process that had been going on for a couple of centuries among Jewish scholars.

Pretty much both are with in a few centuries of each other, the official. I know fro,m T*r*h class that the book Of Moses, was writteen down possibility 1500 years after Moses.

Quoted: Back to the original question, the bible was made up by men using the Holy Texts. They pick and choose. Have you ever read the Book of Thomas? the Book of Mary? they are on an esoteric level. they didn't make it into the New Testament

Absolutely not true!

The Bible was not the work of a single person or group of people deciding to include some things while tossing out others!

From the time of Christ on, there were all sorts of false doctrines and ideas that cropped up around Jesus, and these false ideas are clearly adressed in the writings of the Apostles. The book of Thomas and book of Mary contain within them ideas that are inherently incompatible with the teachings and life of Jesus Christ. and those ideas (such as Christ was not bodily resurrected) are clearly and overwhelmingly proven to be false by the writings of the Apostles.

There are lists of what scriptures Christians considered authoritative that go back as early as the first century after Christ!

So this idea that people just picked and chose what they liked is pure balderdash!

Some folks on this site really need to do a lot more research on Bible history.

I can say one thing is that the structure of the Bible is politically motivated..We need ot look past that and at the teachings

I rest my case.

Quoted: The selection of texts was decided upon at the synod in Jamnia in 90 CE, but this was more the final stage of a process that had been going on for a couple of centuries among Jewish scholars. Pretty much both are with in a few centuries of each other, the official. I know fro,m T*r*h class that the book Of Moses, was writteen down possibility 1500 years after Moses.

What exactly do you mean by "book of Moses"?? Are you referring to the Pentatauch, or to some other writing attributed to Moses?

Because there is plenty of evidence in the writings of the prophets that they had access to written copies of the Pentatauch well before that 1500 year mark.

THe first 5 are the book of Moses. The langusge of the Petarch, is not Hebrew of the time of Moses, they may have had writen thay may have had oral, we can'tsay forsure.

What exactly do you mean by "book of Moses"?? Are you referring to the Pentatauch, or to some other writing attributed to Moses?

_________________________________________________

The Pentateuch refers to the first Five Books of the Hebrew Bible.  Though there is no evidence that has been discovered of the original date of these texts, Jews of the 100-300 B.C.E. period would probably been aware of the differing litterary styles of these texts.

The Hebrew Bible, in it's current form, didn't coallesce until the period from 100-300 B.C.E.  That having been said, there were traditions to read from sacred texts during the period of the Second Temple.  So, too, has archeology found parchments of texts that indicate the scribes of old were true in their rendition of copying, as has been found with the discoveries of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

The Pentateuch was "cannonized" as being complete sometime after the cannonization of the christion testament.



Jewish Ed

Shalom Brother, yes, we are talking the books are the same time. The scribes were faithful, but all you haveot do is delete a book that gives argument agaisnt your position. For all Jews it is as it is. Christians have their versions. The Christian Bible was cannonized in 325 BCE, were any Lukites, or Gnostics there?
The King James version? King James commisioned it, dare they make the King angry? no the Books were as he wanted them. Have you read the Book of Thomas? It can't be put inthe Bible as you realize that you don't need organized religion.

What do you think Constintine wanted? Religion or order in the empire? Religion is power, you can get people to do things blindly

Quoted: Shalom Brother, yes, we are talking the books are the same time. The scribes were faithful, but all you haveot do is delete a book that gives argument agaisnt your position. For all Jews it is as it is. Christians have their versions. The Christian Bible was cannonized in 325 BCE, were any Lukites, or Gnostics there? The King James version? King James commisioned it, dare they make the King angry? no the Books were as he wanted them. Have you read the Book of Thomas? It can't be put inthe Bible as you realize that you don't need organized religion. What do you think Constintine wanted? Religion or order in the empire? Religion is power, you can get people to do things blindly

Firstly, I wanted to make sure that we were discussing the usual writings attributed to Moses and not some obscure writing I haven't heard of. There is plenty of evidence in scripture that Moses' writings were indeed written by Moses, and that those writings had been referred to by the Israeli people for many years, not least of which is the writings of the prophets.

Secondly, there are Christian canon lists that go back as far as the first century after Christ, and that include all NT books save for a couple of Paul's letters. Emporer Diocletian, who came BEFORE Constantine, ordered the destruction of all Christian biblias (Bibles) during his reign. Thus the idea that Constantine tailored truth to fit his preferrences and tastes is just blatantly false and unsupportable by history.

Clement of Alexandria was an early church father who died over 100 years before Constantine came to power, and his writings have over 2400 seperate quotations from all but two of the books now recognized as the Christian New Testament. When we examine the writings of the early church fathers, we have an excellent representation of the writings they considered to be authoritative because they quoted from the  NT books liberally in their own writings. A couple of the early church fathers even went so far as to list authoritative scripture.

In none of those early canonical lists will you see the GOT or BOM listed. Nor will you find those works quoted in the works of the Apostles (who quoted from one another's writings...) or in the early church fathers of the immediate post-Apostolic era. You will not see gnostic ideas given any credit because they were exposed as false from the very beginning of Christianity.

No, Christianity and the Christian NT are hardly the invention of Constantine for control. There is more manuscript evidence of the accuracy of the NT than there is of any other work from antiquity, and by a wide margin. (Almost 5,000 Greek manuscripts extant, with 20,000 manuscripts in other languages)

Quoted: THE "APOCRYPHA": WHY IT'S PART OF THE BIBLE Basically there were several parts of the bible that were inconvenient for Martin Luther.

Dernit, I kept telling myself I wasn't going to get involved in this forum!

Stryfe: The LOL was not meant for you, but for Mr. Armstrong.  Dave's go a bit of an issue with Luther.   Although he's a great Catholic Apologist, his disdain of the old monk (somewhat deserved) often creeps into places it shouldn't be (like the discussion of the Apocrypha you cited).  I've got a good friend that appears frequently in debates on Dave Armstrong's site, specifically here (look for the "vs. James Swan" on the links to articles at the bottom of the page).  I grew up with Jim, and miss his fellowship.

VA-gunnut:  The answer to you question lies in Church history.  Study it, and you can come up with your own opinion as to "why". The next logical question would be "Which one is 'right'" so here's my (and only my) conclusion:

The canon of the "Apocryphal" books of the Bible are debateable.  I only recogognize the inerrancy of those that we ALL agree on (i.e. the "Protestant" Bible).  That said, I do recognize the truth contained in the O.T. Apocrypha.  In fact, I think it is impossible to truly understand Jesus' "Jewishness" without Maccabees.

Most modern protestants will look at me like this for that statement, but the fact of the matter is that you will find references to the history contained in Maccabees in the Gospels.  That history is central to understanding the social, political, and religious culture that Jesus was born into; in short, what made the man part of Jesus a man.

I have some issues with the NT Apocrypha, but they are still worth study, just as the Didache is.  They give great insight into some of the doctrinal beliefs and practices of the early Chuch.

Firstly, I wanted to make sure that we were discussing the usual writings attributed to Moses and not some obscure writing I haven't heard of. There is plenty of evidence in scripture that Moses' writings were indeed written by Moses, and that those writings had been referred to by the Israeli people for many years, not least of which is the writings of the prophets.

____________________________________________________________________--

What are your Jewish sources for the statement "There is plenty of evidence in scripture that Moses' writings were indeed written by Moses."?

Quoted: <snip> In fact, I think it is impossible to truly understand Jesus' "Jewishness" without Maccabees. Most modern protestants will look at me like this for that statement, but the fact of the matter is that you will find references to the history contained in Maccabees in the Gospels.  That history is central to understanding the social, political, and religious culture that Jesus was born into; in short, what made the man part of Jesus a man. <snip>

Well put.

Quoted:

"There is plenty of evidence in scripture that Moses' writings were indeed written by Moses, and that those writings had been referred to by the Israeli people for many years, not least of which is the writings of the prophets. "

___________________________________________________________________

I would tend to err on the side of caution where I to find such a source.  

Our tradition is that Moses wrote (or received) the entire Torah. However, scholars going back to the 2nd century CE, or for an example in medieval times, Ibn Ezra in the 12th century, found troubling evidence that Moses did not in fact write the Torah. For example, there are references in the Torah to Moses in the third person, such as his being modest, or naming Edomite kings (Gen. 36) that were known to have lived after Moses died.[Friedman, p. 19.] Subsequent scholars found more and more problems that suggested more than one source.  Early in Exodus, for instance, 6:3 (P) and 3:14 (E),  it is stated that the personal name of Yod-He-Vav-He was not employed prior to Moses. [Speiser, Genesis p. xxiii], even though that name permeates the book of Genesis.

source: http://www.bluethread.com/whowrotetorah.htm

Quoted:

"No, Christianity and the Christian NT are hardly the invention of Constantine for control. There is more manuscript evidence of the accuracy of the NT than there is of any other work from antiquity, and by a wide margin. (Almost 5,000 Greek manuscripts extant, with 20,000 manuscripts in other languages)"

________________________________________________________________

Check some sources.  Either religious or historical development of Europe after the void left from the fall of the Roman Empire.

The Church filled that vacuum, and as an added hint, it so followed that pricipalities leading to the Feudal era were political controls whereby the populace (serfs) were brought under control of Feudal principalities with the consent of the early church.

This was also a situation for which a case may be made that...in a reverse aspect, much of the early church adopted an absorption mechanism that if you can't beat them, join them.

The church, as the NT was developed, adopted many themes of the serf class.  Primary of these was the predominant faith. Mithraism, espoused by Roman soldiers and spread by contact with the Roman army from provinces ranging from southern Europe to present-day United Kingdom.

Interesting study where you to investigate the beliefs of Mithraism, and it's incorporation into Chrisian myth...it seems too his birthday corresponds to 25 December.

Quoted: Secondly, there are Christian canon lists that go back as far as the first century after Christ, and that include all NT books save for a couple of Paul's letters. Emporer Diocletian, who came BEFORE Constantine, ordered the destruction of all Christian biblias (Bibles) during his reign. Thus the idea that Constantine tailored truth to fit his preferrences and tastes is just blatantly false and unsupportable by history.

John_Wayne777,

"Biblias" literally translated means "books".  That Diocletian wanted to destroy Christian "biblias" doesn't constitute proof that the Bible as we know it today existed in it's current form before the Council of Nicea.  At least not the New Testament.

I don't doubt that much, if not all, of the Old Testament had been gathered together and compiled long before the Nicean Council.  I'm also sure that many early Christians had gathered together what writings and letters (epistles) they could find from the Apostles and other disciples.

I do find it a stretch to assume that the New Testament existed in it's current form previous to the reign of Constantine.

Quoted: John_Wayne777, "Biblias" literally translated means "books".  That Diocletian wanted to destroy Christian "biblias" doesn't constitute proof that the Bible as we know it today existed in it's current form before the Council of Nicea.  At least not the New Testament.

Are you suggesting that Diocletian ordered Christian churches and homes ransacked searching for copies of The Illiad???

I don't doubt that much, if not all, of the Old Testament had been gathered together and compiled long before the Nicean Council.  I'm also sure that many early Christians had gathered together what writings and letters (epistles) they could find from the Apostles and other disciples. I do find it a stretch to assume that the New Testament existed in it's current form previous to the reign of Constantine.

 

It is hardly a stretch when you can see canon lists that pre-date Constantine, and the liberal use of quotations of what we now know to be NT scriptures in the writings of the early church fathers.

Constantine requested copies of scripture, and several agreeing manuscripts were given to him within 24 hours.

Meaning they already existed.

No Kinkos back then, you see....

Within 24-hrs?  History tends to portray his as a death-bed conversion; his wife went on to confirm his legacy, herself a Christian.

Wow...I'm still overwhelmed by that 24-hr. revelation.  What are your sources for this?

Jewish Ed

Quoted: Quoted: John_Wayne777, "Biblias" literally translated means "books".  That Diocletian wanted to destroy Christian "biblias" doesn't constitute proof that the Bible as we know it today existed in it's current form before the Council of Nicea.  At least not the New Testament. Are you suggesting that Diocletian ordered Christian churches and homes ransacked searching for copies of The Illiad??? I don't doubt that much, if not all, of the Old Testament had been gathered together and compiled long before the Nicean Council.  I'm also sure that many early Christians had gathered together what writings and letters (epistles) they could find from the Apostles and other disciples. I do find it a stretch to assume that the New Testament existed in it's current form previous to the reign of Constantine.   It is hardly a stretch when you can see canon lists that pre-date Constantine, and the liberal use of quotations of what we now know to be NT scriptures in the writings of the early church fathers. Constantine requested copies of scripture, and several agreeing manuscripts were given to him within 24 hours. Meaning they already existed. No Kinkos back then, you see....

J_W777,

You've severely misunderstood me.  Perhaps when I've explained myself better you'll respond in a little more "charitable" manner.

When I refered to "biblias" I was referring to Christian writings.  However, they were more likely to be a loose collection of epistles, gospels, ect., than a completed book of the New Testament.

I thought that I had clearly indicated before that the New Testament didn't exist in it's current form as a compiled canon of scripture until the council at Nicea.

I  have several books on the shelf..actually in storage now as we are trying ot move. But it comes down to faith,
JW...look at history next to the bible, try Joesephus, look at the upbringing of Jesus, he could not have been born on December 25, which happens to be a pagan festival.
Thomas and Mary might have greater insight into Jesus, some think Mary might even be his wife, that is wtih 3 kids also.
James his brother, founded a Church/Synagouge in England...
Look at the Lukites, the Cathars and other Christian sects, murdered by the church. Look at the persecution of Jews by the church.... The book The Prince was not about the politicsa of Italy, it was about Papal politics.
look at he history of the Templars....alll about money and the Pope supporting a corrupt king..
Dude until after WW2 this country did some pretty bad persecution, the WW1 vets, the coal miners, all your hands are dirty....and they keep trying to justify it with G*d..
But hte history does not reflect this..why to protect the guilty...who won.
There are lots of Questions, questions to ask and few answers...

Within 24-hrs? History tends to portray his as a death-bed conversion; his wife went on to confirm his legacy, herself a Christian.

Wow...I'm still overwhelmed by that 24-hr. revelation. What are your sources for this?

Jewish Ed

________________________________________________________________

Hey, I want to learn...so tell me bout this whole 24-hr. thing.......

Quoted: JW...look at history next to the bible, try Joesephus, look at the upbringing of Jesus, he could not have been born on December 25, which happens to be a pagan festival.

I happen to have the complete works of Jocephus right next to me at the moment.

And I don't recall ever claiming that Christ was born on December 25th.

Thomas and Mary might have greater insight into Jesus, some think Mary might even be his wife, that is wtih 3 kids also.

Thomas and Mary did indeed know Jesus well, but there is no credible evidence that Mary had any sort of physical relationship with Christ or bore Him children. The writings attributed to Mary and Thomas by the gnostics completely conflict with the teachings of the Apostles. As Paul said, any other "gospel" is false.

James his brother, founded a Church/Synagouge in England...

Some CLAIM James founded that in England. James the brother of Jesus was killed very early on in Christian history. He was martyred shortly after Stephen.

Look at the Lukites, the Cathars and other Christian sects, murdered by the church. Look at the persecution of Jews by the church....

Evil men doing evil things while claiming the name of Christ is exactly WHY proper doctrine is so important. Excesses like that are what drove the reformation, but even evil men seeking their own ends perverted that movement to give place to a vendetta against the Catholics they hated. All of it was/is sin and is clearly shown to be by the very writings I am defending. The Gospel message makes NO allowance for forced conversion and murder. Those who did such evil will answer for it.

The book The Prince was not about the politicsa of Italy, it was about Papal politics. look at he history of the Templars....alll about money and the Pope supporting a corrupt king..

Politics and the Papacy were inseperable for many years because the church wielded great moral power. Eventually Kings figured out they could survive a break with the Roman church, and did their own thing, comitting the exact same evils or worse, only without the illusion of Papal blessing.

Dude until after WW2 this country did some pretty bad persecution, the WW1 vets, the coal miners, all your hands are dirty....and they keep trying to justify it with G*d..

Excuse me? Whose hands are dirty?

My family happens to have come from those WWI vets and coal miners, thank you very much. As well as American Indians.

Whose hands are dirty again???

But hte history does not reflect this..why to protect the guilty...who won. There are lots of Questions, questions to ask and few answers...

History does not inevitably protect those who won, else your mention of well known attrocities and evil would not be possible, would it?

Quoted: J_W777, You've severely misunderstood me.  Perhaps when I've explained myself better you'll respond in a little more "charitable" manner. When I refered to "biblias" I was referring to Christian writings.  However, they were more likely to be a loose collection of epistles, gospels, ect., than a completed book of the New Testament.

No, I understood you perfectly.

The fact remains, however, that the writings of the NT existed, were widely read and distributed, and were considered authoritative well before Nicea.

The New Testament wasn't found in bonded leather covered books, but it WAS there. Nicea didn't decide what was canon. That question had been settled by a completely organic process long before Nicea.

Certainly Diocletian was given all sorts of writings to protect scripture, and he most likely was responsible for erasing a few authoritative writings from history's memory. (Like Paul's third letter to the Corinthians)

The foundational writings of Christianity, however, had already been established and were too well dispersed for Diocletian's plan to work.

As an interesting side note, isn't it interesting how Diocletian, a pagan who hated Christianity sought to destroy Christianity by destroying scripture? There is a lesson there for us.

I thought that I had clearly indicated before that the New Testament didn't exist in it's current form as a compiled canon of scripture until the council at Nicea.

You did clearly indicate that.

Your conclusion is simply incorrect. The New Testament was a term known by early Christians, and the scriptures foundational to the understanding of Christ were already around and accepted prior to Nicea.

Quoted: Quoted: "There is plenty of evidence in scripture that Moses' writings were indeed written by Moses, and that those writings had been referred to by the Israeli people for many years, not least of which is the writings of the prophets. " ___________________________________________________________________ I would tend to err on the side of caution where I to find such a source.   Our tradition is that Moses wrote (or received) the entire Torah. However, scholars going back to the 2nd century CE, or for an example in medieval times, Ibn Ezra in the 12th century, found troubling evidence that Moses did not in fact write the Torah. For example, there are references in the Torah to Moses in the third person, such as his being modest, or naming Edomite kings (Gen. 36) that were known to have lived after Moses died.[Friedman, p. 19.] Subsequent scholars found more and more problems that suggested more than one source.  Early in Exodus, for instance, 6:3 (P) and 3:14 (E),  it is stated that the personal name of Yod-He-Vav-He was not employed prior to Moses. [Speiser, Genesis p. xxiii], even though that name permeates the book of Genesis. source: http://www.bluethread.com/whowrotetorah.htm

If you will recall, I said that there WERE other authors to the first 5 books of the OT. That would be logically necessary, seeing as how the OT goes into great detail about Moses' death. That does not mean, however, that nothing was written down until a couple of hundred years before Christ or that Moses wrote none of it, as Alexander's successor asked for translations of Hebrew scripture, works that were housed in the great library of Alexandria.

So before Christ ever shows up, the Hebrew scriptures and writings already exist in greek...

Quoted: Check some sources.  Either religious or historical development of Europe after the void left from the fall of the Roman Empire.

Believe it or not, I am not exactly new to history.

The Church filled that vacuum, and as an added hint, it so followed that pricipalities leading to the Feudal era were political controls whereby the populace (serfs) were brought under control of Feudal principalities with the consent of the early church.

Point being? Is it suprising that some mis-applied scripture to seek their own ends? The Pharisees were doing that long before "the church" got around to doing the same.

This was also a situation for which a case may be made that...in a reverse aspect, much of the early church adopted an absorption mechanism that if you can't beat them, join them.

The church did indeed adopt some pagan ideas, or what many considered to be pagan ideas.

That was why the reformation happened. To correct those excesses.

The church, as the NT was developed

You are already wrong. The NT writings existed long before "the church" had any power whatsoever.

, adopted many themes of the serf class.  Primary of these was the predominant faith. Mithraism, espoused by Roman soldiers and spread by contact with the Roman army from provinces ranging from southern Europe to present-day United Kingdom. Interesting study where you to investigate the beliefs of Mithraism, and it's incorporation into Chrisian myth...it seems too his birthday corresponds to 25 December.

There is no such thing as "Christian myth".

If it is a myth, it isn't Christian.

Quoted: Within 24-hrs? History tends to portray his as a death-bed conversion; his wife went on to confirm his legacy, herself a Christian. Wow...I'm still overwhelmed by that 24-hr. revelation. What are your sources for this? Jewish Ed ________________________________________________________________ Hey, I want to learn...so tell me bout this whole 24-hr. thing.......

What are you asking here?

All I said was that within 1 day of calling for scripture, Constantine HAD scripture in his hot kingly hands. Several manuscripts (which agreed, by the way) were delivered to him almost instantly, leaving no time for someone to hurry up and make something up.

Are you contending that Constantine had a deathbed conversion with that post? Because it seems odd to me how one minute you can claim Constantine used Christian ideas and customized them to enable him to wield power, and the next can claim that Constantine wasn't a convert to Christianity until moments before his death....

All I said was that within 1 day of calling for scripture, Constantine HAD scripture in his hot kingly hands. Several manuscripts (which agreed, by the way) were delivered to him almost instantly, leaving no time for someone to hurry up and make something up.

this is false, prove to me that you are right?

Quoted: this is false, prove to me that you are right?

Where, exactly, do you get the idea that it is false?

Diocletian ordered the destruction of Christian scriptures, but he did not succeed. Constantine comissioned that copies be made of surviving scripture.

Okay my head is swimming. All I have is a KJV and a Living Bible. I need a new kick butt study bible. I would like one of those with at least three translations all together. I would also like it to contain the lost books. Can anyone make a suggestion Mr. Wayne?

Quoted: Okay my head is swimming. All I have is a KJV and a Living Bible. I need a new kick butt study bible. I would like one of those with at least three translations all together. I would also like it to contain the lost books. Can anyone make a suggestion Mr. Wayne?

Go consult your local Christian book store, or contact CBD (Christian Book Distributors- GREAT catalogs!) and look for a parallel Bible.

My parallel has four versions in it.  KJV, NIV, NASB, and Amplified.  The Amplified Bible is nice to have during comparative reading because it expounds on the meanings of the original languages (for example, in English we have the word "love."  In Greek there are several words for love that convey different meanings).

As for so-called "lost" books, you may want to seriously consider why they were excluded from canon.

Quoted: Okay my head is swimming. All I have is a KJV and a Living Bible. I need a new kick butt study bible. I would like one of those with at least three translations all together. I would also like it to contain the lost books. Can anyone make a suggestion Mr. Wayne?

Zondervan makes a good comparitive study Bible that has the KJV, Amplified, NASV and NIV all parallel to each other. It is easy to read and to use, but it is quite big.

You won't find the "lost" books in it, or in any other Bible, if by "lost" books you mean works like the GOT. If by "lost" books you mean books like Machabees, you can find those in Catholic Bibles.

As far as a place to find Bibles, I have been pleased with:

www.discountbible.com/

Good prices and an excellent selection.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quoted:
Within 24-hrs? History tends to portray his as a death-bed conversion; his wife went on to confirm his legacy, herself a Christian.

Wow...I'm still overwhelmed by that 24-hr. revelation. What are your sources for this?

Jewish Ed

________________________________________________________________

Hey, I want to learn...so tell me bout this whole 24-hr. thing.......

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




What are you asking here?

All I said was that within 1 day of calling for scripture, Constantine HAD scripture in his hot kingly hands. Several manuscripts (which agreed, by the way) were delivered to him almost instantly, leaving no time for someone to hurry up and make something up.

Are you contending that Constantine had a deathbed conversion with that post? Because it seems odd to me how one minute you can claim Constantine used Christian ideas and customized them to enable him to wield power, and the next can claim that Constantine wasn't a convert to Christianity until moments before his death....

_____________________________________________________________

The question is still valid, and I ask simply because as a historic moment (practically down to the moment), I'm interested in learning the source of the 24-hour, now I guess it's one day, access to the material that was requested.  

Golly, there, you indicated you were "Believe it or not, I am not exactly new to history."

So for my own edification, I just want to be able to refer to your source.  

____________________________________________________________

As Paul said, any other "gospel" is false.

So who is Paul compared to James, Peter, Matthew, The rest, they knew Jesus, Paul claims he did. Thomas was called the twin by Jesus, his twin, for his understanding.

Some CLAIM James founded that in England. James the brother of Jesus was killed very early on in Christian history. He was martyred shortly after Stephen.

Did I say he did it after the cruxificition? No they did it before, Jesus had a very long connection to England.

The church did indeed adopt some pagan ideas, or what many considered to be pagan ideas.

Yes and The alledged birth of Jesus is one.

That was why the reformation happened. To correct those excesses.

Still have Christmas, no correcting here.

And I don't recall ever claiming that Christ was born on December 25th

Do you celebrate Christmas? Or is that a part of Church Docterine you ignore?

Politics and the Papacy were inseperable for many years because the church wielded great moral power

So you agree with me, they are together....well then I must be right!

History does not inevitably protect those who won, else your mention of well known attrocities and evil would not be possible, would it?

In History did you hear about the Coal riots, the vets having Machine guns pointed at them? How many other things, just seem to be forgotten?
Why did the Pope in 1996 apoligize tot he Templars, to the Jews? Di the Church wrong them?  As for The non Roman Catholics, how many Revs have been caught coming out of motels with hookers, The Bakers, come on Religion is people and people are all different, they are dirty, they are crooks , they hide in the collar.

I studied History and Jesus, you know what conclusion I came to? He would be disgusted by what people have done in his name....I feel sad for him, he was a great man , a special person, but humanity...has wronged him.

Quoted: ...I studied History and Jesus, you know what conclusion I came to? He...

For my part, as I studied the same:

...is the Jewish Messiah, One with the Father, Creator of the Universe, and

...would be disgusted by what people have done in his name...

Quoted: The question is still valid, and I ask simply because as a historic moment (practically down to the moment), I'm interested in learning the source of the 24-hour, now I guess it's one day, access to the material that was requested.   Golly, there, you indicated you were "Believe it or not, I am not exactly new to history." So for my own edification, I just want to be able to refer to your source.   ____________________________________________________________

Refer to The Bible:Book of Books by Charles W. Conn, and History of the Christian Church by Phillip Schaff.

is the Jewish Messiah, One with the Father, Creator of the Universe, and

Sorry wrong, according to Rabbinical thought....The Messiah will come only once...since the Messiah is not ruling the world...Jesus was not the Messiah. And since that is form several Rabbis..I would say they are more versed on Jewish Opinion, that you are!

Quoted: is the Jewish Messiah, One with the Father, Creator of the Universe, and wrong, according to Rabbinical thought

Please note the underlined section.

Without trying to be snide, this is why most folks would call me a "Christian" instead of  a "Jew".

That said, I know plenty of (most formerly Conservative, and a few Orthodox) Rabbis that believe Jesus truly is the Messiah.  A kind reference to them would be "Messianic", they would prefer "Completed".  While I love them as brothers, I would disagree with their Zionist-centric  eschatology (I think I may have just coined a phrase).

...will come only once...

Not to hijack the thread, but there are many Christians that don't believe in what you might call a "second" coming (I am referring to the dispensationalist view of a "rapture" as popularized and described by the likes of Hal Holbrook and Tim LaHaye, folks).

It comes down to how one interprets the phrases "This Generation", "Heaven and Earth shall pass away",  along with "Kingdom of  heaven/God" as spoken by Jesus in the Gospels.  For 1800 years, the Church (both Protestant and Catholic) taught that after the Ascension and destruction of Jerusalem, Jesus' only "return" would be the final (White Throne, Bema Seat, whatever you wish to call it)  judgment.  The doctrine of a "rapture" in between is a recent construct of the last 200 years (started by Darby in the 1820's, and darn near canonized by Schofield at the beginning of the 20th century).

Systematic (Reformed) Theology holds that there has been but one "dispensation" for all men (Jew and Gentile) for all time: Grace.  Any other doctrine, from Orthodox Law to Arminianism, fails if one believes that entire Bible, Old and New Testaments, are inerrant and absolute truth.

Hopefully that last statement gets us back towards the original intent of the thread.  Again, sorry for the hijack.

Jesus never quoted from any book of the Apocrypha, though He quoted from almost every other OT book. That should tell you something.

Quoted: Jesus never quoted from any book of the Apocrypha, though He quoted from almost every other OT book. That should tell you something.

Jesus quoted from 24 OT books, however He also practiced Judiasim that was not just a part of the written law (Torah), but also from the Mishna (The "Oral Law"  which had Pharaisic overtones and is now codified in the Talmud).

For instance the "Last Supper" is a perfect example of a Pesach Seder that follows the proscription of what is now referred to as the Haggadah. Jesus also celebrated the "Feast of Dedication" (John 10:22), which modern Jews now call "Chanuka".

Neither the Haggadah nor the institution of the Feast of Dedication appear in the non-Apocryphal OT books.  Jesus may not have quoted from those books, but he lived according to many of the teachings.  That should tell us something as well.

Jesus quoted from 24 OT books, however He also practiced Judiasim that was not just a part of the written law (Torah), but also from the Mishna (The "Oral Law" which had Pharaisic overtones and is now codified in the Talmud).

For instance the "Last Supper" is a perfect example of a Pesach Seder that follows the proscription of what is now referred to as the Haggadah. Jesus also celebrated the "Feast of Dedication" (John 10:22), which modern Jews now call "Chanuka".

Neither the Haggadah nor the institution of the Feast of Dedication appear in the non-Apocryphal OT books. Jesus may not have quoted from those books, but he lived according to many of the teachings. That should tell us something as well.

_________________________________________________________________

The person of Jesus lived according to his Jewish heritage. He is reported to have attended the Temple during the festivals, and obeyed the commandments, as reported in the christian bible.

That said, I know plenty of (most formerly Conservative, and a few Orthodox) Rabbis that believe Jesus truly is the Messiah. A kind reference to them would be "Messianic", they would prefer "Completed".

I can understand your view that a Messianic Jew feels that Jesus is the Messiah. All the Jews and Rabbis I have talked with, feel that when you accept Jesus as the Messiah, you are no longer a Jew. In fact you are now a Christian. As for myself I feel you are aJew with differnet beliefs. Itis not my opinon that matters, it is yours and G*d's.

I still ahve much to learn of Judiasm, as I am a 'Jew by choice', the same is a 'Christian by Choice'

OK back to my origional opinion on the NT, it is a political document as much a religious doocument. the KJV and the others have a reason to justify the Churches that authorize them. DO any of these CHurches teach the other Books? DO they tell of the Cathars, the Lukites, the Coptics? No, they have as much right ot be as anyone under G*d's Love.