Here is a link I have been reading today.

tx stephanie · **Posted:** Wed Dec 26, 2012 11:32 am

Briva wrote:

Matthew 22:35-41
Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

And I'd like to add this one. My hubby thinks the church is really lacking in this area
James 1:27
Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

Anna1111 · **Joined:** Sat Jun 30, 2012 7:14 pm **Posts:** 8115

tx stephanie wrote:

I have been reading many things this morning..One was a history of the Christian Church. Now mind you, I have not read a ton of it, but already I am seeing much disagreement about many things from the beginning. One thing was about the decision on what books would be considered the true Holy scriptures. Wow!!! Man decided that. hmmm Need to read some more about it.

http://www.protomartyr.org/first.html

On that topic, Stephanie, you might enjoy reading the above link : )

Pam in Colorado · **Joined:** Sat Jun 30, 2012 2:58 pm **Posts:** 1095

tx stephanie wrote:

I have been reading many things this morning..One was a history of the Christian Church. Now mind you, I have not read a ton of it, but already I am seeing much disagreement about many things from the beginning. One thing was about the decision on what books would be considered the true Holy scriptures. Wow!!! Man decided that. hmmm Need to read some more about it.

Steph, my dh and I have been discussing the "chosen" books of the bible for a while now. Since I was raised Catholic, and then chose differently as a young adult, I started with the Apocrapha and then "found out" that it was not part of the accepted "chosen" books by those outside of the Catholic faith. It has been a niggling in my mind ever since. How can some believe so strongly that the Apocrapha IS part of the Holy Scriptures, and others believe it definitely IS NOT and one group is right and the other wrong? Did those who were in on the decisions get it right? Miss out on some very important writings that should have been included? Put in some that should not? I have read many accounts on all this (including the one Anna posted later in this thread - thanks Anna) and still do not have a peace about it. There have been writings found more recently, that date back before the Bible was compiled that seem they should have been included, when reading Josephus' writings (for example), there seems that there should be more than what we have or something. I just can't put it into coherent thought to make sense sometimes. I am grateful that my belief on the Lord, my walk with God/Christ/Holy Spirit is not diminished because I do not have all the answers, and that my salvation is not dependent on what I believe/understand regarding this. I do hope that one day I can find complete peace regarding it though. I know that some people I kow think that I should just "let it go" and enjoy Scripture as we have it, but I do believe my push forward in this is directed by God and I will continue to seek until the end of my days if that is what He so directs from me.

Anna1111 · **Joined:** Sat Jun 30, 2012 7:14 pm **Posts:** 8115

One reason that is often overlooked for our inclusion of the additional OT books (we don't use the term Apocrypha - but I don't mind using it here for convenience sake) is that the New Testament writers referred to them, and also Jesus celebrated Hanukkah - which is from the books of Maccabees.

Here is a link I just quickly found on a search with the opinion of one Catholic scholar on NT references to the Apocryphal books http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/deutero3.htm
I'm not familiar enough with the site to endorse it, but it might provide some additional food for thought. (I had NO IDEA there were that many such references! : )

Having said that, these additional books are seldom foundational for our central doctrines. There are a couple of points at which they inform our doctrine (our attitude toward praying for those who have passed on, and our view of the role of Angels - for example), but overall, the books that we share in common with Protestants are those that are most central to our Faith and everyday Christian life - so I agree that this particular issue needn't be too much of a stumbling block : )

Pam in Colorado · **Joined:** Sat Jun 30, 2012 2:58 pm **Posts:** 1095

What is the point of reference of using the term Apocrapha and not using it? What do you use, if anything?

Darla · **Posted:** Wed Dec 26, 2012 3:36 pm

Pam, we call them the deuterocanonical books. Apocrypha means "hidden" or "missing" and is the common (and thus more familiar) western term for the books. In the east, we never saw them as hidden or missing -- they've always been a part of Scripture, although with a "secondary" status so to speak (thus the term deuterocanonical). Hope that helps.

Pam in Colorado · **Joined:** Sat Jun 30, 2012 2:58 pm **Posts:** 1095

That does help, but brings up another question... why secondary? what would make them of less than equal to the others?

Darla · **Posted:** Wed Dec 26, 2012 3:47 pm

tx stephanie wrote:

Darla, can you explain this to me

false portrayal of the Holy Trinity

Very interested in that statement and didn't quite pick up on what you meant
Thanks. You can take it to private if you like

Hmmm, I think I my thoughts were twofold (I was probably posting too late in the evening last night and fear I may have stated my opinion too harshly). First, I believe I was thinking about how the Trinity is given as our picture of love, and that one member of the Trinity would not condemn any other member of the Trinity. It's impossible. Second, I just prefer oft times to use the term "Trinity" when I otherwise might use God, since God is Triune and I think that when we just say "God" we often solely think of the Father when in reality "God" is three-in-one. This is something I've appreciated about Orthodoxy; the focus on the trinitarian nature of God.

Hope that helps!

Darla · **Posted:** Wed Dec 26, 2012 5:02 pm

Pam in Colorado wrote:

That does help, but brings up another question... why secondary? what would make them of less than equal to the others?

I *think* it's that they were not written by the Apostles or disciples of the Apostles, or St. Paul, but I do not know for sure.

Anna1111 · **Joined:** Sat Jun 30, 2012 7:14 pm **Posts:** 8115

That's not it (forgive my blunt response - I can't think of a delicate wording here) since they're OT, none of the OT Canon was written by Apostles. But, I had to look it up to see what it *was* !

IN the Church, we don't call them Deuterocanonicals - only when dealing with those outside of the Orthodox Church who wish to discuss them as a separate category. In Church, we simply call them the Old Testament : )

According to Bishop Kallistos Ware (I had to look it up - it's not something I usually think about!) - Sts. Jerome & Athanasius saw them as being on a "lower footing" than the rest of the OT, and many Orthodox see them that way, too.

That being said, we are not a Church with such formal opinions, views & dogmas as the Roman Catholic Church (we tend to leave things more in the realm of mystery) - so I'd say most of us don't generally evaluate where these books stand at all - any more than we evaluate each ingredient we eat for dinner. It's just all on the table.

There are many wonderful things in these books that we find very helpful and Spiritually uplifting.

Forum rules

Here is a link I have been reading today.

Who is online