King James was a Fraud...

I would like to know by what authority did the Anti-Catholic King James have to take 7 books out of the original bible, that was compiled at the Synod of Hippo in 393 AD, and create his own. Maybe the fundementalists can find their passage in ther KJV that says do not add or take away anything from this book. It would seem the doctrine of Sola Scriptura they champion so heartedly is coming back full circle and biting them in the butt. Any thoughts?

 

Yeah, what's up with that. Or how about those wacky catholics that say any other christian denomination besides catholics are going to hell, or what happened to the part that says rosary beads and other lucky charms are what you need. Haven't read the part that says the pope is infallible, those wacky fundies must have yanked that out. We all know that the bible clearly states that the virgin Mary is equal to Jesus, it says so in the book of ooooh, what was it again? And I hear there's alot of people that are pissed off about the part that was ommitted saying it was okay to molest alter boys as long as ya go to confessional afterwards.

 

Just from that quote itself I can tell you have not one clue about the Catholic Church. That's flat out not true. I was always brought up that any Christian of another denomination could go to heaven, and the Vatican teaches that as well. (It was changed at Vatican II council)

We never said you NEED them, Rosaires help you keep track of what prayers you are on, there is nothing "lucky" about them.

Try reading writings of the early church fathers. No, those wacky fundies didn't take them out of anywhere, they just totally disregard that and every other pre-bible tradition Catholics and Orthodoxes have kept for over 1500 years.

The Catholic Church in it's 2000 year exsistance has never, nor will it ever, teach Mary is equal to Christ. She's not. We just honor her and giver a lot of respect, unlike Protestants.

Well now that I know I am not dealing with a scholar here, I can sort of laugh at this broad generalization of all Catholic priests, most ignorant people generalize like that anyway. It's been done to Blacks, Jews, Catholics, Protestants, everyone, you are just part of the problem.

 

i dont' suppose kind james and his counsel was any less worthy of making such judgements as the original catholics who put the book together. since coming here i've read some of the "apocrypha." while there's some interesting stuff, much of it makes my head ache in irritation.

 

and i rather like meditative aids like rosaries. it's the idea that 'saint' refers to only very very special people, instead of all of christ's followers that bothers me.

i also very much miss incense in the services. after all those scriptures referring to the sacredness of incense, how is it that so many protestant denominations have suddenly decided that incense is some luxury of ego? after all, incense triggers so much mental activity, and scent remembrance is an extremely valuable way to trigger specific moods and thought patterns. when you walk into a church and you smell the incense, you know where you are. your mind changes the way it works.

also, what's up with the anger against wine? how did wine become evil among protestants? i know all sorts of protestants that get al lupset and say that the wine referred to in the bible was grape juice. if that is true, then why the warning in leviticus to be careful not to drink too much? sugar high? hardly likely, since several times in the OT someone got so drunk off "grape juice" as to cause some very nefarious goings on. so, whatever, christ was drinking wine, not grape juice.

as for communion, christ said the bread and wine were his body and blood. that's good enough for me. even symbolicly, since it still tastes like bread and wine to me. otherwise i wouldn't be able to deal with the body getting stuck in my teeth.

 

He ie James did it as part of the movemennt to establish an English national church with him at the top. It was part of a political process, the 'cult of the english state' , originated by Henry 8th, carried forward to great effect by Elizabeth 1st. They wanted to turn the church into a state cult, to identify the Tudor dynasty with it, and hence to claim a kind of Divine power for themselves. It all ended up in the mud of world war 1.

Another point though is why not also include in the cannon the Gnostic Gospels, such as that of St. Thomas, which have come to light in recent times? They are surely as authentic as the canonical gospels, and arguably more so, as there has been no chance of either erors in copying, or deliberate editing over the centuries.

 

I always thought King James was bi-sexual.

 

The people who compiled the bible togethar we're Saints, Early Church fathers, and very, very holy men. King James was a political figure and had ZERO authority whatsoever. Who was he to take out parts of the bible!?!?!

 

Christ's followers are saints

this is a great article:
http://www.keyway.ca/htm2002/saints.htm

 

Seven?

Lost books of the Bible, referred to IN the Bible:

1. The war of the Lord - Numbers 21:14
2. Book of Jashpher - Joshua 10:13
3. Acts of Solomon - I Kings 11:41
4. Book of Nathan the prophet - I Chronicles 29:29
5. Prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite - II Chronicles 9:29
6. Book of Gad - I Chronicles 29:29
7. Book of Nathan, Vision of Iddo - II Chronicles 9:29
8. Book of Shemaiah and Iddo the Seer - II Chronicles 12:15
9. Book of Jehu - II Chronicles 20:34

"The New Testament has 263 direct quotes and 360 allusions to passages in the Old Testament, but there is not one reference to any of the books of the Apocrypha."

 

Since Henry 8th had already split with Rome and had himself appointed head of the Chuch of England, James did have legal authority to dictate the content of the cannon. However, I agree he had no mandate from God to do so. And from my studies of history, it seems that there was very little appetite for reform among the ordinary christian people of England prior to Henry's 'reformation' - in fact it caused great confusion and led to terrible persecutions (on both sides).
The thing was a matter of political expediency only - and now today's protestants are left with a church which has been effectively mutilated, with the removal of the Saints (I don't regard all followers of Jesus as such) , the Blessed Virgin, and much else that is deeply spiritual in the Catholic tradition.

 

ALL is politics. even among holy men, all is politics. what made king james, a devout lover of christ, any less holy? any less a saint. i know you're catholic, and your views of saints is very different than mine. in my sense, james' council was no less capable of reviewing and editing the bible. i've read some of what was discarded, and i agree.

 

What are you talking about? The apocrypha refers to the 7 deutaronimical books that are not included in the king james version bible. they were taken out when king james had his bible completed.

the catholic bible, on the other hand, uses all books that were officially declared the bible as we know it today at the synod of hippo in 393 AD.The Synod of Hippo was the first Church council to produce an official list of canonical books. And by the way, that is true of the New Testament books, as well as the Old Testament books. This is striaght historical fact, and you cannot argue with them, try as you may Epiphany.


"Besides the canonical Scriptures, nothing shall be read in the church under the title of divine writings. The canonical books are: – Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings [i.e., 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Kings], the two books of Chronicles, Job, the Psalms of David, the five books of Solomon [i.e., Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus], the twelve books of the Prophets [i.e., Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi], Isaiah, Jeremiah [including Baruch], Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras [i.e., Ezra, Nehemiah], two books of the Maccabees. The books of the New Testament are: – the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles of S. Paul, one Epistle of S. Paul to the Hebrews, two Epistles of S. Peter, three Epistles of S. John, the Epistle of S. James, the Epistle of S. Jude, the Revelation of S. John. Concerning the confirmation of this canon, the transmarine Church [i.e., the Roman church] shall be consulted.” ----Synod of Hippo, Canon 29, A.D. 393

So, back to my original question: What authority did king james have again?

 

Exactly, its sad. They are missing out on so much.

 

Then how come it doesn't make mention of the books I named that are listed in the Bible?

 

King James a saint? I think not! Look at it like this - he personally aproved of methods of punishment that are and were wholly unacceptable. This 'lover of Christ' authorized burnings at the stake, hanging/drawing/quatering and so on. Example, Guy Fawkes and the other gunpowder plotters.

And to what end? Simply to establish the power of the new Stuart Dynasty, and to build up even more the idea of english nationalism.

I doubt James would have given you his shirt if you were in need - more likely a flogging for having the insolence to ask!

Luther may have had some valid points, but his agenda was quickly appropriated by purely political interests. The Kings of Europe resented their vasalage to the Pope, and here was a way to increase their power. Henry 8th of England broke from Rome for no other reason than the Pope's quite correct desicion to refuse him a divorce. There was no religious reason behind it. Prior to his conflict with the Pope, Henry had been a staunch defender of the Catholic Faith against the would be reformers - he was awarded the title 'defender of the faith' by the Pope, a title still born by British Monarchs today.
Even if their faith is mainly in gold.....

And for the ordinary people - just confusion.

 

sorry man, i'm still not buying that 'saint' means anything but a believer in christ. considering what the catholic popes have been willing to do in their pursuit of their own interests and for the interests of the church, i'm no more willing to give them credit for being perfect than i am for james. god works his will despite our own.

 

Even if you don't accept the Catholic idea of saints, James would hardly even qualify as a Christian, given the human rights abuses, to use todays terminology, that he sanctioned. That extends to Popes too - I am not saying they were perfect - many Catholics today, including leading theologians such as Hans Kung, accept that the Papacy passed through a period of corruption, and political self-seeking. Mistakes were made, but the modern Church post Vatican II has sought to redress these historical abuses.
James was just another European monarch, nominally Christian, but utterly disregarding the basic humanistic teachings of Jesus. For him, it was all a question of political expediency - nonetheless - I do quite like the King James Bible, it has a certain poetic quality which is mostly lacking in modern versions. But I harbour no illusions about the real nature of the Stuart kings of England. Tyranical monsters.

 

and yet god still works through us. i'm in full agreement that james wasn't perfect. people had a different concept entirely about the sanctity of human life back then. like i said. god works his will despite our own. we can't escape it. he's really good at it.

 

After a bit of research, I discovered some really interesting information. You can read all about it here:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm

The relevant part is where it talks about the Hellenistic Jews and their Palestinian counterparts. The Hebrew Bible contained the same books as those used by Protestants today. The more progressive Hellenistic (Alexandrian) Jews formed what the Roman Catholics use today (it was in Greek, not Hebrew). The OT mentioned by Josephus seems to refer to the Palestinian (Hebrew) Bible.

Here are my thoughts: So, as to what James' authority was, it was the tradition of the Palestinian Jews and possibly (probably) that the Hebrew Bible was the Scriptures that Christ used and read from. If it was good enough for Christ, why add the Hellenistic additions?

On the Synod of Hippo, I know that this council was the first council to produce what is currently used in Roman Catholic teachings. What I disagree with is the statement that they were the first council to release a canonical statement. What about the Synod of Laodicea?

Still more research to do, but this is a great topic!