Why Protestants have Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation

[Votto]

despite Luther wanting to get rid of them. Yet all the fundies and evans so dwell on Revelation and the end of the world and beginning of the next. Rome gave you the Bible, so thanks to Rome you have the Bible minus the few books that the Roman Catholic bible has. So next time you want to put down the ROMAN Catholic Church, for you that declare you are Christians, be sure to thank the Roman CC first.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


In addition to this, there is the fact that Greek Orthodox Churches (especially) have a more fluid (less formal or legalistic) notion of how the idea of a "canonical book" should be applied. For example, in the Greek Orthodox Liturgy, they have NEVER read from the Book of Revelation. And, because of this, many modern Greeks will claim that Revelation is "not canonical." ...because they do not read from it in their Greek Liturgy. Now, the fact that the Russian Orthodox Church does read from Revelation in their, Russian Liturgy is beside the point. So, for the Eastern Orthodox, "canonical" does not really refer to a univesally-agreed upon canon, but to the common regional practice of specific Churches. Uunfortunately, this has led some modern Greek and Antiochian Orthodox to claim that the Book of Revelation is "not inspired" and/or "not binding" on them, which is a modernist revision (a heretical novelty), which no ancient Greek or Antiochian would ever claim. For, what their forefathers would say is that Revelation (or another book like it) is still Divinely inspired, but just not canonical (i.e., not approved for reading at their Liturgy). And, for those Easterners who did recognze the binding authority of the Cathaginian canon, they would of course say that Revelation is universally binding (i.e., canonical in a universal sense), but simply not part of their local Liturgical canon.


Snip

In his translation of the Bible from Greek into German, Luther removed 4 N.T. books (Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation) and placed them in an appendix saying they were less than canonical.

Why does the Orthodox Bible have more books than the Catholic Bible?

Few people realize that both Hebrews and Revelation were discredited by Eusebius.

Fewer people even know who Eusebius was.

Well if Eusebius said it then that settles it. LMAO!

Even fewer seem to know that Revelation, or at least the Beast in Revelation, is the same one described in Daniel.

Dolts.

 

[irosie91]

despite Luther wanting to get rid of them. Yet all the fundies and evans so dwell on Revelation and the end of the world and beginning of the next. Rome gave you the Bible, so thanks to Rome you have the Bible minus the few books that the Roman Catholic bible has. So next time you want to put down the ROMAN Catholic Church, for you that declare you are Christians, be sure to thank the Roman CC first.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


In addition to this, there is the fact that Greek Orthodox Churches (especially) have a more fluid (less formal or legalistic) notion of how the idea of a "canonical book" should be applied. For example, in the Greek Orthodox Liturgy, they have NEVER read from the Book of Revelation. And, because of this, many modern Greeks will claim that Revelation is "not canonical." ...because they do not read from it in their Greek Liturgy. Now, the fact that the Russian Orthodox Church does read from Revelation in their, Russian Liturgy is beside the point. So, for the Eastern Orthodox, "canonical" does not really refer to a univesally-agreed upon canon, but to the common regional practice of specific Churches. Uunfortunately, this has led some modern Greek and Antiochian Orthodox to claim that the Book of Revelation is "not inspired" and/or "not binding" on them, which is a modernist revision (a heretical novelty), which no ancient Greek or Antiochian would ever claim. For, what their forefathers would say is that Revelation (or another book like it) is still Divinely inspired, but just not canonical (i.e., not approved for reading at their Liturgy). And, for those Easterners who did recognze the binding authority of the Cathaginian canon, they would of course say that Revelation is universally binding (i.e., canonical in a universal sense), but simply not part of their local Liturgical canon.


Snip

In his translation of the Bible from Greek into German, Luther removed 4 N.T. books (Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation) and placed them in an appendix saying they were less than canonical.

Why does the Orthodox Bible have more books than the Catholic Bible?

Few people realize that both Hebrews and Revelation were discredited by Eusebius.

Fewer people even know who Eusebius was.

Well if Eusebius said it then that settles it. LMAO!

Even fewer seem to know that Revelation, or at least the Beast in Revelation, is the same one described in Daniel.

Dolts.

Paul

 

[kjw47]

despite Luther wanting to get rid of them. Yet all the fundies and evans so dwell on Revelation and the end of the world and beginning of the next. Rome gave you the Bible, so thanks to Rome you have the Bible minus the few books that the Roman Catholic bible has. So next time you want to put down the ROMAN Catholic Church, for you that declare you are Christians, be sure to thank the Roman CC first.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


In addition to this, there is the fact that Greek Orthodox Churches (especially) have a more fluid (less formal or legalistic) notion of how the idea of a "canonical book" should be applied. For example, in the Greek Orthodox Liturgy, they have NEVER read from the Book of Revelation. And, because of this, many modern Greeks will claim that Revelation is "not canonical." ...because they do not read from it in their Greek Liturgy. Now, the fact that the Russian Orthodox Church does read from Revelation in their, Russian Liturgy is beside the point. So, for the Eastern Orthodox, "canonical" does not really refer to a univesally-agreed upon canon, but to the common regional practice of specific Churches. Uunfortunately, this has led some modern Greek and Antiochian Orthodox to claim that the Book of Revelation is "not inspired" and/or "not binding" on them, which is a modernist revision (a heretical novelty), which no ancient Greek or Antiochian would ever claim. For, what their forefathers would say is that Revelation (or another book like it) is still Divinely inspired, but just not canonical (i.e., not approved for reading at their Liturgy). And, for those Easterners who did recognze the binding authority of the Cathaginian canon, they would of course say that Revelation is universally binding (i.e., canonical in a universal sense), but simply not part of their local Liturgical canon.


Snip

In his translation of the Bible from Greek into German, Luther removed 4 N.T. books (Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation) and placed them in an appendix saying they were less than canonical.

Why does the Orthodox Bible have more books than the Catholic Bible?

GOD gave us his bible. The religion that came out of Rome gave us altered versions, error filled translations. Why else is there so much confusion in the religions claiming to be Christian--34,000 of them. Jesus started-ONE( 1Cor 1:10) Jesus is only with-ONE.

No God did not give you the Bible.

In the living world of reality--yes he did. Catholicism screwed it all up. Catholicism translating is filled with error and alterations to fit false council teachings.--that is what they gave.

 

[irosie91]

despite Luther wanting to get rid of them. Yet all the fundies and evans so dwell on Revelation and the end of the world and beginning of the next. Rome gave you the Bible, so thanks to Rome you have the Bible minus the few books that the Roman Catholic bible has. So next time you want to put down the ROMAN Catholic Church, for you that declare you are Christians, be sure to thank the Roman CC first.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


In addition to this, there is the fact that Greek Orthodox Churches (especially) have a more fluid (less formal or legalistic) notion of how the idea of a "canonical book" should be applied. For example, in the Greek Orthodox Liturgy, they have NEVER read from the Book of Revelation. And, because of this, many modern Greeks will claim that Revelation is "not canonical." ...because they do not read from it in their Greek Liturgy. Now, the fact that the Russian Orthodox Church does read from Revelation in their, Russian Liturgy is beside the point. So, for the Eastern Orthodox, "canonical" does not really refer to a univesally-agreed upon canon, but to the common regional practice of specific Churches. Uunfortunately, this has led some modern Greek and Antiochian Orthodox to claim that the Book of Revelation is "not inspired" and/or "not binding" on them, which is a modernist revision (a heretical novelty), which no ancient Greek or Antiochian would ever claim. For, what their forefathers would say is that Revelation (or another book like it) is still Divinely inspired, but just not canonical (i.e., not approved for reading at their Liturgy). And, for those Easterners who did recognze the binding authority of the Cathaginian canon, they would of course say that Revelation is universally binding (i.e., canonical in a universal sense), but simply not part of their local Liturgical canon.


Snip

In his translation of the Bible from Greek into German, Luther removed 4 N.T. books (Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation) and placed them in an appendix saying they were less than canonical.

Why does the Orthodox Bible have more books than the Catholic Bible?

Few people realize that both Hebrews and Revelation were discredited by Eusebius.

Fewer people even know who Eusebius was.

Well if Eusebius said it then that settles it. LMAO!

Even fewer seem to know that Revelation, or at least the Beast in Revelation, is the same one described in Daniel.

Dolts.

what does "the beast" in Daniel represent?

 

[irosie91]

VOTTO Wo bist du??? what does the beast in Daniel's mushroom galvanized delusion REPRESENT?

 

[kjw47]

despite Luther wanting to get rid of them. Yet all the fundies and evans so dwell on Revelation and the end of the world and beginning of the next. Rome gave you the Bible, so thanks to Rome you have the Bible minus the few books that the Roman Catholic bible has. So next time you want to put down the ROMAN Catholic Church, for you that declare you are Christians, be sure to thank the Roman CC first.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


In addition to this, there is the fact that Greek Orthodox Churches (especially) have a more fluid (less formal or legalistic) notion of how the idea of a "canonical book" should be applied. For example, in the Greek Orthodox Liturgy, they have NEVER read from the Book of Revelation. And, because of this, many modern Greeks will claim that Revelation is "not canonical." ...because they do not read from it in their Greek Liturgy. Now, the fact that the Russian Orthodox Church does read from Revelation in their, Russian Liturgy is beside the point. So, for the Eastern Orthodox, "canonical" does not really refer to a univesally-agreed upon canon, but to the common regional practice of specific Churches. Uunfortunately, this has led some modern Greek and Antiochian Orthodox to claim that the Book of Revelation is "not inspired" and/or "not binding" on them, which is a modernist revision (a heretical novelty), which no ancient Greek or Antiochian would ever claim. For, what their forefathers would say is that Revelation (or another book like it) is still Divinely inspired, but just not canonical (i.e., not approved for reading at their Liturgy). And, for those Easterners who did recognze the binding authority of the Cathaginian canon, they would of course say that Revelation is universally binding (i.e., canonical in a universal sense), but simply not part of their local Liturgical canon.


Snip

In his translation of the Bible from Greek into German, Luther removed 4 N.T. books (Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation) and placed them in an appendix saying they were less than canonical.

Why does the Orthodox Bible have more books than the Catholic Bible?

Few people realize that both Hebrews and Revelation were discredited by Eusebius.

Fewer people even know who Eusebius was.

Well if Eusebius said it then that settles it. LMAO!

Even fewer seem to know that Revelation, or at least the Beast in Revelation, is the same one described in Daniel.

Dolts.

what does "the beast" in Daniel represent?

In Daniel,the 4 world powers mentioned were all given the mark of a beast. So the beast is the form of a world power-an eighth king in itself--after the 4 of Daniel-- 5) the roman empire- 6) the british empire--7)and final) the two horned beast.( this has been occurring for awhile now)-- except for one hour( a little while) they hand power over to the 7 headed beast--an eighth king in itself. To do away with Babylon the great. That triggers the tribulation.

 

[irosie91]

despite Luther wanting to get rid of them. Yet all the fundies and evans so dwell on Revelation and the end of the world and beginning of the next. Rome gave you the Bible, so thanks to Rome you have the Bible minus the few books that the Roman Catholic bible has. So next time you want to put down the ROMAN Catholic Church, for you that declare you are Christians, be sure to thank the Roman CC first.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


In addition to this, there is the fact that Greek Orthodox Churches (especially) have a more fluid (less formal or legalistic) notion of how the idea of a "canonical book" should be applied. For example, in the Greek Orthodox Liturgy, they have NEVER read from the Book of Revelation. And, because of this, many modern Greeks will claim that Revelation is "not canonical." ...because they do not read from it in their Greek Liturgy. Now, the fact that the Russian Orthodox Church does read from Revelation in their, Russian Liturgy is beside the point. So, for the Eastern Orthodox, "canonical" does not really refer to a univesally-agreed upon canon, but to the common regional practice of specific Churches. Uunfortunately, this has led some modern Greek and Antiochian Orthodox to claim that the Book of Revelation is "not inspired" and/or "not binding" on them, which is a modernist revision (a heretical novelty), which no ancient Greek or Antiochian would ever claim. For, what their forefathers would say is that Revelation (or another book like it) is still Divinely inspired, but just not canonical (i.e., not approved for reading at their Liturgy). And, for those Easterners who did recognze the binding authority of the Cathaginian canon, they would of course say that Revelation is universally binding (i.e., canonical in a universal sense), but simply not part of their local Liturgical canon.


Snip

In his translation of the Bible from Greek into German, Luther removed 4 N.T. books (Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation) and placed them in an appendix saying they were less than canonical.

Why does the Orthodox Bible have more books than the Catholic Bible?

Few people realize that both Hebrews and Revelation were discredited by Eusebius.

Fewer people even know who Eusebius was.

Well if Eusebius said it then that settles it. LMAO!

Even fewer seem to know that Revelation, or at least the Beast in Revelation, is the same one described in Daniel.

Dolts.

what does "the beast" in Daniel represent?

In Daniel,the 4 world powers mentioned were all given the mark of a beast. So the beast is the form of a world power-an eighth king in itself--after the 4 of Daniel-- 5) the roman empire- 6) the british empire--7)and final) the two horned beast.( this has been occurring for awhile now)-- except for one hour( a little while) they hand power over to the 7 headed beast--an eighth king in itself. To do away with Babylon the great. That triggers the tribulation.

oh-----that clears things up.

 

[Votto]

despite Luther wanting to get rid of them. Yet all the fundies and evans so dwell on Revelation and the end of the world and beginning of the next. Rome gave you the Bible, so thanks to Rome you have the Bible minus the few books that the Roman Catholic bible has. So next time you want to put down the ROMAN Catholic Church, for you that declare you are Christians, be sure to thank the Roman CC first.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


In addition to this, there is the fact that Greek Orthodox Churches (especially) have a more fluid (less formal or legalistic) notion of how the idea of a "canonical book" should be applied. For example, in the Greek Orthodox Liturgy, they have NEVER read from the Book of Revelation. And, because of this, many modern Greeks will claim that Revelation is "not canonical." ...because they do not read from it in their Greek Liturgy. Now, the fact that the Russian Orthodox Church does read from Revelation in their, Russian Liturgy is beside the point. So, for the Eastern Orthodox, "canonical" does not really refer to a univesally-agreed upon canon, but to the common regional practice of specific Churches. Uunfortunately, this has led some modern Greek and Antiochian Orthodox to claim that the Book of Revelation is "not inspired" and/or "not binding" on them, which is a modernist revision (a heretical novelty), which no ancient Greek or Antiochian would ever claim. For, what their forefathers would say is that Revelation (or another book like it) is still Divinely inspired, but just not canonical (i.e., not approved for reading at their Liturgy). And, for those Easterners who did recognze the binding authority of the Cathaginian canon, they would of course say that Revelation is universally binding (i.e., canonical in a universal sense), but simply not part of their local Liturgical canon.


Snip

In his translation of the Bible from Greek into German, Luther removed 4 N.T. books (Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation) and placed them in an appendix saying they were less than canonical.

Why does the Orthodox Bible have more books than the Catholic Bible?

Few people realize that both Hebrews and Revelation were discredited by Eusebius.

Fewer people even know who Eusebius was.

Well if Eusebius said it then that settles it. LMAO!

Even fewer seem to know that Revelation, or at least the Beast in Revelation, is the same one described in Daniel.

Dolts.

what does "the beast" in Daniel represent?

In Daniel,the 4 world powers mentioned were all given the mark of a beast. So the beast is the form of a world power-an eighth king in itself--after the 4 of Daniel-- 5) the roman empire- 6) the british empire--7)and final) the two horned beast.( this has been occurring for awhile now)-- except for one hour( a little while) they hand power over to the 7 headed beast--an eighth king in itself. To do away with Babylon the great. That triggers the tribulation.

oh-----that clears things up.

The various Beasts described in Daniel represent world empires.

The last one is the same as in Revelation.

 

[irosie91]

Few people realize that both Hebrews and Revelation were discredited by Eusebius.

Fewer people even know who Eusebius was.

Well if Eusebius said it then that settles it. LMAO!

Even fewer seem to know that Revelation, or at least the Beast in Revelation, is the same one described in Daniel.

Dolts.

what does "the beast" in Daniel represent?

In Daniel,the 4 world powers mentioned were all given the mark of a beast. So the beast is the form of a world power-an eighth king in itself--after the 4 of Daniel-- 5) the roman empire- 6) the british empire--7)and final) the two horned beast.( this has been occurring for awhile now)-- except for one hour( a little while) they hand power over to the 7 headed beast--an eighth king in itself. To do away with Babylon the great. That triggers the tribulation.

oh-----that clears things up.

The various Beasts described in Daniel represent world empires.

The last one is the same as in Revelation.

ok------very poetic

 

[kjw47]

Few people realize that both Hebrews and Revelation were discredited by Eusebius.

Fewer people even know who Eusebius was.

Well if Eusebius said it then that settles it. LMAO!

Even fewer seem to know that Revelation, or at least the Beast in Revelation, is the same one described in Daniel.

Dolts.

what does "the beast" in Daniel represent?

In Daniel,the 4 world powers mentioned were all given the mark of a beast. So the beast is the form of a world power-an eighth king in itself--after the 4 of Daniel-- 5) the roman empire- 6) the british empire--7)and final) the two horned beast.( this has been occurring for awhile now)-- except for one hour( a little while) they hand power over to the 7 headed beast--an eighth king in itself. To do away with Babylon the great. That triggers the tribulation.

oh-----that clears things up.

The various Beasts described in Daniel represent world empires.

The last one is the same as in Revelation.

The last one in Daniel is long gone--The2 horned beast is the final world power( not counting for 1 hour the 7 headed beast is an eighth king in itself. The first in Daniel is the same as the last in rev.2 beasts mentioned( Eagle-Lion)