Keep in mind, 2 Esdras (as well as the rest of the collection classed as the Apocrypha) were removed as recent as the late 1800s and were in the 1611 KJV. So, if we were having this conversation in the early 1700s, you’d be battling for the authority of a much larger Bible with a clear conscience. Even the very first church fathers quoted from these books and others found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Were these early leaders wrong and Catholic church, years later bringing in heretic teachings, correct?
There are also many other references that can be found in the Bible alluding to Enoch, Jubilees and even the small book of Tobit (Hebrews 13:2). I’m sure you’ll contest all these things though, which is fine. Each to their own.
It's no surprise the KJV - of Catholic origin, would contain those additional books.
I don't think anyone contests that fact.
The KJV also contains some spurious texts, including the one found in 1 John 5:7, 8
Johannine Comma
They still fight for these texts.
However, the Hebrew Canon was closed, not opened, to allow for additional books, and they were... my apologies once again 39 book... seems I can't count, lol.
The English word canon comes from the Greek κανών, meaning "rule" or "measuring stick".
There are certain credentials it must meet.
It must be of Divine Authorship demonstrating that it was inspired by God. (2Pe 1:21)
When we examine the early Bible Canon - 39 books, does its contents measure up to this criterion in every way?
Can the same be claimed of the 41 books the Catholic holds as their Canon?
Can you demonstrate that they do?
But if you still believe that the 66 books of the Bible are all that there is – explain to me where evil spirits (demons) come from? Where does the Bible explain Sheol (a term used regularly)? What is the third heaven that Paul speaks of? Expound, if you can, on the events of Genesis 6:4? Why did Moses use the word “Nephilim” without needing to explain the term further?
Thank you for asking.
Perhaps let me answer that by asking you to explain how these scriptures support the views you present of the soul.
Genesis 2:7; Genesis 6:17, 22; Genesis 7:15
Let's start with those, for now.
Now, as for the Acts of Thomas – I have never confirmed or hinted at this being a book I accept. Not every book claiming to be inspired is inspired. However, to claim that every book claiming to be inspired that is not in the Canon is a “work of Satan” (as I believe you are proposing) is without wisdom but is rather a fear-based reaction. I’m sorry for the blunt appraisal, but I cannot find any harmony with your views on the matter – if you indeed believe this.
I'm sorry you were offended at my statement. I didn't intend to cause offense, but from what I read in those books, it was clear, they are not inspired, and are a design in such a way as to closely imitate the inspired book, but with an element of extreme exaggerations that would cause one to turn a critical eye towards the genuine texts.
Think of a hero. Now think of an imitator that does some of what the hero does, but then does other things that are unpleasant. Would people not look at the hero, in a negative light?
That's exactly what Satan does.
He did it in the past, with the false miracle workers - the magic practicing priest. He did it with false prophets. He did it with false apostles. He did it with false Christians in the second century, and he did it with these false apostolic books.
Anyone reading them, can see the design.
I haven't read all these books, but I was referring to the ones I read, and I said, it is my opinion, that this is the case with those later additions to the early Canon.
Why would you suggest that is not based on using wisdom?
We have the knowledge, The books are additions, written later, about a century after the early Canon.
They contain contradictions to the early Canon.
They contain exaggerated fanciful stories, additions, and interpretation to the early Cannon.
Wisdom is the ability to use knowledge in a proper, correct or beneficial way.
So, I would say, I am following the course of wisdom.
If these books met the criteria of the accepted early Canon, there would be no reason for me to reject them.
So, are you saying, that you do not agree with what the "Acts of Thomas" there says about the soul, and "Hades"?
I don’t think there is pain like how you are thinking. I think you are trying to equate physical sensation with torment and I think it may be different, though I could very well be wrong.
Consider depression for example, such as would lead a man to suicide. Now, medical science can study the affects of depression neurologically, but not the cause. They have theories, but not enough significant evidence. There are pains such as heart ache, hopelessness, longing, fear and panic which do not have their route cause in the brain, but we can only study their “trails” in the brain. This kind of pain is very different to “Ouch, that’s hot”.
Nevertheless, we cannot assume that there is no physical discomfort as well. It’s a possibility and there are possible allusions to this in the text but I can’t confirm with any confidence - sorry.
Peace
I was hoping you could explain it to me. So you are saying you cannot yourself explain it?
Would that be because you don't understand it?
I'm thinking it requires consciousness in order to know anything or have awareness. Would you agree?
To be conscious or away, one must be alive. Isn't that true?
Yet, the Bible says, Psalms 146
3 Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.
4 His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish.
Ecclesiastes 9
5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.
10 Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest.
Isaiah 38:18
18 For the grave cannot praise thee, death can not celebrate thee: they that go down into the pit cannot hope for thy truth.
The scriptures evidently agree, that in death, there is no awareness.
So even these are contradicted by the apocryphal writings.
Isn't that what you see?
This shows Saul might have believed mediums could really raise the dead.But here I think God intervened because of 1 Samuel 28:12.
