The Apocrypha: Does it belong in the Bible?

[Andrew]

Exactly.

The problem with not accepting them as part of the original OT canon, and rather calling them books of "some" value but less than scripture is... well let's be honest, they are completely ignored, the churches are doing us no favors by belittling these books that were always accepted by Jews and Christians but were de-canonised much much later... who wants to read "uninspired" books? These books must have been inspired since they mention God and His people all throughout with historical accounts, other wise they are blasphemous by false witnessing and therefore should be DIScouraged to be read by Christians.

 

[Arsenios]

It's NOT simply a matter of Jews doing something a thousand years after Christ. During the Apostolic and Ancient church era, before the Bible was canonized, the Jews were already divided with those living in the Holy Land taking one position on the status of these books and the Jews in the diaspora taking the opposite view.

https://www.chabad.org/library/arti...t-Is-the-Jewish-Approach-to-the-Apocrypha.htm

The article is the approach that is non-Christian -

Bottom Line

The Apocrypha isn’t Divinely inspired, and is therefore not part of the canon,
and some of its works are even antithetical to Judaism.
Other works may indeed contain some valuable information,
but they aren’t given any more credence than any other book,
and be aware that there have been various additions and deletions made throughout the ages.

This is dissembling...

Christians have always received the Septuagint...

And we interpret the OT in terms of the NT...

So we do not have the OT as our source of Faith/Dogma...

Remember: Christ opened their minds and explained the meaning of the OT to the disciples on the road to Emaeus...

I mean, how is it that we derive Christian dogma/doctrine from the OT?


Arsenios

 

[Josiah]

Most of the Old Testament books of the Protestant Apocrypha

There is no "Protestant Apocrypha."

There is one UNIQUE set of books mentioned in The Thirty-Nine Articles of the Anglican Church (the unique "set" found in the KJV) but that's for ANGLICANS, and NO OTHER Protestant church.

There is one UNIQUE set of books that Martin Luther personally choose to include in his German translation (never mentioned in the Lutheran Confessions) but that's just a unique set that one man chose to include in one tome, it's not a Protestant Apocrypha,

There is no ecumenical Apocrypha. Protestant or otherwise. No two churches that embrace ANY in ANY way agree on what books we're talking about.

are called deuterocanonical by Catholics per the Council of Trent, and all of them are called anagignoskomena by the Eastern Orthodox per the Synod of Jerusalem.

Again, WHICH "them?"

.... and you called "secondary." Deutero means "secondary." IMO, the RCC and EOC appear to be largely AGREEING with the Anglican Church and the personal opinion of Martin Luther as to the STATUS and FUNCTION of these books (whichever "they" are). But that's not the case. While the RCC specifically, officially, formally LABELS them as "secondary" they are actually EQUAL in status to the rest. A common contradiction is found here.








.

 

[Andrew]

It's NOT simply a matter of Jews doing something a thousand years after Christ. During the Apostolic and Ancient church era, before the Bible was canonized, the Jews were already divided with those living in the Holy Land taking one position on the status of these books and the Jews in the diaspora taking the opposite view.

https://www.chabad.org/library/arti...t-Is-the-Jewish-Approach-to-the-Apocrypha.htm

These are the same Jews that threw out the NT because it was uninspired and blasphemous because Christ rebuked them, I could care less with what the Talmudic Jews opinion on why these books do not pertain to them.
They most likely didn't like Maccabees because they were marching to battle on the sabbath, Joshua did the same thing, Jesus even "worked" on the Sabbath according to these Jewish scribes and pharisees..
The Talmud is their OT continuum and it's loaded with blasphemous claims against Our Lord.
This articles seems to be asking the same Jews that denied Christ what their opinion on early Christian canon is.. We need to focus on what the early Christians considered scripture and these books are included in what they considered scripture.

 

[Arsenios]

This short video kinda affirms Josiah's point

https://youtu.be/OTEe7IKKYII


Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

These are the same Jews that threw out the NT because it was uninspired and blasphemous because Christ rebuked them, I could care less with what the Talmudic Jews opinion on why these books do not pertain to them.
They most likely didn't like Maccabees because they were marching to battle on the sabbath, Joshua did the same thing, Jesus even "worked" on the Sabbath according to these Jewish scribes and pharisees..
The Talmud is their OT continuum and it's loaded with blasphemous claims against Our Lord.
This articles seems to be asking the same Jews that denied Christ what their opinion on early Christian canon is.. We need to focus on what the early Christians considered scripture and these books are included in what they considered scripture.

Canon emerges from the practice of communities...

There are early Christian Communities...

Those are the ones, and especially the ones in the 4th century, who made the Canon what it is today...

But this was the NT Canon...

The Septuagint is prior even to Christ's Incarnation...

It is not now nor ever has been questioned as a whole...

Except by the non-Christian Talmuds...

And a lot of Protestants think the recent Talmudic OT is the equivalent of the Greek NT...

When the OT has always been the Septuagint which is Greek...

And translated by the pre-Christian Jews...

That is where accuracy will be found...

They did not have a post-Christian axe to grind...


Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

There is no "Protestant Apocrypha."
.

For your same reasons we can say there is no Protestant Bible...

Do I need to list all the Bibles that do not accord for you?

Think Septuagint, Josiah...

IF a Scripture is included there, it is a part of the Old Canon...

That is the pre-Christian Old Testament...


Arsenios

period!!





















.

 

[Albion]

These are the same Jews that threw out the NT because it was uninspired and blasphemous because Christ rebuked them, I could care less with what the Talmudic Jews opinion on why these books do not pertain to them.

Just a minute there. You cannot just win this argument by shopping for the Jews you think are the least appealing to us. And the Apocrypha -- IF ACCEPTED AS SCRIPTURE -- would go where in the Bible? That's right, it is part of the Old Testament to Catholics, not a third testament lying between the Old Testament and the New Testament (as I read it said in a post here not long ago). So the point is that the Old Testament is what we Christians carry over from the Jews.

 

[Andrew]

Just a minute there. You cannot just win this argument by shopping for the Jews you think are the least appealing to us. And the Apocrypha -- IF ACCEPTED AS SCRIPTURE -- would go where in the Bible? That's right, it is part of the Old Testament to Catholics, not a third testament lying between the Old Testament and the New Testament (as I read it said in a post here not long ago). So the point is that the Old Testament is what we Christians carry over from the Jews.

If the article were to ask those Jews alive back then I'm sure they would have gotten a different answer. Jews today and since the times of the Apostles separate themselves from Christianity, of course they are going to defend themselves on why their ancestors decided to rip out books that were canon for over 1000 + years and introduced the new standard Masoretic. The Septuagint was a translation (the first translation mind you) of an older Hebrew text, the Masoretic is based on a later Hebrew text, Jesus spoke words verbatim from the Septuagint when quoting, however the Masoretic text is not verbatim to what Christ said and why would the masoretic scribes compare what Jesus said to confirm? Because most likey the masoretic is based on a corrupt Hebrew text that was likely formed in the 1rst centuries by Christ rejecting Jews who apparently white washed the scriptures and would lile to convince Christians that they are holding false doctrine and discredit us so. Looks like that didn't work but their are some alterations in the Masoretic text that skew the genealogy to overlap Shem with Abraham so the Jews can say that Shem is Melchizedek which means Jesus cannot be the high priest, Jews believe this now but their theory is completely flawed if they were to use the Septuagint genealogy time line, thus why Paul says that the Jews are conspiring to debate Christians on genealogy...

Albion please take a moment to go to to the timestamp 20:00 so you can see what I'm talking about with what Jews believe about Jesus not being high priest according to the masoretic text. (It wont take long) this video is the OPs so give it quick look at the time stamp I provided
https://youtu.be/VI1yRTC6kGE

 

[Arsenios]

If the article were to ask those Jews alive back then I'm sure they would have gotten a different answer. Jews today and since the times of the Apostles separate themselves from Christianity, of course they are going to defend themselves on why their ancestors decided to rip out books that were canon for over 1000 + years and introduced the new standard Masoretic. The Septuagint was a translation (the first translation mind you) of an older Hebrew text, the Masoretic is based on a later Hebrew text, Jesus spoke words verbatim from the Septuagint when quoting, however the Masoretic text is not verbatim to what Christ said and why would the masoretic scribes compare what Jesus said to confirm? Because most likey the masoretic is based on a corrupt Hebrew text that was likely formed in the 1rst centuries by Christ rejecting Jews who apparently white washed the scriptures and would lile to convince Christians that they are holding false doctrine and discredit us so. Looks like that didn't work but their are some alterations in the Masoretic text that skew the genealogy to overlap Shem with Abraham so the Jews can say that Shem is Melchizedek which means Jesus cannot be the high priest, Jews believe this now but their theory is completely flawed if they were to use the Septuagint genealogy time line, thus why Paul says that the Jews are conspiring to debate Christians on genealogy...

Albion please take a moment to go to to the timestamp 20:00 so you can see what I'm talking about with what Jews believe about Jesus not being high priest according to the masoretic text. (It wont take long) this video is the OPs so give it quick look at the time stamp I provided
https://youtu.be/VI1yRTC6kGE

That you-tube article is pretty compelling...


Arsenios

 

[Albion]

If the article were to ask those Jews alive back then I'm sure they would have gotten a different answer. Jews today and since the times of the Apostles separate themselves from Christianity, of course they are going to defend themselves on why their ancestors decided to rip out books that were canon for over 1000 + years and introduced the new standard Masoretic.

I honestly have no idea what you are saying. The decision made by the Christian church as to the contents of the Bible was in the 300s and those people were confronted, as far as the Apocrypha is concerned, with a division of opinion among the Jews who, after all, were the people of the Old Testament and the Apocrypha for good or naught.

How this is relevant to the Talmud or today's Jews and their practices, I have no clue. None of that bears upon the decision made by the Church about the Apocrypha when the Bible was canonized.

 

[Andrew]

I honestly have no idea what you are saying. The decision made by the Christian church as to the contents of the Bible was in the 300s and those people were confronted, as far as the Apocrypha is concerned, with a division of opinion among the Jews who, after all, were the people of the Old Testament and the Apocrypha for good or naught.

How this is relevant to the Talmud or today's Jews and their practices, I have no clue. None of that bears upon the decision made by the Church about the Apocrypha when the Bible was canonized.

I read your article through and through, the video with the 20:00 timestamp is the point I am trying to make that something is afoot when concerning why the Septuagint has been lessoned in favor of the later Masoretic, it sums up the whole of the video pretty quickly and I myself researched the claims and found them astonishing, I believe in the contents of the Septuagint after doing research into it based on that video.

 

[Arsenios]

You cannot just win this argument by shopping for the Jews...

You sure got THAT right!


Arsenios

 

[Andrew]

That you-tube article is pretty compelling...


Arsenios

The entire video is even more compelling

 

[NathanH83]

Jesus never quoted from any books in the Apocrypha so chances are that they were not part of the original Hebrew Canon.
None of the apostles used them either and they did quote the Old Testament.
They have historical value and tell us what the later Jews experienced. The Books of Maccabees tells the history of the family of Judas Maccabee.
So while the Apocrypha might have good historical value, it is not necessarily part of the Scriptures


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Jesus celebrated the holiday of Hanukah.

 

[Andrew]

.

 

[RichWh1]

Jesus celebrated the holiday of Hanukah.

How can we know this for certain ? Did Jesus mention celebrating Hanukkah?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Lamb]

How can we know this for certain ? Did Jesus mention celebrating Hanukkah?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Jesus celebrated the festival of dedication which was a forerunner of the Hanukkah that the Jews celebrate today. Is it the same? I'm not sure.

 

[Arsenios]

.

Those are the candles that we are still burn in our Services...

Hand-dipped bee's wax tapers...

Right now as I go to Services!


Arsenios

 

[RichWh1]

Jesus celebrated the festival of dedication which was a forerunner of the Hanukkah that the Jews celebrate today. Is it the same? I'm not sure.

The eight-day Jewish celebration known as Hanukkah or Chanukah commemorates the rededication during the second century B.C. of the Second Temple in Jerusalem,

https://www.history.com/topics/holidays/hanukkah

Yes they are the same.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk