Apocrypha?

[NathanH83]

Learn your own. All of the books of the Apocrypha that were cleared for inclusion with the OT and NT were included PROVISIONALLY...and then both the Roman Catholic and Protestant churches removed some or all of them later on. All we are debating here and now is what kind of Bible a couple of people online want to write for themselves.







.

I said that the early church declared Maccabees to be scripture. You said they did not. Then I showed the specific instances when they did.

Yes, the Catholic Church removed 3 and 4 Esdras. What’s that got to do with Maccabees? The early church declared Maccabees to be scripture.

 

[Lamb]

The early church declared that 1 and 2 Maccabees are the Word of God. But to you, they’re not valuable?

Which early church is that?

Luther wrote: “Apocrypha, that is, books which are not held equal to the sacred Scriptures, and nevertheless are useful and good to read.”

Here is something interesting for you to consider:

“Was the book written by a spokesperson for God, who was confirmed by an act of God, who told the truth in the power of God, and was accepted by the people of God?”

The Old Testament Apocrypha lacks many of these characteristics. None of the books claim to be written by a prophet and Maccabees specifically denies being prophetic.
https://probe.org/the-old-testament-apocrypha-controversy/

 

[Josiah]

Yes, they did.
Council of Rome, 382 AD.
Council of Hippo, 393 AD.
Council of Carthage 397 AD.

Learn your history.

Learn your history. NONE of those were "the church" speaking AT ALL - much less definitively. They were REGIONAL synods and none of them actually met to address that question. Indeed, the first two ONLY spoke to what is permitted to be included in the Sunday readings (to this day, it is often permitted to read from books NOT canonicals; many Lutheran churches have some Deutercanonilcal readings included in the lectionary but NO Lutheran denomination officially accepts them as canonical, for example; the Anglican church has readings in its lectionary that it officially has declared are not canonical - simply agreeing to READ from a book has nothing to d0 with declaring such a book canonical).

Learn your history. NEVER has the church spoken officially on the issue of what books are and are not canonical. NONE of the Seven Ecumenical Councils even MENTIONED the issue. There was NOTHING official or binding AT ALL - ever, anywhere - until the 15th Century and that was just one single, individual denominaiton (The Catholic Church) and was not really binding (the Council of Florence) and changed nothing (for example, the Epistle to the Leodiceans CONTINUED to be in most Catholic tomes for up to 300 years after this Catholic meeting in spite of not being endorsed at Florence). In the 16th Century, the RCC again took an official stand ONLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR IT ITSELF ALONE, FOR ONLY THAT SINGLE DENOMINATION at the Council of Trent, Calvinists took an official stand ONLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR IT ITSELF ALONE, FOR ONLY THAT SINGLE DENOMINATION by listing 66 books, and also in the 16th Century, the Anglican Church took an official stance ONLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR IT ITSELF ALONE, FOR ONLY THAT SINGLE DENOMINATION in their 39 Articles, embracing several MORE books than the RCC did at Trent. Never has more than one denomination taken any stance on this, and none of them ever or any but excluively for it itself alone, uniquely, individually.

Learn your history. IF what you claim was true, all of us would have exactly the same books in our tome - and all would have since 382. But as history proves, in the Orthodox Church, there are MANY different "sets"... the RCC has a totally UNIQUE bible and that "set" has not always been what is it now, the Anglican church has another "set" and the Reformed churches have yet another set. NEVER in history have all Christian Bibles contained the same OT books (not even always the same NT ones). IF those local gatherings you mention were "THE CHURCH" speaking in some official way, history would have been VERY different, but learn your history - it proves your claim is baseless. In fact, the very first time ANY denomination did ANYTHING on this (the RCC's meeting at Florence in the 15th Century), this denomination speaking accomplished NOTHING - not a single Catholic tome (not all the same "set" of books) changed as a result, it wasn't definitive and it certainly wasn't "THE CHURCH" but just one singular denomination, one PART of the church; and that meeting did nothing (not even for Catholics) thus the need to do it again at Trent a century later.

"The Early Church" spoke seven times. These are the ONLY times it did and the official declarations of such are the ONLY things it spoke on. https://www.theopedia.com/ecumenical-councils History shows NEVER did the Early Church say a thing about any of the 4 Books of Maccabees or any books in the LXX or Psalm 151 or indeed ANY book being csnonical or not canonical. Individual PERSONS or regional councils occasionally mentioned such things in some context (for example, including such in the lectionary) but that's not THE CHURCH speaking and it's certainly not anything or anyone being definitive about anything - as history proves.

Martin Luther, who often spoke for a need for an Ecumenical Council (the last ended around 800 AD) and mentioned THIS as one of the possible topics, and he stated he would submit to the rulings of this council, but of course it never happened (well, the singular RC denomination DID do that but only invited itself making it the antithesis of an ecumenical council).




.

 

[Albion]

I said that the early church declared Maccabees to be scripture. You said they did not. Then I showed the specific instances when they did.

And I explained how you misunderstood the matter.

Yes, the Catholic Church removed 3 and 4 Esdras.

and that's not all.

What’s that got to do with Maccabees? The early church declared Maccabees to be scripture.

All of the books of the Apocrypha that were printed in Bibles from the ancient period until the 16th century were carried there PROVISIONALLY, not as agreed-upon inspired books of Holy Scripture. The fact that both Catholics and Protestants expelled ANY of them during the Reformation and Counter-Reformation period shows us that these books were not considered to be what we might call 'official.'

Josiah is also correct that you are pointing to councils that are not considered either infallible or ecumenical. They are just what we call local councils.

 

[NathanH83]

And I explained how you misunderstood the matter.


and that's not all.


All of the books of the Apocrypha that were printed in Bibles from the ancient period until the 16th century were carried there PROVISIONALLY, not as agreed-upon inspired books of Holy Scripture. The fact that both Catholics and Protestants expelled ANY of them during the Reformation and Counter-Reformation period shows us that these books that are also called Deutero-Canonical (what does that term mean?) were not considered--and never were--to have been accepted books of the Bible.

Josiah is also correct that you are pointing to councils that are not considered either infallible or ecumenical. They are just what we call local councils.

When multiple church councils declared Maccabees to be scripture, then we should take that seriously instead of throwing it in the trash. Please show me ONE church council from the 300’s that said Maccabees doesn’t belong.

And what do you mean PROVISIONALLY?

 

[NathanH83]

Learn your history. NONE of those were "the church" speaking AT ALL - much less definitively. They were REGIONAL synods and none of them actually met to address that question. Indeed, the first two ONLY spoke to what is permitted to be included in the Sunday readings (to this day, it is often permitted to read from books NOT canonicals; many Lutheran churches have some Deutercanonilcal readings included in the lectionary but NO Lutheran denomination officially accepts them as canonical, for example; the Anglican church has readings in its lectionary that it officially has declared are not canonical - simply agreeing to READ from a book has nothing to d0 with declaring such a book canonical).

Learn your history. NEVER has the church spoken officially on the issue of what books are and are not canonical. NONE of the Seven Ecumenical Councils even MENTIONED the issue. There was NOTHING official or binding AT ALL - ever, anywhere - until the 15th Century and that was just one single, individual denominaiton (The Catholic Church) and was not really binding (the Council of Florence) and changed nothing (for example, the Epistle to the Leodiceans CONTINUED to be in most Catholic tomes for up to 300 years after this Catholic meeting in spite of not being endorsed at Florence). In the 16th Century, the RCC again took an official stand ONLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR IT ITSELF ALONE, FOR ONLY THAT SINGLE DENOMINATION at the Council of Trent, Calvinists took an official stand ONLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR IT ITSELF ALONE, FOR ONLY THAT SINGLE DENOMINATION by listing 66 books, and also in the 16th Century, the Anglican Church took an official stance ONLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR IT ITSELF ALONE, FOR ONLY THAT SINGLE DENOMINATION in their 39 Articles, embracing several MORE books than the RCC did at Trent. Never has more than one denomination taken any stance on this, and none of them ever or any but excluively for it itself alone, uniquely, individually.

Learn your history. IF what you claim was true, all of us would have exactly the same books in our tome - and all would have since 382. But as history proves, in the Orthodox Church, there are MANY different "sets"... the RCC has a totally UNIQUE bible and that "set" has not always been what is it now, the Anglican church has another "set" and the Reformed churches have yet another set. NEVER in history have all Christian Bibles contained the same OT books (not even always the same NT ones). IF those local gatherings you mention were "THE CHURCH" speaking in some official way, history would have been VERY different, but learn your history - it proves your claim is baseless. In fact, the very first time ANY denomination did ANYTHING on this (the RCC's meeting at Florence in the 15th Century), this denomination speaking accomplished NOTHING - not a single Catholic tome (not all the same "set" of books) changed as a result, it wasn't definitive and it certainly wasn't "THE CHURCH" but just one singular denomination, one PART of the church; and that meeting did nothing (not even for Catholics) thus the need to do it again at Trent a century later.

"The Early Church" spoke seven times. These are the ONLY times it did and the official declarations of such are the ONLY things it spoke on. https://www.theopedia.com/ecumenical-councils History shows NEVER did the Early Church say a thing about any of the 4 Books of Maccabees or any books in the LXX or Psalm 151 or indeed ANY book being csnonical or not canonical. Individual PERSONS or regional councils occasionally mentioned such things in some context (for example, including such in the lectionary) but that's not THE CHURCH speaking and it's certainly not anything or anyone being definitive about anything - as history proves.

Martin Luther, who often spoke for a need for an Ecumenical Council (the last ended around 800 AD) and mentioned THIS as one of the possible topics, and he stated he would submit to the rulings of this council, but of course it never happened (well, the singular RC denomination DID do that but only invited itself making it the antithesis of an ecumenical council).




.

Oh, ok. So they weren’t ecumenical. Oh no. So incriminating.

Look, they all declared which books belong in the Bible. And they all agreed upon 1 and 2 Maccabees.

Now, did they all agree upon 3 and 4 Maccabees? No.

But 1 and 2 they did. So there’s no reason to question those. There’s no way to understand Daniel 8 and 11 without those books.

 

[Albion]

Oh, ok. So they weren’t ecumenical. Oh no. So incriminating.

Well, it does directly contradict your claim about these books having been officially accepted by the ancient church as inspired writings. That would seem to be a significant point.

 

[NathanH83]

Well, it does directly contradict your claim about these books having been officially accepted by the ancient church as inspired writings. That would seem to be a significant point.

They did accept them. They may not have had an ecumenical council on it. But they did have multiple local councils, each accepting 1 and 2 Maccabees.

You’re just throwing out technicalities that in no way effect the point I’m making.

 

[Albion]

You’re just throwing out technicalities that in no way effect the point I’m making.

What you are calling "technicalities" are the historic facts, and you liked them fine before you found out that they do not support your contentions. Before that, your claim was based upon what you thought the technicalities proved. Even now you are trying to sell the idea that the ancient church accepted these books as inspired.

But you can read the Apocrypha as much as you want and draw inspiration from these morality tales; it isn't critical one way or the other since no doctrine is affirmed by any of the books of the Apocrypha.

 

[Andrew]

What you are calling "technicalities" are the historic facts, and you liked them fine before you found out that they do not support your contentions. Before that, your claim was based upon what you thought the technicalities proved. Even now you are trying to sell the idea that the ancient church accepted these books as inspired.

But you can read the Apocrypha as much as you want and draw inspiration from these morality tales; it isn't critical one way or the other since no doctrine is affirmed by any of the books of the Apocrypha.

Clement of Rome (the church of Rome being the biggest Christian church in Paul's time and where Paul preached) mentions the apocrypha along side scripture in at least one of his letters that I know of.

The church's later refusal of the books were a response to the Jews rejecting them, thus they rejected them after the Apostles died.

Imagine if the elder preacher of your local church passed away and then all of a sudden the new preachers of that church started throwing out some scripture.

At least that's how I view it, these books got the boot by men long after the apostles died so if you think I am ignorant for accepting them as scripture then you must also be calling Clement of Rome ignorant and silly for mentioning them in his letters

Btw I just want to specify that no OT document had any effect on early gentile converts, the Gospel spoken of by the Apostle Paul was all they had, he did not read them the OT scriptures nor did they read anything other than the Greek Septuagint.. Greek gentile converts got a hold of these books and of course the Jews weren't all too happy about that, which may be just one of many reasons why they themselves rejected anything passed Isaiah who is considered to be the Jews last prophet (John the Baptists was outright denied, so was the Messiah).

I'm all ears dear Albion, I do not wish to confront anyone's faith like I said, I'm only defending what my early Christian brothers considered scripture regardless what the church came up with later, they also came up with a bunch of goofy ideas mind you

 

[NathanH83]

What you are calling "technicalities" are the historic facts, and you liked them fine before you found out that they do not support your contentions. Before that, your claim was based upon what you thought the technicalities proved. Even now you are trying to sell the idea that the ancient church accepted these books as inspired.

But you can read the Apocrypha as much as you want and draw inspiration from these morality tales; it isn't critical one way or the other since no doctrine is affirmed by any of the books of the Apocrypha.

Wait, what’s historical facts? The fact that multiple church councils declared 1 and 2 Maccabees to be scripture?
The council in Rome, in Hippo, and in Carthage? They declared these books to be apart of divine, holy scripture.

Can you show me one single church council that rejected these books in the 300’s or earlier?

The only thing you’re pointing out is this small little technicality that these church councils were not ecumenical. So what? Multiple local church councils accepted these books as scripture. You haven’t shown any evidence contradictory to this.

And yes, Maccabees is critical to understanding Daniel 8 and Daniel 11.

 

[NathanH83]

What you are calling "technicalities" are the historic facts, and you liked them fine before you found out that they do not support your contentions. Before that, your claim was based upon what you thought the technicalities proved. Even now you are trying to sell the idea that the ancient church accepted these books as inspired.

But you can read the Apocrypha as much as you want and draw inspiration from these morality tales; it isn't critical one way or the other since no doctrine is affirmed by any of the books of the Apocrypha.

You keep saying that I’m ignoring historical facts. Huh? Which early church council rejected the apocryphal books? What in the world?

They didn’t have an ecumenical council, but they had multiple local ones. So they still accepted these books and declared them to be scripture. Just because they didn’t do it ecumenically doesn’t mean they didn’t do it.

 

[Andrew]

Wait, what’s historical facts? The fact that multiple church councils declared 1 and 2 Maccabees to be scripture?
The council in Rome, in Hippo, and in Carthage? They declared these books to be apart of divine, holy scripture.

Can you show me one single church council that rejected these books in the 300’s or earlier?

The only thing you’re pointing out is this small little technicality that these church councils were not ecumenical. So what? Multiple local church councils accepted these books as scripture. You haven’t shown any evidence contradictory to this.

And yes, Maccabees is critical to understanding Daniel 8 and Daniel 11.

They certainly did recognised these books as divine scripture
History people! Even Martin spoke on behalf of these books doubting one but totally accepting the other (1rst Maccabees) as full fleshed Scripture!

 

[Josiah]

Learn your history. NONE of those were "the church" speaking AT ALL - much less definitively. They were REGIONAL synods and none of them actually met to address that question. Indeed, the first two ONLY spoke to what is permitted to be included in the Sunday readings (to this day, it is often permitted to read from books NOT canonicals; many Lutheran churches have some Deutercanonilcal readings included in the lectionary but NO Lutheran denomination officially accepts them as canonical, for example; the Anglican church has readings in its lectionary that it officially has declared are not canonical - simply agreeing to READ from a book has nothing to d0 with declaring such a book canonical).


Learn your history. NEVER has the church spoken officially on the issue of what books are and are not canonical. NONE of the Seven Ecumenical Councils even MENTIONED the issue. There was NOTHING official or binding AT ALL - ever, anywhere - until the 15th Century and that was just one single, individual denominaiton (The Catholic Church) and was not really binding (the Council of Florence) and changed nothing (for example, the Epistle to the Leodiceans CONTINUED to be in most Catholic tomes for up to 300 years after this Catholic meeting in spite of not being endorsed at Florence). In the 16th Century, the RCC again took an official stand ONLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR IT ITSELF ALONE, FOR ONLY THAT SINGLE DENOMINATION at the Council of Trent, Calvinists took an official stand ONLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR IT ITSELF ALONE, FOR ONLY THAT SINGLE DENOMINATION by listing 66 books, and also in the 16th Century, the Anglican Church took an official stance ONLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR IT ITSELF ALONE, FOR ONLY THAT SINGLE DENOMINATION in their 39 Articles, embracing several MORE books than the RCC did at Trent. Never has more than one denomination taken any stance on this, and none of them ever or any but excluively for it itself alone, uniquely, individually.


Learn your history. IF what you claim was true, all of us would have exactly the same books in our tome - and all would have since 382. But as history proves, in the Orthodox Church, there are MANY different "sets"... the RCC has a totally UNIQUE bible and that "set" has not always been what is it now, the Anglican church has another "set" and the Reformed churches have yet another set. NEVER in history have all Christian Bibles contained the same OT books (not even always the same NT ones). IF those local gatherings you mention were "THE CHURCH" speaking in some official way, history would have been VERY different, but learn your history - it proves your claim is baseless. In fact, the very first time ANY denomination did ANYTHING on this (the RCC's meeting at Florence in the 15th Century), this denomination speaking accomplished NOTHING - not a single Catholic tome (not all the same "set" of books) changed as a result, it wasn't definitive and it certainly wasn't "THE CHURCH" but just one singular denomination, one PART of the church; and that meeting did nothing (not even for Catholics) thus the need to do it again at Trent a century later.

"The Early Church" spoke seven times. These are the ONLY times it did and the official declarations of such are the ONLY things it spoke on. https://www.theopedia.com/ecumenical-councils History shows NEVER did the Early Church say a thing about any of the 4 Books of Maccabees or any books in the LXX or Psalm 151 or indeed ANY book being csnonical or not canonical. Individual PERSONS or regional councils occasionally mentioned such things in some context (for example, including such in the lectionary) but that's not THE CHURCH speaking and it's certainly not anything or anyone being definitive about anything - as history proves.

Martin Luther, who often spoke for a need for an Ecumenical Council (the last ended around 800 AD) and mentioned THIS as one of the possible topics, and he stated he would submit to the rulings of this council, but of course it never happened (well, the singular RC denomination DID do that but only invited itself making it the antithesis of an ecumenical council).



BTW, you list your church as Anglican/Episcopalian. Your church accepts several books NEVER mentioned at any of those local, unofficial, regional meetings.... your church as a totally UNIQUE Bible that is idential to NO OTHER in all history. So obviously, your church doesn't pretend those where Ecumenical Councils speaking to this issue, either.





.

Oh, ok. So they weren’t ecumenical. Oh no. So incriminating.

Correct. It shows that "THE CHURCH" did not embrace one of the several book of Maccabees as divinely inscripturated words of God, as the norma normans, rule and canon, as was claimed above. SOME regarded it as okay to read - even in church (agreeing with Luther, etc.) but that doesn't mean "THE CHURCH" proclaimed any of those books as SCRIPTURE. Calvin and millions of Calvinists declared all these deuterocanonical books are NOT Scripture and NOT to be read - but that doesn't mean THE CHURCH declared so.

You keep saying that I’m ignoring historical facts. Huh? Which early church council rejected the apocryphal books?

So, your apologetic is that if no Ecumenical Council said "no" THEREFORE "the church" officially, formally,definitively said "yes." Ah. So, "the church" has declared that there are little purple people eaters living on Mars because no Ecumenical Council said there was not; so Joseph Smith is the Restorer of the true church because no Ecumenical Council ever officially declared that he is not. I find your apologetic quite flawed.

Even Martin spoke on behalf of these books doubting one but totally accepting the other (1rst Maccabees) as full fleshed Scripture!

I don't know what "Martin" you have in mind but it certainly was not Martin Luther.

Of course, in 1534, Luther (personally, unofficially) included a certain "set" of these deutero books in his German translation, the "set" typically found in Bibles in Germany at the time, simply because they were used books in Germany at that time. This "set" actually had one MORE book in it than the Catholic Bibles we have today. But in his introduction to this "set", he wrote, “Apocrypha: These books are not held equal to the Sacred Scriptures, and yet are useful and good for reading."


It is true that Luther at times quoted from some book that some held in some way. According to Roman Catholic apologist Gary Michuta, in 1518, Luther quoted Sirach and Tobit. But note the year.... Luther was still very much Catholic at this point. On year later at the Leipzig disputation, Luther states that Firsf Maccabees was not in the Canon. Luther was heavily schooled with the Glossa ordinaria, which was very popular among Catholics at the time. When commenting on the apocryphal books, this work prefixes this introduction to them: Here begins the book of Tobit which is not in the canon; here begins the book of Judith which is not in the canon' and so forth for Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, some of the books of Maccabees and so on. This reflected a very common Catholic view at the time and seems to been Luther's own opinion on the canon. So although Luther was familiar with and cited some books that some call apocrypha, that does not imply that he believed it was canonical.




.

 

[Albion]

You keep saying that I’m ignoring historical facts. Huh? Which early church council rejected the apocryphal books? What in the world?

They didn’t have an ecumenical council, but they had multiple local ones. So they still accepted these books and declared them to be scripture. Just because they didn’t do it ecumenically doesn’t mean they didn’t do it.

Apparently it is the functioning of the church and the meaning of decisions being made that is where your weakness lies. If something was done, you cannot simply say--point blank--that it therefore represents or means something else.

 

[NathanH83]

Apparently it is the functioning of the church and the meaning of decisions being made that is where your weakness lies. If something was done, you cannot simply say--point blank--that it therefore represents or means something else.

I showed 3 local councils in the 4th century that accepted 1 and 2 Maccabees as scripture. Can you show ONE local council from that time that rejected 1 or 2 Maccabees?

Of course there’s the Lone Ranger, Jerome, who said the Maccabees don’t belong. But no councils agreed with him.

What councils at that time agreed with this belief of yours?

You have no evidence for your beliefs.

 

[Josiah]

I showed 3 local councils in the 4th century that accepted 1 and 2 Maccabees as scripture.

So, NOT "the church" as claimed.

None of these had any authority over anything about anything.

Did they state that these 2 of the Books of Maccabees are canonical, the rule/norma normans, the inerrant inscripturated words of God EQUAL in every sense with say Genesis or Romans? Or did they simply say the Sunday lectionary includes them?

Can you show ONE local council from that time that rejected 1 or 2 Maccabees?

Can you show any that rejected "The Book of Mormon?" Does that mean that since none of the Seven Ecumenical Councils ever officially rejected that book, ERGO it's just gotta be canonical, the Rule and norma normans, the inerrant verbally inspired inscripturated words of God?




See post 74


.

 

[sunshinemama91]

Can you show any that rejected "The Book of Mormon?" Does that mean that since none of the Seven Ecumenical Councils ever officially rejected that book, ERGO it's just gotta be canonical, the Rule and norma normans, the inerrant verbally inspired inscripturated words of God?




See post 74


.[/QUOTE]

I was going to say, plenty of councils take the Book of Mormon as scripture but that doesnt make it scripture. Even if its 4th century councils, that doesn't mean they were right. The churches were tainted before Paul had even finished writing the Epistles, hence the Epistles lol.

Sent from my SM-S506DL using Tapatalk

 

[Albion]

I was going to say, plenty of councils take the Book of Mormon as scripture but that doesnt make it scripture. Even if its 4th century councils, that doesn't mean they were right.

Excuse me, but.....what????????

 

[sunshinemama91]

Excuse me, but.....what????????

Plenty of councils take The Book of Mormon as scripture- that doesnt make it scripture.

Just because a council was from the 4th century, doesn't mean they are correct.


What doesn't make sense?