What is the main reason why the Apocrypha doesn’t belong in the Bible?

[Josiah]

A bit of history recorded in a book CAN help us understand something in the Bible. Scholars OFTEN use secular sources such as the Jewish historian Josephus and many others (even archeology).


Where I disagree with our friends here is that ERGO those secular history and archeology books MUST be the the inerrant, verbally-inspired, inscripturated words of God and THUS the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice equal to the Five Books of Moses and the Epistle to the Romans. They can be HELPFUL in understanding Scripture without being canon. Indeed, for 2000 years, probably the two most quoted, most used books to help us understand the Bible have been Josephus' "History of the Jews" and the "Didache". NEITHER of which has ever been regarded as the inerrant, verbally-inspired, inscripturated words of God and THUS the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice equal to the Five Books of Moses and the Epistle to the Romans. Have these two books been regarded as extremely helpful? Absolutely! Accurate? Yes! Canon? Nope.


MANY agree that there are LOTS of books (probably thousands) that are good to read, inspirational and informational, and that can help us better understand Scripture and that contain accurate history and sound theology... books often quoted and used by Christians.... but THAT per se does NOT in any way mandate that THEREFORE those books are the inerrant, verbally-inspired, inscripturated words of God and THUS the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice equal to the Five Books of Moses and the Epistle to the Romans. The whole apologetic is illogical and quite absurd, IMO.



.

There’s a difference with Maccabees though. Maccabees was declared to be scripture by multiple early church councils.

NONE of the Seven Ecumenical Councils ever declared ANYTHING to be canonical. Yes, 3 regional, non-authoritative synods (all just Western) said it was okay to include 1 and 2 Maccabees in the Lectionary but they never declared them to be "Scripture" or "canonical" - and it would matter if they had because none of them were authoritative or had any role outside of their limited jurisdiction (they were not ). Friend, not until the 15th century did ANY denomination say ANYTHING about what is or is not canonical - and the Council of Florence (the first) was not binding and so it had to be redone at the Council of Trent - but neither of those were Ecumenical, they were meetings of just one individual denomination (totally ignored by the several Orthodox churches)




My point was addressed to those claiming that because some book(s) might perhaps contain interesting and helpful information DOES NOT for that reason mean it MUST be the inerrant, verbally-inspired, inscripturated words of God Himself and therefore the canon/rule/norm or faith and practice equal to say the Five Books of Moses or the Epistle to the Romans. LOTS of books contain accurate and helpful information.

And my point was addressed to those claiming that because something was quoted by some Christian DOES NOT for that reason it MUST be the inerrant, verbally-inspired, inscripturated words of God Himself and therefore the canon/rule/norm or faith and practice equal to say the Five Books of Moses or the Epistle to the Romans. LOTS of things were quoted by Christians, some a LOT more than any book that anyone might consider to be DEUTEROcanonical (and therefore NOT canonical).

Maccabees was in every Christian’s Bible for the first 1500 years of Christianity until the Protestants took it out.

Curious if you can prove that, but so what? Was it there as CANONICAL or in some other way?


Protestants did not "take it out". 1) You must prove someone put it in (quote some Ecumenical Council) before you can argue someone took it out. 2) How did the Anglican Church take it out in the 39 Articles. It will suprise you to know it was IN the AV and is IN the 39 Articles, it also will surprise you to know it was IN Luther's translation. CALVIN removed it but Calvin does not equal Protestants. What the Anglican Church said was what nearly all Chrsitians said: it is IN the Bible (in the collection to be found in tomes) but NOT canonical, it's DEUTEROcanonical, it was not a matter of removing it from tomes but clarifying it's status in terms of rule/canon/norm. This had never been done before the 16th Century.

Josephus was not. Is that really an honest comparison that you’re making?

Josephus' book contains MUCH helpful information and is quoted a LOT. But no one considers it canonical. Just because a book contains helpful information and is quoted a lot does not mean it must be canonical; THAT was my point.

 

[Albion]

NONE of the Seven Ecumenical Councils ever declared ANYTHING to be canonical. Yes, 3 regional, non-authoritative synods (all just Western) said it was okay to include 1 and 2 Maccabees in the Lectionary but they never declared them to be "Scripture" or "canonical" - and it would matter if they had because none of them were authoritative or had any role outside of their limited jurisdiction....

Yes. The Apocrypha was included in the Bible by regional councils but only provisionally so. It was done simply because those books had been read and commented on by some early Church leaders.

If they had been included as canonical, inspired, writings, they could not have been removed by the Roman Catholic Church in the 1500s...but that is what she did. The only difference was that the Protestants removed all of the Apocrypha and the Catholic Church removed some of it.

In addition, the Lutheran and Anglican churches continued to use them, read them, and recommend them--but NOT as the inspired word of God. No doctrines can be based upon the contents of the Apocrypha, and none are.

 

[Josiah]

Yes. The Apocrypha was included in the Bible by regional councils but only provisionally so. It was done simply because those books had been read and commented on by some early Church leaders.

SOME books that SOME used were mentioned at 3 regional, western, non-authoritative meetings (all around 400 AD) and none of those councils said anything about anything be canonical, only what is permitted to be read. And NONE of those meetings mentioned ALL the books some now call "the LXX" and NONE of those meetings mentioned ALL the books now associted with the Dead Sea Scrolls and NONE of those meetings mentioned ALL the books and writings quoted and used by early Christians.



For any to REMOVE something, it just must be documented they were IN. That's the problem here! WHICH books? And can it be proven ALL Christians AUTHORITATIVELY understood a PRECISE list/number of books (no more! no less!) were the inerrant, verbally-inspired, inscripturated words of God and ERGO the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice equal to the Five Books of Moses and the Epistle to the Romans? OR do we simply find a VARIANT collection of books... NOT all necessarily regarded as canonical?

Sorry... Protestants don't like this reality..... nope, there was no Memo from God in 31 AD sent to all homo sapiens listing the titles of ALL and ONLY the books are the inerrant, verbally-inspired, inscripturated words of God and ERGO the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice equal to the Five Books of Moses and the Epistle to the Romans - ALL but ONLY those books. Nope. And truth is: there never has been ONE collection accepted everywhere by everyone (still isn't). And there is NO evidence whatsoever that all the books called "Scripture" were seen as equally canonical even if they were regarded as canonical. I realize this shocks some Protestants (and a few Catholics, too) but it's just history. Truth is: Christians early on had a SOLID consensus around 21 or so NEW TESTAMENT books (plus a dozen or so others, less embraced - some are now in our NT, some not) AND in additional, Christians USED and READ many, many other works for inspiration and information, the Didache and the writings of St. Ignatius and St. Augustine for example, but NOT regarded as canonical (but maybe DEUTERO canonical) And while 39 OT books were solidly embraced, there were at least two dozen others that were quoted and used and read, too, but it's impossible to know how each Christian viewed the status of those.


Rather than REJOICING in the REALITY of one of the earliest, most ecumenical, most solid matters of consensus in all Christianity - the embrace of 66 books as CANONICAL (the rule/norm for faith and practice) books we charish..... suddenly, in the 16th Century, for the first time ever, some Christians became obsessed by some two dozen OTHER books few read, no one much had cared about, none cared that not two denominations on the planet agreed about those, and not one doctrine or practice was based upon, they those to rip into eachother about THOSE. Amazing. I've seen Catholics get all into knots over books they'll admit they've never read and can only name a few.

The Lutheran and Anglican churches continued to use them, read them, and recommend them--but NOT as the inspired word of God. No doctrines can be based upon the contents of the Apocrypha, and none are.

Many Catholics, Orthodox and "Evangelical" Americans think that all Protestants are Calvinists. Actually, only a small percentage are. Lutherans and Anglicans together number nearly half of Protestants. CALVIN thought they should not be read... the Calvinist Confessions didn't list them in the Westminister Confession (that Confession also does not say to not read them!). If they have a 'beef' they don't seem to know with whom. Or that that man has been dead for really long time, Calvinists today are perfectly okay with someone reading Psalm 151. Heck, as a Lutheran, I don't even mind anyone reading The Epistle to the Laodiceans even if Luther didn't include it in his German translation. Book banning stopped a long time ago.

 

[Andrew]

Just because a book contains helpful information and is quoted a lot does not mean it must be canonical; THAT was my point.

Jesus and the Apostles quote the books outside the Torah a lot which were not considered "canon" especially to the high priesthood sects who "killed their prophets" and are still referred to by Orthodox Judaism today as merely "wisdom books, prophesies and other writings" outside the Torah that make up the Tanakh. The Jews who say they are Jews and are not but do lie are your average Talmudic Jews who study only the Torah and the Talmud, in between the two are the "wisdom books, prophesy and other writings" that Jews are not too concerned about..
So Jesus and his Apostles who were Jews quoted books that the Jews after them call "...other writings" yet we ourselves dropped out books that the Jews dropped out after 1500 years, even though they were part of our Bibles and even though they were regarded as "other writings" it did not make the original KJV of 1611 an unholy Bible.
My hunch is that protestants wanted to distinguish themselves from the RCC and in 1769 the KJV became a little lighter than before.. 1rst Century up to the time of the pilgrims Christians had these books in their bibles, now they are considered unreliable and questionable and you obviously discourage them seeing we can't even attempt exegesis on the shortest "Apocrypha" book without publicly denouncing it of having any value other than "it's a good book but not inspired"..
I'm sorry brother but I simply do not agree with you on this matter. I was raised Catholic but I am aware of the dogmas and traditions they added along the way that I don't agree with, I'm not a protestant either even though I agree with much of their theology I just do not protest against any body of believers. I only despise cults and false prophets like Mormanism or JW etc..

I have nothing against the 66 books of protestant canon nor do I have anything against the Eastern Orthodox canons..
both are not completely perfect in translations word for word, human error is unavoidable, the authority of God and "jist" of all things (GOSPEL) is impossible to refute, Paul summarises the Gospel in a just a few short sentences.

 

[atpollard]

• [Jos 8:31 NASB] 31 just as Moses the servant of the LORD had commanded the sons of Israel, as it is written in the book of the law of Moses, an altar of uncut stones on which no man had wielded an iron [tool;] and they offered burnt offerings on it to the LORD, and sacrificed peace offerings.
• [2Ki 23:21 NASB] 21 Then the king commanded all the people saying, "Celebrate the Passover to the LORD your God as it is written in this book of the covenant."
• [2Ch 23:18 NASB] 18 Moreover, Jehoiada placed the offices of the house of the LORD under the authority of the Levitical priests, whom David had assigned over the house of the LORD, to offer the burnt offerings of the LORD, as it is written in the law of Moses--with rejoicing and singing according to the order of David.
• [2Ch 25:4 NASB] 4 However, he did not put their children to death, but [did] as it is written in the law in the book of Moses, which the LORD commanded, saying, "Fathers shall not be put to death for sons, nor sons be put to death for fathers, but each shall be put to death for his own sin."
• [2Ch 31:3 NASB] 3 [He] also [appointed] the king's portion of his goods for the burnt offerings, [namely,] for the morning and evening burnt offerings, and the burnt offerings for the sabbaths and for the new moons and for the fixed festivals, as it is written in the law of the LORD.
• [2Ch 35:12 NASB] 12 Then they removed the burnt offerings that [they] might give them to the sections of the fathers' households of the lay people to present to the LORD, as it is written in the book of Moses. [They did] this also with the bulls.
• [Ezr 3:2, 4 NASB] 2 Then Jeshua the son of Jozadak and his brothers the priests, and Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel and his brothers arose and built the altar of the God of Israel to offer burnt offerings on it, as it is written in the law of Moses, the man of God. ... 4 They celebrated the Feast of Booths, as it is written, and [offered] the fixed number of burnt offerings daily, according to the ordinance, as each day required;
• [Ezr 6:18 NASB] 18 Then they appointed the priests to their divisions and the Levites in their orders for the service of God in Jerusalem, as it is written in the book of Moses.
• [Neh 8:15 NASB] 15 So they proclaimed and circulated a proclamation in all their cities and in Jerusalem, saying, "Go out to the hills, and bring olive branches and wild olive branches, myrtle branches, palm branches and branches of [other] leafy trees, to make booths, as it is written."
• [Neh 10:34, 36 NASB] 34 Likewise we cast lots for the supply of wood [among] the priests, the Levites and the people so that they might bring it to the house of our God, according to our fathers' households, at fixed times annually, to burn on the altar of the LORD our God, as it is written in the law; ... 36 and bring to the house of our God the firstborn of our sons and of our cattle, and the firstborn of our herds and our flocks as it is written in the law, for the priests who are ministering in the house of our God.
• [Dan 9:13 NASB] 13 "As it is written in the law of Moses, all this calamity has come on us; yet we have not sought the favor of the LORD our God by turning from our iniquity and giving attention to Your truth.

Throughout the Old Testament, God’s prophets identify a message quoted from an earlier “God breathed” Holy Scripture (most often the Law of Moses) with a distinctive phrase ... “IT IS WRITTEN”. The implication in each case is not that “some man has said and we think it might be a good idea” but rather the implication is that “Almighty God has commanded, the matter is settled and we shall obey”.

Jesus and the Apostles (those specifically chosen and sent by Jesus, unlike those that came along in the second and third and fourth century) also used this exact same phrase “IT IS WRITTEN” to identify when they were speaking an irrefutable truth already revealed by God as part of his God breathed Holy Scripture ...

[Mat 4:4, 7, 10 NASB] 4 But He answered and said, "It is written, 'MAN SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE, BUT ON EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDS OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD.'" ... 7 Jesus said to him, "On the other hand, it is written, 'YOU SHALL NOT PUT THE LORD YOUR GOD TO THE TEST.'" ... 10 Then Jesus said to him, "Go, Satan! For it is written, 'YOU SHALL WORSHIP THE LORD YOUR GOD, AND SERVE HIM ONLY.'"

• Deuteronomy 8:3
• Deuteronomy 6:16
• Deuteronomy 6:13

[Mat 11:10 NASB] 10 "This is the one about whom it is written, 'BEHOLD, I SEND MY MESSENGER AHEAD OF YOU, WHO WILL PREPARE YOUR WAY BEFORE YOU.'

• Malachi 3:1

[Mat 21:13 NASB] 13 And He said to them, "It is written, 'MY HOUSE SHALL BE CALLED A HOUSE OF PRAYER'; but you are making it a ROBBERS' DEN."

• Isaiah 56:7
• Jeremiah 7:11

[Mat 26:31 NASB] 31 Then Jesus said to them, "You will all fall away because of Me this night, for it is written, 'I WILL STRIKE DOWN THE SHEPHERD, AND THE SHEEP OF THE FLOCK SHALL BE SCATTERED.'

• Zechariah 13:7

[Mar 1:2 NASB] 2 As it is written in Isaiah the prophet: "BEHOLD, I SEND MY MESSENGER AHEAD OF YOU, WHO WILL PREPARE YOUR WAY;

• Malachi 3:1

[Mar 7:6 NASB] 6 And He said to them, "Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: 'THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME.

• Isaiah 29:13

[Mar 14:27 NASB] 27 And Jesus said to them, "You will all fall away, because it is written, 'I WILL STRIKE DOWN THE SHEPHERD, AND THE SHEEP SHALL BE SCATTERED.'

• Zechariah 13:7

[Luk 2:23 NASB] 23 (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, "EVERY [firstborn] MALE THAT OPENS THE WOMB SHALL BE CALLED HOLY TO THE LORD"),

• Exodus 13:2, 12, 15

[Luk 3:4 NASB] 4 as it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet, "THE VOICE OF ONE CRYING IN THE WILDERNESS, 'MAKE READY THE WAY OF THE LORD, MAKE HIS PATHS STRAIGHT.

• Isaiah 40:3–5

[Luk 4:4, 8 NASB] 4 And Jesus answered him, "It is written, 'MAN SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE.'" ... 8 Jesus answered him, "It is written, 'YOU SHALL WORSHIP THE LORD YOUR GOD AND SERVE HIM ONLY.'"

• Deuteronomy 8:3
• Deuteronomy 6:13

[Luk 7:27 NASB] 27 "This is the one about whom it is written, 'BEHOLD, I SEND MY MESSENGER AHEAD OF YOU, WHO WILL PREPARE YOUR WAY BEFORE YOU.'

• Malachi 3:1

[Luk 19:46 NASB] 46 saying to them, "It is written, 'AND MY HOUSE SHALL BE A HOUSE OF PRAYER,' but you have made it a ROBBERS' DEN."

• Isaiah 56:7
• Jeremiah 7:11

[Jhn 6:31, 45 NASB] 31 "Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, 'HE GAVE THEM BREAD OUT OF HEAVEN TO EAT.'" ... 45 "It is written in the prophets, 'AND THEY SHALL ALL BE TAUGHT OF GOD.' Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me.

• Exodus 16:4; Nehemiah 9:15; Psalm 78:24
• Isaiah 54:13

The Apostles and their companions (like Luke and Mark) continued to preface Holy Scripture with the phrase “IT IS WRITTEN” ...

[Act 1:20 NASB] 20 "For it is written in the book of Psalms, 'LET HIS HOMESTEAD BE MADE DESOLATE, AND LET NO ONE DWELL IN IT'; and, 'LET ANOTHER MAN TAKE HIS OFFICE.'

• Psalm 69:25

[Act 7:42 NASB] 42 "But God turned away and delivered them up to serve the host of heaven; as it is written in the book of the prophets, 'IT WAS NOT TO ME THAT YOU OFFERED VICTIMS AND SACRIFICES FORTY YEARS IN THE WILDERNESS, WAS IT, O HOUSE OF ISRAEL?

• Amos 5:25–27

[Act 23:5 NASB] 5 And Paul said, "I was not aware, brethren, that he was high priest; for it is written, 'YOU SHALL NOT SPEAK EVIL OF A RULER OF YOUR PEOPLE.'"

• Exodus 22:28

[Rom 1:17 NASB] 17 For in it [the] righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, "BUT THE RIGHTEOUS [man] SHALL LIVE BY FAITH."

• Habakkuk 2:4

[Rom 2:24 NASB] 24 For "THE NAME OF GOD IS BLASPHEMED AMONG THE GENTILES BECAUSE OF YOU," just as it is written.

• Isaiah 52:5; Ezekiel 36:22

[Rom 3:4, 10 NASB] 4 May it never be! Rather, let God be found true, though every man [be found] a liar, as it is written, "THAT YOU MAY BE JUSTIFIED IN YOUR WORDS, AND PREVAIL WHEN YOU ARE JUDGED." ... 10 as it is written, "THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE;

• Psalm 51:4
• Psalms 14:1–3; 53:1–3; Ecclesiastes 7:20

[Rom 4:17 NASB] 17 (as it is written, "A FATHER OF MANY NATIONS HAVE I MADE YOU") in the presence of Him whom he believed, [even] God, who gives life to the dead and calls into being that which does not exist.

• Genesis 17:5

[Rom 8:36 NASB] 36 Just as it is written, "FOR YOUR SAKE WE ARE BEING PUT TO DEATH ALL DAY LONG; WE WERE CONSIDERED AS SHEEP TO BE SLAUGHTERED."

• Psalm 44:22

I could go on, but this is enough to make the point that NONE of the “IT IS WRITTEN” quotes by Jesus or his chosen Apostles come from any books outside of the 66 recognized as Inspired Holy Scripture.

 

[atpollard]

I acknowledge that the “Early Church Fathers” did, in fact, quote from sources other than the 66 books of “Inspired Holy Scripture” in their letters.
My question is a simple one:

Did any Early Church Father identify any quote from any book outside of the 66 directly as “scripture” or with the Apostolic phrase “IT IS WRITTEN” to suggest that they viewed those books as authoritative rather than merely informative aids?


For an example ...

[2 Peter 3:14-16 NASB] 14 Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless, 15 and regard the patience of our Lord [as] salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, 16 as also in all [his] letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as [they do] also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

... the Apostle Peter identifies the letters of the Apostle Paul as “scripture” and includes them as equal to “the rest of the Scriptures” (which would be the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament).

 

[atpollard]

[Luk 11:45-52 NASB] 45 One of the lawyers said to Him in reply, "Teacher, when You say this, You insult us too." 46 But He said, "Woe to you lawyers as well! For you weigh men down with burdens hard to bear, while you yourselves will not even touch the burdens with one of your fingers. 47 "Woe to you! For you build the tombs of the prophets, and [it was] your fathers [who] killed them. 48 "So you are witnesses and approve the deeds of your fathers; because it was they who killed them, and you build [their tombs.] 49 "For this reason also the wisdom of God said, 'I will send to them prophets and apostles, and [some] of them they will kill and [some] they will persecute, 50 so that the blood of all the prophets, shed since the foundation of the world, may be charged against this generation, 51 from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the house [of God;] yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation.' 52 "Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge; you yourselves did not enter, and you hindered those who were entering."

The God breathed and inspired scripture of the OLD TESTAMENT was imparted by God, inspired by the Holy Spirit and recorded by the Prophets of God. Jesus Christ (God incarnate) defined the prophets of God ending with Zechariah who was killed at the Temple at the end of 2 Chronicles. That excludes Maccabees as being the writings of a Prophet of God ... which means that they cannot be God breathed. Otherwise, why would Christ not have included the guilt of the Maccabean blood against the “lawyers”?

Some view it as no accident that Able was killed in the beginning of Genesis (the first book of the first part of Jewish Scripture ... the Torah or Law) and Zechariah was killed in end of Chronicles (the last book in the third part of Jewish Scripture ... Law, Prophets and ... the Histories or Writings). Thus Jesus was telling the Pharisees, Scribes and Lawyers that all of Holy Scripture, from the first book (Genesis) to the last book (Chronicles) and everything in between would proclaim their guilt on judgement day ... because all of Holy Scripture (Genesis to Chronicles) points to Jesus (whom they rejected).

This is one reason to view anything written after the last Prophet (especially books that show no evidence of having been written in Hebrew) with caution [by that, I simply mean NOT as “God breathed Holy Scripture”].

 

[Andrew]

I wrote this because I thought this was the Manasseh thread, Tapatalk leaves much to the imagination
--------
"Now the rest of the acts of Manasseh, and his prayer unto his God, and the words of the seers that spake to him in the name of the*Lord*God of Israel, behold, they are written in the book of the kings of Israel"
2nd Chronicles 33:18 KJV

"Now the rest of the acts of Manasseh, and all that he did, and his sin that he sinned, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?"
2 Kings 21:17 KJV

"And the rest of the acts of Manasses, and his prayer to God, and the words of the seers that spoke to him in the name of the God of Israel,*behold,*they are*in the account of his prayer; and*God hearkened to him"
2nd Chronicles 33:18 LXX

"And the rest of the acts of Manasses, and all that he did, and his sin which he sinned,*are*not these things written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Juda?"
2 Kings 21:17 LXX

------

The Greek Septuagint in 2nd Chronicles 33:18 points to The Prayer of Manasseh, which is found in the Greek Septuagint... The Masoretic points to the book of Kings.. 2nd Kings in the Masoretic (KJV) points to the Chronicles of Kings of Judah but the Septuagint 2nd Kings does not mention any prayer recorded at all nor does 2nd Kings in the KJV, only in 2nd Chronicles in the Septuagint does it mention the prayer is recorded in the prayer of Manasseh... The Masoretic leaves us without the source of it's reference completely

-----

Are the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel referring to itself in Chronicles and Kings?
Or does it refer to the Prayer of Manasseh from the Septuagint (1rst Century Christian bible) as stated in the Septuagint?

I 100% see your point atpollard, I'm extremely impressed and am left in awe after reading your last few posts that exchange proper concordance between the OT and NT with "as it is written" and quoting the martyrdom of prophets from Jesus.

However do not understand why the inspired God breathed scripture would point to a recorded document as reference if it wasn't relevant at all? The prayer is neither quoted in Chronicles or Kings as implied, I would suppose that "the chronicles of the kings of Judah" would be recorded in the Bible and that likewise the Bible would record all of the kings of Judah in Kings and Chronicles, if not then where can I find this prayer the bible references? In the Septuagint it points to the Prayer itself through 2nd Chronicles and is indexed appropriately in the Greek as if that's exactly where God said it would be "it is written" and then cites a BOOK which you have given MULTIPLE examples of in your previous posts!
In fact the majority of apocrypha books are just deleted parts of the books you mentioned, they are parts of the same books that contain the concordance between the OT and NT.

If not then what's afoot? Where did these stories come from? The Greek Hellenist? The RCC? I highly doubt the 1rst Century church Fathers and their churches created these corruptions...

It's either inspired or secular, if secular then I suppose our early martyrs were secularist, if inspired then I assume they weren't lying when they preached exegesis on these books for the first 3 centuries.

I'll maintain an open mind as usual, we can listen with open ears if you still wish to continue, I really like your concordance references!
Before I end my post I want to ask you a simple quick question.. How many souls were in Jacobs household? 70 or 75?

 

[Josiah]

I wrote this because I thought this was the Manasseh thread, Tapatalk leaves much to the imagination
--------
"Now the rest of the acts of Manasseh, and his prayer unto his God, and the words of the seers that spake to him in the name of the*Lord*God of Israel, behold, they are written in the book of the kings of Israel"
2nd Chronicles 33:18 KJV

"Now the rest of the acts of Manasseh, and all that he did, and his sin that he sinned, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?"
2 Kings 21:17 KJV

"And the rest of the acts of Manasses, and his prayer to God, and the words of the seers that spoke to him in the name of the God of Israel,*behold,*they are*in the account of his prayer; and*God hearkened to him"
2nd Chronicles 33:18 LXX

"And the rest of the acts of Manasses, and all that he did, and his sin which he sinned,*are*not these things written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Juda?"
2 Kings 21:17 LXX

1. Why quote from a Greek translation, translated into English?????


2. Where do any of these indicate that a book we NOW have with the title WE gave it of "The Prayer of Manasseh" is the inerrant, verbally-inspired, inscripturated words of God and ERGO the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice equal in that use to the Five Books of Moses or the Epistle to the Romans? Let's say a book mentions the attack on Pearl Harbor in World War II.... which did happen... is that book ergo is the inerrant, verbally-inspired, inscripturated words of God and ERGO the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice equal in that use to the Five Books of Moses or the Epistle to the Romans? Me thinks you are making gigantic, unfounded leaps.

The Greek Septuagint in 2nd Chronicles 33:18 points to The Prayer of Manasseh, which is found in the Greek Septuagint

1. What indicates that this particular translation of 2 Chronicles 33:18 is mentioning not a prayer but a specific book with that title?

2. Where does 2 Chronicles 33:18 states that another book is the inerrant, verbally-inspired, inscripturated words of God and ERGO the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice equal in that use to the Five Books of Moses or the Epistle to the Romans?

only in 2nd Chronicles in the Septuagint does it mention the prayer is recorded in the prayer of Manasseh... The Masoretic leaves us without the source of it's reference completely

2 Chronicles 33:18 mentions a prayer.... it doesn't mention any book. Nor does it indicate that some book is the inerrant, verbally-inspired, inscripturated words of God and ERGO the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice equal in that use to the Five Books of Moses or the Epistle to the Romans. All should read the verse.

1rst Century Christian bible) as stated in the Septuagint

There was no "BIBLE" for Christians in the First Century (there was for JEWS after 90 AD). Yes, Christians often quoted verses in Greek because they wrote in Greek and didn't know Hebrew, but that doesn't mean their "BIBLE" was a Greek translation anymore than my quoting from the ESV proves my Bible is the ESV. Early Christians couldn't read Hebrew (just as we typically can't) so they used a translation - a readily available one. Ain't that complication. But they were ALSO using a lot of other books - including 1 and 2 Clement, the Revelation of St. Peter, the Didache and many others (all also in Greek). Today, many American Evangelicals use video clips of TV shows and popular movies - often very central to their sermons - whole sermon series are done on some book - doesn't mean ERGO their Bible is some movie. I think you are making some unfounded leaps.

do not understand why the inspired God breathed scripture would point to a recorded document

Friend, 2 Chronicles 33:18 doesn't mention a book, it mentions a prayer.


Friend, Scripture DOES mention books not in our canon. The Book of Jasher is just one example referenced several times, and note that is called a "BOOK" and is mentioned several times (not just once) if memory serves me.



Blessings...


Josiah





.

 

[Andrew]

1. Why quote from a Greek translation, translated into English?????


2. Where do any of these indicate that a book we NOW have with the title WE gave it of "The Prayer of Manasseh" is the inerrant, verbally-inspired, inscripturated words of God and ERGO the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice equal in that use to the Five Books of Moses or the Epistle to the Romans? Let's say a book mentions the attack on Pearl Harbor in World War II.... which did happen... is that book ergo is the inerrant, verbally-inspired, inscripturated words of God and ERGO the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice equal in that use to the Five Books of Moses or the Epistle to the Romans? Me thinks you are making gigantic, unfounded leaps.






1. What indicates that this particular translation of 2 Chronicles 33:18 is mentioning not a prayer but a specific book with that title?

2. Where does 2 Chronicles 33:18 states that another book is the inerrant, verbally-inspired, inscripturated words of God and ERGO the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice equal in that use to the Five Books of Moses or the Epistle to the Romans?






2 Chronicles 33:18 mentions a prayer.... it doesn't mention any book. Nor does it indicate that some book is the inerrant, verbally-inspired, inscripturated words of God and ERGO the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice equal in that use to the Five Books of Moses or the Epistle to the Romans. All should read the verse.






There was no "BIBLE" for Christians in the First Century (there was for JEWS after 90 AD). Yes, Christians often quoted verses in Greek because they wrote in Greek and didn't know Hebrew, but that doesn't mean their "BIBLE" was a Greek translation anymore than my quoting from the ESV proves my Bible is the ESV. Early Christians couldn't read Hebrew (just as we typically can't) so they used a translation - a readily available one. Ain't that complication. But they were ALSO using a lot of other books - including 1 and 2 Clement, the Revelation of St. Peter, the Didache and many others (all also in Greek). Today, many American Evangelicals use video clips of TV shows and popular movies - often very central to their sermons - whole sermon series are done on some book - doesn't mean ERGO their Bible is some movie. I think you are making some unfounded leaps.







Friend, 2 Chronicles 33:18 doesn't mention a book, it mentions a prayer.


Friend, Scripture DOES mention books not in our canon. The Book of Jasher is just one example referenced several times, and note that is called a "BOOK" and is mentioned several times (not just once) if memory serves me.



Blessings...


Josiah





.

There indeed was an OT bible for Christians to use, "Ta Biblia" (The books) were quoted by Jesus and the Apostles, the Septuagint was available in the synagogues for greek speaking Jews and Hellenist, Greek gentiles in general had access to these books, Christians were well learned in the books of the OT... Anti Christian Jews in 90 AD mean diddly squat, you know what else they didn't include in their canon? the NT, and they still haven't, and never will, ever.. so 90AD Jewish canon does not mean that God's Words didn't exist until the canon.. same goes for Christian OT canon, GOD Almighty had already given the gentile nations the books of the OT by the time Jesus came on the scene.

and yes the Septuagint 2nd Chronicles says that the prayer is accounted in 'his' (Manasseh) prayer, which is in the Septuagint simply called "Prayer of Manasseh", the KJV says it's in the Chronicles of Kings, and if Chronicles and Kings in the OT accounts for ALL of the kings of Judah, then where can I find it?
I guess some 1rst Century Christian made it up, unless it was a Hebrew who translated it into greek 2nd century BC, and because that original Hebrew text is lost, and the Jews later rejected it, the prayer of Manasseh is dated to it's only known source.. The Greek Septuagint 2nd Century BC

Also whenever the Hebrew copied another Hebrew source, the original Hebrew before it was purposely destroyed, this was custom for the Scribes to do... So when the AD era Hebrew was arranged they purposely destroyed the original, this new copy differed and was translated into greek by Aquila of Sinope who was a Christian but converted to Judaism, his greek translation replaced the Septuagint by the 2nd century AD, Christians however kept the original Septuagint and that's where we find all of these "uninspired" books..
Did not God equip the Christians with the OT in their tongue via the greek septuagint?

 

[Andrew]

[/B]
Who here has told anyone not to read it?

Oh yeah read it until you're blue in the face, read it along with the "History of WW2", read along with "Silent Night".. the apocrypha however is not so handy these days so for those who have to search around for a hard copy have to seek outside the Bible and God forbid we do any exegesis or preaching from these books like our early Christians fathers did.
I have mentioned already that I don't mind the title "Apocrypha" for simplicity sake, but I don't see how a HOLY BIBLE for example 1611 KJV was not completely Holy at all because it contained the Apocrypha section.. protestants discourage it, and they got their way by influencing publishers to not include them in modern bible versions including the KJV by 1769.
The popular protestant view is that the books go against doctrine and I'm more than happy to discuss exegesis and "difficult" passages with them, but it's not really worth it for them, who wants to discuss Daniels prophesy or the proper interpretation of 2nd Maccabees, the Prayer of Manasseh that according to Chronicles modern KJV was recorded in the Book of Kingsl but according to the LXX was recorded in the account of his prayer "The Prayer of Manasseh".. Why did Jesus go around speaking of demons without being questioned? It's not in the OT, but it's in Tobit, what's the feast of dedication that he celebrated? Certainly has nothing to do with Gods divine guidance to restore the second temple.
It's all just secular history and inspired Christmas songs according to Josiah.
I'm not mad or upset at Josiah I just find it a bit radical to do away with 1500 something years of biblical Christian tradition in "protest".
I can't even discuss "Apocrypha" as a non Catholic/EOC and non protestant, non bias Christian without a constant flow of refutation and emasculating overtones.
As I said before "if it was good enough for early Christians then it's good enough for me".. I believe Clements letter to Rome when he mentions Judith along side Esther was genuine, apparently the Corinthians understood who "the blessed" Judith was, this was the same church Paul preached and was the largest Christian assembly in Paul's time just decades before Clement wrote his letters.
Just because some "vicars" created strange dogmas doesn't mean we should discredit the early ante Nicene church leaders when they preached from books that was later deemed "non canon" due to some monk (Jerome) who didn't find them in the post Christian Hebrew text.
I'd rather take the words of our early Church fathers than of anti Christian Hebrews with a post Christ Hebrew revision.

 

[Josiah]

There indeed was an OT bible for Christians to use

Andrew,

This is factually false.

The Jews had MANY, MANY books that SOME Jews used for SOME things in SOME ways. There was NO authoritative decision by any Jew or Jewish organization (with authority or not) on what is the Jewish Bible, what is or is not Scripture, until 90 AD. That was the FIRST TIME in all Jewish history, going back perhaps thousand of years, when that happened. Yes, they accepted the Two Tablets in the Temple by consensus, yes they accepted the Five Books of Moses by consensus... but NOTHING BEYOND that was accepted by all Jews everywhere as the inerrant, verbally-inspired, inscripturated words of God and ergo the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice. Only after 90 AD was there a Jewish Bible, a tome containing all the canon (and ONLY the canon). There was no such thing when Jesus walked the earth or when the NT was written. Not until 90 AD.


Christians, from 33-400 or so AD, used LOTS of books. Hundreds of them. Some of them are now in our NT, many are not. For 300 years, there was NOT ONE statement by ANY Christian church, denomination, council or organization on this subject. Not one. Not ever. We see a growing POPULAR CONSENSUS and by 400, this was around 25-28 books. There were 3 regional, WESTERN, non-ecumenical, non-authoritative meetings about the Lectionary (what books to read from in the Sunday Readings) but none of these addressed the issue of what is and is not the inerrant, verbally-inspired, inscripturated words of God and therefore the canon/rule/norm - just what is useful, helpful, approprate to read during the lessons of the Mass.

Not until the Council of Florance (a non-authoritative meeting of just one single Western denomination) in the 15th Century did ANY church or denomination or Christian organization take up the subject of what is and is not canonical Scripture. But since it was not authoritative (and no one paid any attention to it), the decison had to be repeated at the Council of Trent in the 16th Century. But this cannot be "The Bible of Christians" since it's ONLY the Bible of one single denomination (the RCC) not one other accepts it. Calvinists and Anglicans and Mormons did the same thing in time but none of these can be regarded as "The Christian Bible" because the majority of Christians don't accept their decisions.

I just find it a bit radical to do away with 1500 something years of biblical Christian tradition in "protest".

For 1500 years of Christianity, there was no official canon.


You seem to assume that because some sentence of a book is quoted ERGO the ENTIRE COLLECTION OF BOOKS in that translation must be viewed as the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and therefore the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice. If I quote a sentence from Ronald Reagan from a history book, there therefore I regard everything in that book to be true and equal in status and use.... and because I quote from Roman philosopher in English doesn't mean I only accept him if he is quoted in English.

And you seem to be ignoring that including books in tomes means all the material in that tome MUST be regarded and used equally and identically. It's a huge assumption on your part. Indeed, we know Christians tended to regard the NT as more authoritative than the OT (subjecting the Old to the New, using types from the New to the Old), we know they regard some NT books as more authoritative/canonical than others. In the East, they've accepted the Book of Revelation of St. John and include it in their tomes (and certainly in their liturgies) but for nearly all history, would not use it canonically but in use it was deuterocanonical. In my tome (with "HOLY BIBLE" on the cover), there are maps and notes and a concordance and more - doesn't mean all is meant to be used IDENTICALLY or accepted IDENTICALLY. You seem to be making some really huge (and unhistorical) assumptions and leaps, IMO.

I can't even discuss "Apocrypha" as a non Catholic/EOC and non protestant, non bias Christian without a constant flow of refutation and emasculating overtones.

Since you call them "Apocrypha" then you are AGREEING they are not Scripture, not canon, not the rule/norma normans for theology. You are claiming these are books that are useful for information and inspiration but NOT for the formation or norming of doctrine.


Where, friend, have I EVER REMOTELY said one bad word about ANY book?


Again, I ask, name one denomination (out of tens of thousands) that bans you or anyone from reading any book?


Lutherans and Anglicans together make up about half of Protestants. BOTH Martin Luther and The Anglican Church indicate that SOME "set" of SOME books (Luther counted 8, the Anglican Church 14) and SPECIFICALLY STATE their unique "set" are good to read, useful to read.... Luther quoted from them a lot (as he did the Church Fathers and Church Council).... Luther preached sermons on them.... they are quoted in the Lutheran Confessions.... Luther included his set of 8 in his translation and these continued as long as Lutherans used his translation (into the 1900's). And of course, Catholic and Orthodox do, too (although they allo disagree with each other on which books). So, tell me.... how is this a "constant flow of refutation and emasculating overtones?" Maybe you are just associating with the wrong people, lol. Join a conservative Lutheran or Anglican Church.


Again, in my Catholic days, the ONLY TIME some of these books were mentioned was to say that Luther refused to put them in his German translation (I was 10 when I found out this is a flat out lie....). They appear in the lectionary but I never heard one sermon or Bible study from any of them. You'll find some Catholics defend them - but ask them to list them! Ask them to tell you what one of them is about? Ah... truth is, they are IGNORED. They aren't used there. Hardly at all. It was not until I became a Lutheran that I was asked to read "them" (Luther's set of 8, not Trent's set of 7) and that there was offered an extensive study of them. Not that Lutherans regard them as canonical (as the RCC has for about 450 years) but it seems we don't ignore them as Catholics do (in my experience). INDEED, in that study, half of us were former Catholics and ALL OF US commented we had never studied them or even really heard of them while we were Catholics.







.

 

[Andrew]

[MENTION=389]Albion[/MENTION] I apologise for the tone of the first line in post 191

 

[NathanH83]

NONE of the Seven Ecumenical Councils ever declared ANYTHING to be canonical. Yes, 3 regional, non-authoritative synods (all just Western) said it was okay to include 1 and 2 Maccabees in the Lectionary but they never declared them to be "Scripture" or "canonical" - and it would matter if they had because none of them were authoritative or had any role outside of their limited jurisdiction (they were not ). Friend, not until the 15th century did ANY denomination say ANYTHING about what is or is not canonical - and the Council of Florence (the first) was not binding and so it had to be redone at the Council of Trent - but neither of those were Ecumenical, they were meetings of just one individual denomination (totally ignored by the several Orthodox churches)




My point was addressed to those claiming that because some book(s) might perhaps contain interesting and helpful information DOES NOT for that reason mean it MUST be the inerrant, verbally-inspired, inscripturated words of God Himself and therefore the canon/rule/norm or faith and practice equal to say the Five Books of Moses or the Epistle to the Romans. LOTS of books contain accurate and helpful information.

And my point was addressed to those claiming that because something was quoted by some Christian DOES NOT for that reason it MUST be the inerrant, verbally-inspired, inscripturated words of God Himself and therefore the canon/rule/norm or faith and practice equal to say the Five Books of Moses or the Epistle to the Romans. LOTS of things were quoted by Christians, some a LOT more than any book that anyone might consider to be DEUTEROcanonical (and therefore NOT canonical).






Curious if you can prove that, but so what? Was it there as CANONICAL or in some other way?


Protestants did not "take it out". 1) You must prove someone put it in (quote some Ecumenical Council) before you can argue someone took it out. 2) How did the Anglican Church take it out in the 39 Articles. It will suprise you to know it was IN the AV and is IN the 39 Articles, it also will surprise you to know it was IN Luther's translation. CALVIN removed it but Calvin does not equal Protestants. What the Anglican Church said was what nearly all Chrsitians said: it is IN the Bible (in the collection to be found in tomes) but NOT canonical, it's DEUTEROcanonical, it was not a matter of removing it from tomes but clarifying it's status in terms of rule/canon/norm. This had never been done before the 16th Century.







Josephus' book contains MUCH helpful information and is quoted a LOT. But no one considers it canonical. Just because a book contains helpful information and is quoted a lot does not mean it must be canonical; THAT was my point.

The point I was making is that you can’t treat Josephus the same as Maccabees. The councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage declared them to be holy scripture in the late 300’s.
Yes, they were local.
No, they weren’t ecumenical (worldwide).
Authoritative? Well, they were authoritative locally.

Ever heard of the principle of 2 or 3 witnesses?

These councils give us an idea of what books the early church accepted as canonical scripture. So, since many early churches accepted the books of Maccabees as scripture, you can’t compare that to Josephus. That’s ridiculous.

Have you never read any of the writings of the church fathers? Apparently not, because the vast majority of them mentioned the Greek Septuagint, and said that this was the only version accepted by the church.

Well, news flash, every single ancient copy of the Septuagint ever found contain the apocryphal books.

And even when Jerome departed from the Septuagint and followed the Hebrew, he was still required to include the books he considered apocryphal. And those books were in his vulgate for the next 1,000 years.

So, yes, those books were on everyone’s Bible for the first 1500 years of Christianity. And yes, Protestants were the first ones to take them out. Jerome wanted to take them out in 400 AD, and was not allowed.

So, back to my point, we can’t understand the prophecies in Daniel 8 and 11 without understanding the history of the Maccabees.

It boggles my mind why anyone would want to hinder fellow believers from understanding biblical prophecy.

 

[Andrew]

Since you call them "Apocrypha" then you are AGREEING they are not Scripture, not canon, not the rule/norma normans for theology. You are claiming these are books that are useful for information and inspiration but NOT for the formation or norming of doctrine.

.

I have stated over and over again that I only use the word "Apocrypha" (in quotations) for the sake of simplicity, I do not consider them to be any more or any less inspired than the rest of the OT books

 

[Josiah]

The point I was making is that you can’t treat Josephus the same as Maccabees. The councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage declared them to be holy scripture in the late 300’s.

No. Those regional, western, non-authoritive meetings did not declare anything to be the inerrant, verbally-inspired, inscripturated words of God and ergo the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice equal to say cthe Epistle to the Romans. They indicated some books that could be read from in the lectionary of a few Christian churches.... it declared nothing, it labeled nothing... and only a few churches were in any way impacted by them. And not even those few Western parishes did (for example, for over 1000 years, those same western parishes included the Epistle to the Leodiceans in their NT tomes).


First Maccabees is only one of MANY, MANY books that the Jews used, and only one of perhaps two dozen books some times called "DEUTEROcanoncal" (and thus NOT canonical). And they also quoted from 1 and 2 Clement and many other books that some considered Scripture but today isn't in anyone's biblical tome.

Yes, they were local. No, they weren’t ecumenical

Correct.

Have you never read any of the writings of the church fathers?

I have. They were quoted a LOT. Probably a LOT more than Odes or Psalm 151. Christians quoted and used a LOT of writings. A LOT. And very few of those are found in the post-Trent, post-16th Century RCC Bible. But they didn't always quote stuff as the inerrant, verbally-inspired, inscripturated words of God and ergo the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice equal to the Five Books of Moses or the Epistle to the Romans.

Ever been to a church were the pastor shows a video clip of some TV show or movie? Ever read a book that quotes from some professor or author or historican or theologian? Christians have ALWAYS quoted stuff.... ALWAYS used stuff. Doesn't mean ERGO everything on TV MUST be the inerrant, verbally-inspired, inscripturated words of God and ergo the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice in the same way and extent as the Five Books of Moses or the Epistle to the Romans.

the vast majority of them mentioned the Greek Septuagint

Quote for me one Christian before 311 AD who wrote the words "Greek Septuagint."


No, they USED that translation... but that doesn't even every book that ever was translated into Greek or has been found among such books ERGO is the inerrant, verbally-inspired, inscripturated words of God and ergo the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice. Here at CH, most quote Scripture in ENGLISH from an ENGLISH translation. Why? Because most of us speak English and are writing in English to folks who read English. Why did Jews and early Christians quote things using Greek? Because Hebrew had been a "dead language" for 5 centuries... they all spoke and wrote and read GREEK. It's no more complicated than that.

Let's say you quote a verse originally written in Greek but you use the KJV in ENGLISH because you are writing in English. Does that mean that you THEREFORE accept that there are 66 canonical books and exactly 14 non-canonical books because that's exactly what the KJV indicaes? No, it means you are quoting a verse in English.... using a common English translation.... because you don't know Greek and neither do your readers. It ain't rocket science. You are trying to make a point out of nothing.

Well, news flash, every single ancient copy of the Septuagint ever found contain the apocryphal books.

.... and other things, too. And does the RCC have the book of Odes in it? Nope. Does the Anglican Church? Nope. Does the Russian Orthodox Church? Nope. So obviously, your idea that if a book appears in Greek it MUST ergo the the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and ergo the canon/rule/norm is a view no church, denomination or Christian has accepted.

he include the books he considered apocryphal. And those books were in his vulgate for the next 1,000 years.

.... Jerome included SOME books found in the LXX, not all.

... Jerome including SOME but as DEUTEROcanonical, not, not, NOT as canonical.

So did Luther. So did the Anglican Church.

So, yes, those books...

List "those" books. Every book or additions or alternate versions of books translated or written in Greek as used by some Jews for something? Every book found in the Dead Sea Scrolls? Every book ever quoted by any Christian? Jerone's unique set? Luthers? The RCC's at Trent? The Anglican Churches?


And AS WHAT? As canonical or as DEUTEROcanonical or simply as useful?

And yes, Protestants were the first ones to take them out. Jerome wanted to take them out in 400 AD, and was not allowed.

Jerome took a LOT of books out.

NEVER, EVER has the West and the East had the same biblcial tome (and still don't). And there is ZERO evidence that ANY Christian, church or denomination for over 1500 years considered every book found in a tome, or every reading in their current lectionary to be EQUAL in status or use, in fact the evidence is the opposite.


WHICH books? WHICH Bible? The ONLY set accepted by more than one denomination is Calvin's set established by the Westminster Confession in the 16th Century, the one with 66 books in it all EQUAL. But there are DOZENS of other "sets" (all of which accept SOME unique - UNIQUE - set of books beyond the 66 but not necessarily equal to the 66, not necessarily as canonical.
So, back to my point, we can’t understand the prophecies in Daniel 8 and 11 without understanding the history of the Maccabees.

It boggles my mind why anyone would want to hinder fellow believers from understanding

Quote for me every denomination (there are tens of thousands) that tell people they are not to read anything other than the 66 books in Calvin's approved set of canonical books. Just list those than ban all other books.... or even that officially ban anyone from reading anything. Official book banding ended centuries ago, my friend.

Luther and the Anglican Church both ENCOURAGE people to read their own unique set of DEUTEROcanonical books. They ENCOURAGE it. Readings from such are at times INCLUDED in the Lectionary. They are QUOTED in the Lutheran Confessions. Luther used some as sermon texts. Together, Lutheran and Anglian represent about half of all Protestants. PRAY TELL, how is ENCOURAGING people to read "them" forbidding them to do so?






.

 

[NathanH83]

How is it that the early church has the authority to decide the New Testament, but no authority to decide the Old Testament?

 

[NathanH83]

“Where they burn books, so too will they in the end burn human beings.”
-Heinrich Heine, 1821

 

[Josiah]

How is it that the early church has the authority to decide the New Testament, but no authority to decide the Old Testament?

It doesn't. And it didn't.

 

[NathanH83]

It doesn't. And it didn't.

The early church didn’t decide the New Testament?