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

[Josiah]

The early church didn’t decide the New Testament?

Nope, although this topic is not the NT. It's books you call "Apocrypha"

Read post 196

 

[NathanH83]

Nope, although this topic is not the NT. It's books you call "Apocrypha"

Read post 196

Who decided the New Testament?

 

[NathanH83]

Nope, although this topic is not the NT. It's books you call "Apocrypha"

Read post 196

Someone had to decide which books belong in the New Testament. Who was it? The church? The Jews? You? Fox News?

Who made the decision which books belong in the New Testament? Tell us, if you think you’re so smart.

 

[Josiah]

Someone had to decide which books belong in the New Testament. Who was it?

No one did. If you insist "SOMEONE" did, post his/her name for us. Post the date on which he/she did. Show that every Christian thereafter accepted that what this man or woman said/did was/is universally, officially and AUTHORITATIVELY accepted. Then answer why for over 1000 years, many NT had in them The Epistle to the Leodiceans and why until the 17th Century, many accepted that some NT books were more canonical than others ("spoken in favor" "spoken against")?

And WHAT pray tell does this have to do with that you call APOCRYPHA (books NOT canonical), what does this have to do with whether Ezra should be in a tome all to itself or in some tome with others? Why the attempt to change the subject?




.

 

[Josiah]

To the thread...


The RCC itself now believes SOME of the Deuterocanonical books belong because it itself said so - unofficially at Florence in the 15th Century and officially at Trent in the 16th. No other denomination agrees with its unique embrace and unique Bible, nor with its stance that they belong cuz it itself says so.

The EOC also now accepts SOME of the Deuterocanonical books (but not the same set as the RCC now does) but it's not officially but rather it's tradition.

The OOC churches also now accept SOME of the Deuterocanonical books but not the same set as the EOC or RCC (in fact, not even the same as each other) but it's not official but a matter of its tradition.

The Anglican Church also accepts SOME of the Deuterocanonical books. More than the RCC, more than the EOC... less than SOME OOC churches.... it has its own unique set and thus it's own unique Bible. It is officially and authoritatively stated in The Thirty-Nine Articles (all such books are listed there by name). Officially/Authoritatively since the late 16th Century. But none of the Deuterocanonical books are accepted as canonical but as Deuterocanonical (secondary, under) - as important to read and of great value but not as canon for doctrine.

The Lutheran Church has no stance on the Deuterocanonical books at all. The Lutheran Confessions state NOTHING on this issue. Luther personally chose to include the UNIQUE set of SOME used in Germany in his day (different that the RCC "set" at Trent, different than the EOC's set or OOC's set or the Anglican set, but the ones found in the Bibles in Germany in the 15th and 16th Century), they are IN his personal German translation, but he expressed his personal view that these Deuterocanonical books are DEUTERO and not fully canonical, the same view later dogmatized by the Anglicans but never by Lutherans.

Calvin personally rejected all of them, this was made official, authoritative dogma for that single demonination in the Westminster Confession and so and they were not included in most Reformed Bibles. Since Reformed Protestantism dominated in the USA, most Protestant Bibles sold in the USA did not have any set of Deutero books in them.




,

 

[NathanH83]

No one did. If you think someone did, post his/her name for us. Post the date on which he/she did. Show that every Christian thereafter accepted that what this man or woman said/did was/is universally, officially and AUTHORITATIVELY accepted. Then answer why for over 1000 years, many NT had in them The Epistle to the Leodiceans and why until the 17th Century, many accepted that some NT books were more canonical than others ("spoken in favor" "spoken against")?

And WHAT pray tell does this have to do with that you call APOCRYPHA (books NOT canonical), what does this have to do with whether Ezra should be in a tome all to itself or in some tome with others? Why the attempt to change the subject?




.

You say that the books called Apocrypha (Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, etc.) are not canonical. But multiple early church councils declared that they are canonical.

So, when you say that they are not, whose authority are you basing that on? Your own? Someone else’s? Who’s?

 

[Josiah]

No one did. If you think someone did, post his/her name for us. Post the date on which he/she did. Show that every Christian thereafter accepted that what this man or woman said/did was/is universally, officially and AUTHORITATIVELY accepted. Then answer why for over 1000 years, many NT had in them The Epistle to the Leodiceans and why until the 17th Century, many accepted that some NT books were more canonical than others ("spoken in favor" "spoken against")?

And WHAT pray tell does this have to do with that you call APOCRYPHA (books NOT canonical), what does this have to do with whether Ezra should be in a tome all to itself or in some tome with others? Why the attempt to change the subject?

.

You say that the books called Apocrypha (Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, etc.) are not canonical.

Quote me stating that.

Which "etc.?"

multiple early church councils declared that they are canonical.

Which Ecumenical Councils - considered authoritative by all Christians - declared SOME list of books as "canonical." There have only been 4 such meetings, so which of them so officially, formally, authoritatively declared some specific list of books as THE inerrant, divinely inspired, inscripturated words of God and ergo the canon for faith and practice equal to the Books of Moses and the Epistle to the Romans? List which one it was. There have been only 4.


when you say that "they" were, whose authority are you basing that on? Your own? Someone else’s? Who’s? QUOTE the person or authoritative Ecumencial Council that stated, " ALL the books ever associated with the LXX or the Dead Sea Scrools or any book Nathan likes ARE the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God equal to the Books of Moses and no others cuz I say so." Quote that person or council.

Good luck.

See post 205





.

 

[Andrew]

Over 300 quotes from many ante nicene fathers include their names and date Josiah
None of the quotes ever specified any "secret books" when they juxtaposed them to your 66 canon and used them in proper concordance to scripture and teaching in their writings..
Process of elimination my friend, we know exactly what books were quoted as scripture and we know that their audience must have been familiar with them too

 

[NathanH83]

Quote me stating that.

Which "etc.?"




Which Ecumenical Councils - considered authoritative by all Christians - declared SOME list of books as "canonical." There have only been 4 such meetings, so which of them so officially, formally, authoritatively declared some specific list of books as THE inerrant, divinely inspired, inscripturated words of God and ergo the canon for faith and practice equal to the Books of Moses and the Epistle to the Romans? List which one it was. There have been only 4.


when you say that "they" were, whose authority are you basing that on? Your own? Someone else’s? Who’s? QUOTE the person or authoritative Ecumencial Council that stated, " ALL the books ever associated with the LXX or the Dead Sea Scrools or any book Nathan likes ARE the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God equal to the Books of Moses and no others cuz I say so." Quote that person or council.

Good luck.

See post 205





.

You didn’t answer my question.
By whose authority do you say 1 and 2 Maccabees are not holy scripture? Whose?

And who decided which books belong in the New Testament?

I won’t be surprised if you refuse to answer these questions, since you’ve already dodged them the first time I asked.

 

[NathanH83]

Quote me stating that.

Which "etc.?"




Which Ecumenical Councils - considered authoritative by all Christians - declared SOME list of books as "canonical." There have only been 4 such meetings, so which of them so officially, formally, authoritatively declared some specific list of books as THE inerrant, divinely inspired, inscripturated words of God and ergo the canon for faith and practice equal to the Books of Moses and the Epistle to the Romans? List which one it was. There have been only 4.


when you say that "they" were, whose authority are you basing that on? Your own? Someone else’s? Who’s? QUOTE the person or authoritative Ecumencial Council that stated, " ALL the books ever associated with the LXX or the Dead Sea Scrools or any book Nathan likes ARE the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God equal to the Books of Moses and no others cuz I say so." Quote that person or council.

Good luck.

See post 205





.

You say that the councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage have no authority.
By whose authority do you make that claim?

 

[Josiah]

The RCC itself now believes SOME of the Deuterocanonical books belong because it itself said so - unofficially at Florence in the 15th Century and officially at Trent in the 16th. No other denomination agrees with its unique embrace and unique Bible, nor with its stance that they belong cuz it itself says so.

The EOC also now accepts SOME of the Deuterocanonical books (but not the same set as the RCC now does) but it's not officially but rather it's tradition.

The OOC churches also now accept SOME of the Deuterocanonical books but not the same set as the EOC or RCC (in fact, not even the same as each other) but it's not official but a matter of its tradition.

The Anglican Church also accepts SOME of the Deuterocanonical books. More than the RCC, more than the EOC... less than SOME OOC churches.... it has its own unique set and thus it's own unique Bible. It is officially and authoritatively stated in The Thirty-Nine Articles (all such books are listed there by name). Officially/Authoritatively since the late 16th Century. But none of the Deuterocanonical books are accepted as canonical but as Deuterocanonical (secondary, under) - as important to read and of great value but not as canon for doctrine.

The Lutheran Church has no stance on the Deuterocanonical books at all. The Lutheran Confessions state NOTHING on this issue. Luther personally chose to include the UNIQUE set of SOME used in Germany in his day (different that the RCC "set" at Trent, different than the EOC's set or OOC's set or the Anglican set, but the ones found in the Bibles in Germany in the 15th and 16th Century), they are IN his personal German translation, but he expressed his personal view that these Deuterocanonical books are DEUTERO and not fully canonical, the same view later dogmatized by the Anglicans but never by Lutherans.

Calvin personally rejected all of them, this was made official, authoritative dogma for that single demonination in the Westminster Confession and so and they were not included in most Reformed Bibles. Since Reformed Protestantism dominated in the USA, most Protestant Bibles sold in the USA did not have any set of Deutero books in them.


.

Over 300 quotes from many ante nicene fathers include their names and date Josiah

What "their?"

Perhaps.... But 300 quotes that state, "ALL the books ever associated with the LXX or found with the Dead Sea Scrolls are THEREFORE, ERGO, all the inerrant, divinely-inspired, inscripturated words of God and thus the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice equal in every sense to the Books of Moses and the Epistle to the Romans" (and you haven't supplied one such quote) would be the opinion expressed in 300 quotes by an unknown number of persons. It would NOT be the official, authoritative DECISION of "the church."

Process of elimination my friend, we know exactly what books were quoted as scripture and we know that their audience must have been familiar with them too

I'm still waiting for these 300 quotes that state that Odes (for example) is the inerrant, divinely-inspired, inscripturated words of God and thus the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice equal in every sense to the Books of Moses and the Epistle to the Romans. Even if a direct quote is used, that does NOT indicate that book is regarded as the the inerrant, divinely-inspired, inscripturated words of God and thus the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice equal in every sense to the Books of Moses and the Epistle to the Romans. Christians even today quote from THOUSANDS of books (even songs, TV shows, movies, etc)., that is unrelated to "the church" officially, authoritatively declaring all stuff associated with the LXX and/or the Dead Sea Scrolls to be the the inerrant, divinely-inspired, inscripturated words of God and thus the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice equal in every sense to the Books of Moses and the Epistle to the Romans. If I share a quote from Lamm, it doesn't mean ergo The Church has declared everything she writes as the the inerrant, divinely-inspired, inscripturated words of God and thus the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice equal in every sense to the Books of Moses and the Epistle to the Romans. Come on, it's a ABSURD and incredible and baseless leap.




.

 

[Josiah]

Nathan,

You didn’t answer my question.By whose authority do you say 1 and 2 Maccabees are not holy scripture? Whose? And who decided which books belong in the New Testament?

READ post 205 and 207.


You didn't answer my question: WHAT man or woman officially, AUTHORITATIVELY and ECUMENICALLY declared everything associated with the LXX and with the Dead Sea Scrolls and all 27 or 28 Books of the NT are the inerrant, verbally-inspired, inscripturated words of God and thus the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice equal in every sense to the Books of Moses and the Epistle to the Romans? Authoritatively.... so that every Christian fully accepted that....? Who is this "SOMEONE" you keep speaking of?

You say that the councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage have no authority.

Prove that...

1. Prove that every Christian in 400 AD and ever since accept these 3 obscure, WESTERN, REGIONAL meetings as AUTHORITATIVE. Show that the the Syrian Orthodox Church did and does...... the Ethiopian Orthodox Church did and does.... the Egyptian Orthodox Church did and does.... the Greek Orthodox did and does.... they officially hold all 3 as "AUTHORITATIVE." In fact, prove they even knew about these tiny, obscure, WESTERN, REGIONAL meetings. There's not even evidence that even just the LATINS largely knew of these meetings, they are very rarely even noted by the WESTERN ECF and never by the Eastern.

2. Prove that these 3 rather obscure, Western, Latin, regional, non-ecumenical gatherings specially and offically stated NOT what books may be read from in the Lectionary of some Western parishes BUT authoritatively, formally declared everything associated with the LXX and with the Dead Sea Scrolls and all 27 or 28 Books of the NT are the inerrant, divinely-inspired, inscripturated words of God and thus the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice equal in every sense to the Books of Moses and the Epistle to the Romans? And if it was "authoritative" why did NO CHURCH ON THE PLANET "obey" it? The Syrian Orthodox Church doesn't follow it.... the Egyptian Orthodox Church doesn't follow it... the Greek Orthodox Church doesn't follow it... for 1000 years, the Catholic Church often didn't follow it... virtually NONE followed it? And why would the RCC Council of Florence declare the Catholic Bible if it had already been done, why not just say "Our Denomination authoritatively declared that at a little regional meeting in Carthage that no one has heard of?" And then again at the Council of Trent? CATHOLICS taught me it was done at Trent BECAUSE it had never been authoritatively done before and needed to be resolved - but that was NOT ecumenically, that was NOT the "Church", it was the anti-thesis of that, it was ONE DENOMINATION speaking in the 16th Century, speaking in a way that NOT ONE of the 10,000+ denominations agrees with or follows. NOT ONE.

These 3 regional, non-ecumenical (AND THUS NOT 'THE CHURCH') gatherings were and are never even mentioned in the East.... and were'nt by even one denomination until the 16th Century when the RCC dug 'em up.

YOU say these 3 gathering were/are AUTHORITATIVE. Your whole point hinges on it. You've provided NOTHING that REMOTELY so indicates.

YOU claim these 3 little western meetings declared the canon FOR THE CHURCH. Yet you've provided NOTHING that so indicates; it addressed the LECTIONARY, not the canon. And since NONE EVER followed or obeyed it, where is your evidence all Christians then and now regard these 3 as AUTHORITATIVE? NO collection of biblical books in the East has EVER agreed with the Lectionary suggested by these 3 largely unheard of little meetings.... and for 1000 years, a lot of CATHOLIC Bibles had 28 books in the NT. IF these 3 little regional meetings had ANY authority - even with just one denomination - why did the RCC have to authoritatively declare the canon of it itself at Trent in the 16th Century? I'll tell you the reason my Catholic teachers said: It has not been done before. You disagree with them but you've provided NOTHING to show the whole church accepted ONE set of books from this point on, PRECISELY BECAUSE these 3 little meetings that almost none had heard of AUTHORITATIVELY declared it.




.

 

[Andrew]

It seems as though when Jerome labeled some books "Apocrypha" it automatically stamped "official" on the other books that were surprisingly regarded as canon along with the "Apocrypha" books before.. Prior to Jerome nothing in the OT could have possibly been canon correct?
but prior to Jerome there was debate over why some books were deleted from the Hebrew whether it be 33 AD or 70 AD.. as if the Christ rejecting Jews threw a wrench in the Septuagint which was the schoolmaster to all gentiles and the majority of greek speaking Jews at the time.

Paul indeed speaks of gnostic teachings entering the churches, he also spoke of Jewish fables and genealogies being argued to confuse and debate Christians but the septuagint had already been in circulation for centuries.. So you see Paul never once spoke of these uninspired books that need to be taken out, he spoke of books coming IN.. Possibly those found in the Nag Hammadi scrolls which is what Muhammad thought was christianity and included its stories in the Quran, so by the mid 7th century we know how wide spread the gnostic teachings had gone as they are found in the Quran.. this is what Paul was foreshadowing, he said absolutely nothing about the illegitimacy of the Septuagint in his days, although he did warn of a Jewish conspiracy to debate scripture with Christians using some form of corruption that has to do with genealogies..

As Nathan has brought to our attention in his video "Were the pyramids built before the flood?" the Masoretic has Shem outliving his great great great great great grandsons and for this Jews can now argue that Shem = Melchezidic which means Jesus can not possibly be the New High Priest.

 

[Andrew]

@Josiah ^^^

Note: must be a glitch through Tapatalk because I was replying to your post and quoting it but when I posted my reply the post I quoted did not appear :/

 

[NathanH83]

@Josiah ^^^

Note: must be a glitch through Tapatalk because I was replying to your post and quoting it but when I posted my reply the post I quoted did not appear :/

He’s still dodging the question. He won’t even give a straight answer.

 

[Andrew]

also you mention Odes over and over but I have no concern for those as they come from the 5th century AD.. that's EOC stuff

 

[Andrew]

He’s still dodging the question. He won’t even give a straight answer.

Yeah Tapatalk for me is being glitchy so I'm using the mobile version now..
Anyway, Josiah plays hardball and threads like these tend to go in circles even if we create newer threads to emphasize specific details.
I'm curious of what his answer will be as well and you are the OP so I'm not sure why he cares whether you are 'derailing' the subject or not, we don't need to start other threads if it's your wish to ask a simple question

 

[Andrew]

Post 205 is just a list of denominations and their canon, it's not a direct answer Josiah

 

[Josiah]

Andrew,


See posts 205, 207, 212.

It seems as though when Jerome labeled some books "Apocrypha" it automatically stamped "official" on the other books that were surprisingly regarded as canon along with the "Apocrypha" books before..

Jerome was a man. A single, individual man. Not even a bishop in one denomination. He had no authority in anything for anyone.

Jerome is not "THE CHURCH."

Jerome had no authority in anything, much less the full official authority of the entire Christian community, acknowledged and followed by every Christian since he did something (yet not noted).

Prior to Jerome nothing in the OT could have possibly been canon correct?

COULD have. But just because something COULD have happened doesn't prove that it did.

For the JEWS, there was an official, authoritative action. It happened at the Council of Jamnia in 90 AD. For the JEWS, the issue was authoritatively determined. All Jews recognized this, all Jews followed followed and accepted this, all other "books" stopped being used in any canonical way (and largely were abandoned). But just because some other religion did something in 90AD does NOT mean ergo every other religion must have done the same thing (in 90 AD or any other year).

Christians had 4-7 such authoritative, ecumenical meetings, these are called The Ecumenical Councils, but none of them discussed the issue of what books are and are not canonical.

The TRANSLATION of one man was officially embraced by the LATIN WEST (never by the whole church). Called the LATIN Vulgate, this not very good translation of one non-authoritative man became the official LATIN version for the Roman Catholic Church (and no other, ever). But it was the TRANSLATION that was embraced, not the table of contents (which of course differed from the RCC's non-authoritative meeting in Florence in the 15th century and the internally authoritative meeting of it itself exclusively at Trent in the 16th). His (bad) TRANSLATION into Latin was embraced, not the Table of Contents.

Post 205 is a list of denominations and their canon, it's not a direct answer Josiah

Correct. Because you keep talking about "them" and "their" without listing EXACTLY what books are the "them" what books should but often are not accepted as the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and thus canon/rule/norm for faith and practice equal to the Books of Moses and the Epistle to the Romans.

Friend, NOT ONE DENOMINATION that IN ANY WAY "embraces" ANY book beyond the 66 agrees on what books those should be. Not one. Not ever. Never have. Still don't. If you ever listed this mysterious table of contents, you'll likely find not one denomination on the planet now or ever agrees with you: not yours (the Anglican Church - see the Thirty-Nine Articles), not the post-Trent RCC, not the Greek Orthodox, not the Syrian Orthodox, not the Eyptian Orthodox, not the Ethiopian Orthodox, not the LDS. MAYBE one (although probably not authoritatively) will but one denomination is not "The Church."

I'm curious of what his answer will be as well

You evidently missed it. See posts 183, 192, 201, 204, 212

Note that all my questions to Nathan have been evaded, As have all my points. He is bold to tell all what I've said but of course he cannot quote me saying any of those things because as everyone knows, I didn't say them.




- Josiah



.

 

[Josiah]

Nathan,


See posts 204, 205, 207, 212....

Someone had to decide which books belong in the New Testament. Who was it?

You keep posting this entirely irrelevant question that you yourself will not answer but that I have repeatedly answered.

No one did. Since you insist someone did, then...

1. Post his/her name for us. WHO was this "SOMEONE?" Who is this man or woman you insist HAD to exist and HAD to do this and DID do this? Why won't you answer the question YOU keep asking of others? You INSIST "someone" HAD to do this, but you refuse to tell us who this "someone" was. Share his/her name.

2. Post the date on which he/she did. And in what official, authoritative document. Perhaps you'll provide a link to it so we can all see it.

3. Post the ecumenical, final AUTHORITY this man or woman had to do this.

4. Show that every Christian then and thereafter accepted that what this man or woman said/did was and is universally, officially and AUTHORITATIVELY accepted and followed. Then answer why for over 1000 years, many NT had in them The Epistle to the Leodiceans and why until the 17th Century, many accepted that some NT books were more canonical than others ("spoken in favor" "spoken against")?

And WHAT pray tell does this have to do with that you call APOCRYPHA (books NOT canonical), what does this have to do with whether Ezra should be in a tome all to itself or in some tome with others? What does this have to do with the OLD Testament? Why the attempt to change the subject? Why won't you answer the question that I repeatedly have, the question you demand others answer but you won't, WHO is this "SOMEONE" you keep asking about? Why do you keep dodging the question YOU insist is critical and necessary? You keep rebuking ME for not answering the question (when I repeatedly HAVE) while you yourself refuse to answer it.



- Josiah




.