If the apocrypha doesn’t belong in the Bible, then please explain why Clement of Rome said that Judith is scripture in his letter to the Corinthians?

[Josiah]

The books that they accepted

Which books?

What they?

Since no two denominations on the planet that IN ANY SENSE accept IN ANY WAY any book beyond the 66 agree on WHICH books..... we are left with which "they" and which "books?"




.

 

[NathanH83]

Which books?

What they?

Since no two denominations on the planet that IN ANY SENSE accept IN ANY WAY any book beyond the 66 agree on WHICH books..... we are left with which "they" and which "books?"




.

They said which books they accepted in their church councils. I’ve already listed what those councils were multiple times on this forum. I’m surprised I’m being asked again.

 

[Josiah]

They said which books they accepted in their church councils. I’ve already listed what those councils were multiple times on this forum.

Who is "they?" Certainly not God.... certainly not THE CHURCH.

Yes, there were 3 local, regional, nonauthoritative meetings around 400 that indicated what books are to be included in the lectionary for those areas, but that has NOTHING to do with anything remotely related to this topic or the ENDLESS number of virtually identical threads you two keep starting. Lectionaries are not canonical - never have been, still aren't. And since NO ONE agreed with these 3 regional, nonauthoritative, western synods, the point is irrelevant even to the lectionary. WHO CARED what these meetings said? Not any church in the East.... for 1000 years, not the RCC.... Indeed, until the RCC "discovered" them in the 16th Century, they were not even mentioned - entirely forgotten.

BUT I'm interested in knowing you accept all church meetings..... thus of course you accept Indulgences, Purgatory, the Infallibility of the Pope, the Perpetual Virginity of Mary because all those also came from Councils - not just regional, nonauthoritative synods but actual authoritative Councils. You consider them to be the infallible Voice of God and the Definitive Authoritative Determination of THE CHURCH. Obviously. I mean, why accept one tiny regional meeting that had no impact on anything because it had no authority as an authoritative decision of THE CHURCH but not bigger, more important,much more accepted councils?




.

 

[Andrew]

I along with any Catholic that picked up their Bible know these books, the RCC calls "them" second canon because Jerome basically labeled them "poo", every Catholic and even an EOC bible has an introduction to "those goofy books" that explains it the same way Nathan and I explain it.. so no it's not just us, even the great schism that separated the east and west still accept these "special little books" as canon, also the early Church fathers who 'universally' preached on these "odd and strange but historical" books must have accepted them as more than "non God breathed, poo and absurd but good to read!" books

So no it's not just me and Nathan that believe the "kill it with fire!!" books as part of the OT, many Christians believe this

 

[NathanH83]

Who is "they?" Certainly not God.... certainly not THE CHURCH.

Yes, there were 3 local, regional, nonauthoritative meetings around 400 that indicated what books are to be included in the lectionary for those areas, but that has NOTHING to do with anything remotely related to this topic or the ENDLESS number of virtually identical threads you two keep starting. Lectionaries are not canonical - never have been, still aren't. And since NO ONE agreed with these 3 regional, nonauthoritative, western synods, the point is irrelevant even to the lectionary. WHO CARED what these meetings said? Not any church in the East.... for 1000 years, not the RCC.... Indeed, until the RCC "discovered" them in the 16th Century, they were not even mentioned - entirely forgotten.

BUT I'm interested in knowing you accept all church meetings..... thus of course you accept Indulgences, Purgatory, the Infallibility of the Pope, the Perpetual Virginity of Mary because all those also came from Councils - not just regional, nonauthoritative synods but actual authoritative Councils. You consider them to be the infallible Voice of God and the Definitive Authoritative Determination of THE CHURCH. Obviously. I mean, why accept one tiny regional meeting that had no impact on anything because it had no authority as an authoritative decision of THE CHURCH but not bigger, more important,much more accepted councils?




.

I already said who “they” are. But you didn’t listen the first dozen times I said it.

 

[Josiah]

I already said who “they” are.

You've never provided a list of those who agree with you about what is and is not the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and ergo the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice equal to the Books of Moses and the Epistle to the Romans. You've given the name of 2 or 3 that shared their individual personal opinion that ONE OR TWO books you embrace are "scripture" (the word refers to ANYTHING written down; this post is "scripture") but that's irrelevant to the question (there are over 10 MILLION who think the Book of Mormon is he inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and ergo the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice equal to the Books of Moses and the Epistle to the Romans).


Sharing the names of 3 or 4 individual Chistians who hold to some opinion is NOT remotely an indication that "THE CHURCH" and "GOD" have authoritatively, definitively declare all (and only) the books you personally now somehow accept are THUS he inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and ergo the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice equal to the Books of Moses and the Epistle to the Romans. Your whole apologetic is not only empty but absurd. I find it incredible that anyone would buy it.





.

 

[Josiah]

I along with any Catholic that picked up their Bible know these books, the RCC

The RCC is one of a handful of denominations that has officially declared what is and is not canonical (it did so at its meeting at Trent a bit after Luther's death). But that denomination does NOT agree with you or Nathan concerning what books are and are not to be required in any tome with "BIBLE" on the front cover. The RCC doesn't agree with any other denomination on this. Just as you and Nathan don't.

every Catholic and even an EOC bible

They differ from each other. And from you and Nathan.

the east and west still accept these "special little books"

They have different books in their tomes with "BIBLE" on the cover. The OOC is different again, agreeing with neither the EOC or RCC. But none of them agree with you and Nathan.

early Church fathers who 'universally' preached on these

Which "Father?" There is no universal list of such; there are Catholic Fathers, there are Greek Orthodox fathers, there are Egyptian Orthodox Fathers... there are even Reformed Fathers and Lutheran Fathers and Mormon Fathers.

Preaching on a text is in no way an indication that even that preacher regards that book as canonical. Luther OFTEN used some text from some DEUTEROcanonical book but specifically and clearly STATED that none of these books does he regard as canonical but only as DEUTEROcananical - worthy to be read, helpful and inspirational, often wise but NOT, NOT, NOT in any sense he inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and ergo the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice equal to the Books of Moses and the Epistle to the Romans. You have making a very wrong assumption: that if something is quoted or used in a sermon or book, it ergo is authoritatively declared as canonical. That has NEVER been the case! Go to any "Evangelical"church next Sunday and you are apt to hear and see in the sermon stuff from songs, TV shows, movies, etc. quoted and perhaps a video clip... that does NOT prove that ERGO the MASH TV shows are the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and ergo the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice. Come on! It's a very wrong assumption.





.