What year was it when Protestants first started to remove books from the Holy Bible?

[Origen]

What kind of evidence are you looking for?

There is nothing is unclear about those requests. I even used your own words in order to make it clear. Here I will do it again.

Cite the primary source which claims "the disciples personally accepted these extra books as scripture."
Cite the primary source which state the "tradition was passed on."
Provide the manuscript evidence.

 

[Josiah]

On top of that, we’ve got the author of Hebrews in chapter 11 referencing 2 Maccabees

False. As all know who can read.

You even ADMITTED it is a margin note in an unidentified study edition of the KJV from an unidentified author.... who simply is noting that reading that verse in that book would help. A WHOLE other enchilada. You admitted the author of Hebrews NEVER mentions that book.

we’ve got John 10 referencing Hanukkah, the holiday that was established in Maccabees.

False. John 10 NEVER mentions any of the 4 books of Maccabees.

The word "Maccabees" never once appears in the Gospel of John- in reference to some book or otherwise;. Those of us who an read know this.

On top of that, we’ve got dozens and dozens if early church fathers quoting the apocryphal books as scripture

.... a bit of grand hyperbole there.... but so what? You have early Christians using and quoting from LOTS of writings you don't accept as Scripture, even SPECIFICALLY labeling such as "Scripture." You reject your own apologetic.

You also have early Christians specifically REJECTING books as Scripture which you accept.

And go to any American "Evangelical" church .... you;ll likely find the preacher using slides of TV shows, songs, news stories, even comics.... but you don't argue THEREFORE there MUST have been some official/formal declaration of some PAN-CHRISTIAN ruling body that all MASH episodes are inerrant, canonical, divinely inscripturated Scripture.... There are MILLIONS today who call the Book of Mormon "Scripture" but you ignore that.

WHAT evidence? What do you want?

Something objective that proves your claim is true. That Christianity embraced all the books you will not name as specially CANONICAL SCRIPTURE, equally so. All of Christianity. You want a DATE and PLACE of when Protestantism took OUT books but refuse to give the DATE and PLACE when all Protestantism put "them" (still unidentified) IN... when all Christianity put them IN. Brother, you cannot discuss taking OUT until you establish what was IN before this action.

There’s a boatload of evidence that the earliest Christians had these books in their Bibles and accepted them as scripture.

I wonder why, then, you've presented none of it.... And just because material is collected into a tome is IRRELEVANT to whether it is seem as inerrant, canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God. Luther and the Anglican church included several books they did NOT so consider.... For over 1000 years, Catholic Bibles often included the Epistle to the Leodiceans. My Bible has some 2500 pages in it, MUCH of which is NOT considered canonical Scripture by anyone.

You are making an absurd assumption: That if Christians read a book, ergo Christianity MUST have had some big, definitive, PAN-Christian meeting that offifially declared it inerrrant, canonical, divinely-inscripturated Scripture equal to say the Epistle to the Romans. And another laughable assumption: if you can find some who call a book "Scripture" ERGO Christianity MUST have had some big, definitive, PAN-Christian meeting that offifially declared it inerrrant, canonical, divinely-inscripturated Scripture equal to say the Epistle to the Romans. But YOU reject both of your OWN premises.... because you REJECT a number of books some early Christians accepted and even labeled as "Scripture." And you want us to be obedient to all Latin Church Council meetings (no matter how limited) but YOU DON'T.



Friend, even you don't accept your own apologetics!!!!

You do NOT accept that if some individuals call a book Scripture ergo it is, proclaimed so by some authoritative PAN-CHRISTIAN ruling body that you can quote. You reject books that many accepted as Scripture.

You do NOT accept that if a book is used or quoted by a handful of individual Christians, ERGO it MUST be Scripture proclaimed so by some authoritative PAN-CHRISTIAN ruling body that you can quote.

You do NOT accept that if some "Church Council" meeting decided something, ERGO it is binding on all Christians for all time (do YOU accept all church council meetings?) You don't even accept all council meetings of the Latin Western Catholic church - much less all council meetings. You want us to do what you don't do.




.

The book of Hebrews is not an apocryphal book

As noted (and you CANNOT refute) is that you claimed Hebrews references a book. That's a lie (sorry to be blunt). Any who can read know it's a lie.

It MAY .... PERHAPS..... reference an EVENT. But no event is a book.... and no book is an event. You can't even prove the author of Hebrews knew about that event solely from 2 Maccabees. It's an absurd apologetic based entirely on a lie. One you admitted some time ago when you admitted the book was mentioned by an unknown author in the MARGINS of some unknown study edition of the KJV, NOT in the Scripture.





.

 

[NathanH83]

I’m making the claim that the Septuagint was made BEFORE the time of Christ. Not after. I don’t know what you guys are claiming, but that’s all I’m saying.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NathanH83]

False. As all know who can read.

You even ADMITTED it is a margin note in an unidentified study edition of the KJV from an unidentified author.... who simply is noting that reading that verse in that book would help. A WHOLE other enchilada. You admitted the author of Hebrews NEVER mentions that book.





False. John 10 NEVER mentions any of the 4 books of Maccabees.

The word "Maccabees" never once appears in the Gospel of John- in reference to some book or otherwise;. Those of us who an read know this.






.... a bit of grand hyperbole there.... but so what? You have early Christians using and quoting from LOTS of writings you don't accept as Scripture, even SPECIFICALLY labeling such as "Scripture." You reject your own apologetic.

You also have early Christians specifically REJECTING books as Scripture which you accept.

And go to any American "Evangelical" church .... you;ll likely find the preacher using slides of TV shows, songs, news stories, even comics.... but you don't argue THEREFORE there MUST have been some official/formal declaration of some PAN-CHRISTIAN ruling body that all MASH episodes are inerrant, canonical, divinely inscripturated Scripture.... There are MILLIONS today who call the Book of Mormon "Scripture" but you ignore that.




Something objective that proves your claim is true. That Christianity embraced all the books you will not name as specially CANONICAL SCRIPTURE, equally so. All of Christianity. You want a DATE and PLACE of when Protestantism took OUT books but refuse to give the DATE and PLACE when all Protestantism put "them" (still unidentified) IN... when all Christianity put them IN. Brother, you cannot discuss taking OUT until you establish what was IN before this action.






I wonder why, then, you've presented none of it.... And just because material is collected into a tome is IRRELEVANT to whether it is seem as inerrant, canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God. Luther and the Anglican church included several books they did NOT so consider.... For over 1000 years, Catholic Bibles often included the Epistle to the Leodiceans. My Bible has some 2500 pages in it, MUCH of which is NOT considered canonical Scripture by anyone.

You are making an absurd assumption: That if Christians read a book, ergo Christianity MUST have had some big, definitive, PAN-Christian meeting that offifially declared it inerrrant, canonical, divinely-inscripturated Scripture equal to say the Epistle to the Romans. And another laughable assumption: if you can find some who call a book "Scripture" ERGO Christianity MUST have had some big, definitive, PAN-Christian meeting that offifially declared it inerrrant, canonical, divinely-inscripturated Scripture equal to say the Epistle to the Romans. But YOU reject both of your OWN premises.... because you REJECT a number of books some early Christians accepted and even labeled as "Scripture." And you want us to be obedient to all Latin Church Council meetings (no matter how limited) but YOU DON'T.



Friend, even you don't accept your own apologetics!!!!

You do NOT accept that if some individuals call a book Scripture ergo it is, proclaimed so by some authoritative PAN-CHRISTIAN ruling body that you can quote. You reject books that many accepted as Scripture.

You do NOT accept that if a book is used or quoted by a handful of individual Christians, ERGO it MUST be Scripture proclaimed so by some authoritative PAN-CHRISTIAN ruling body that you can quote.

You do NOT accept that if some "Church Council" meeting decided something, ERGO it is binding on all Christians for all time (do YOU accept all church council meetings?) You don't even accept all council meetings of the Latin Western Catholic church - much less all council meetings. You want us to do what you don't do.




.




As noted (and you CANNOT refute) is that you claimed Hebrews references a book. That's a lie (sorry to be blunt). Any who can read know it's a lie.

It MAY .... PERHAPS..... reference an EVENT. But no event is a book.... and no book is an event. You can't even prove the author of Hebrews knew about that event solely from 2 Maccabees. It's an absurd apologetic based entirely on a lie. One you admitted some time ago when you admitted the book was mentioned by an unknown author in the MARGINS of some unknown study edition of the KJV, NOT in the Scripture.





.

Dude, you are really illogical.
When Hebrews mentions the falling of the walls of Jericho, that’s referencing the book of Joshua, even though the name Joshua isn’t referenced. And when it referenced the men being tortured, it’s referencing 2 Maccabees.
You’re literally making zero sense.

I’ve already said this, and now you’re just wasting time by repeating the same illogical stuff over again. Just stop. You’re not making sense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Origen]

I’m making the claim that the Septuagint was made BEFORE the time of Christ.

I for one do not deny that.

Not after.

To claim it was created after is absolutely ridiculous.

I don’t know what you guys are claiming, but that’s all I’m saying.

Now you know.

 

[NathanH83]

1st and 2nd Maccabees don’t belong in the Bible because the New Testament never quotes from it.

Even though Daniel prophesies about it, Jesus celebrated it, and Paul commented on it.

Oh, but THAT’S NOT GOOD ENOUGH!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NathanH83]

I for one do not deny that.


To claim it was created after is absolutely ridiculous.


Now you know.

And you can’t put 2 and 2 together? Logic is not your strong point, I presume?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Origen]

And you can’t put 2 and 2 together? Logic is not your strong point, I presume?

Pure speculation is not objective evidence and you have none.

 

[Origen]

Jesus celebrated it.

The N.T. NEVER claims "Jesus celebrated it."

 

[NathanH83]

The N.T. NEVER claims "Jesus celebrated it."

The New Testament never claims “Jesus didn’t celebrate it”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NathanH83]

The N.T. NEVER claims "Jesus celebrated it."

You made the claim Jesus refused to celebrate it. Do you have any reasonable suspicion that Jesus refused to celebrate it? Why are you claiming Jesus didn’t celebrate Hanukkah?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Origen]

The New Testament never claims “Jesus didn’t celebrate it”

That was not your claim now was it. You stated “Jesus did celebrate it." Just another example of making a claim with zero evidence.

 

[Josiah]

When Hebrews mentions the falling of the walls of Jericho, that’s referencing the book of Joshua, even though the name Joshua isn’t referenced. And when it referenced the men being tortured, it’s referencing 2 Maccabees.

Dude, you are really illogical and not factual.

There is NOT ONE mention of the book Second Maccabees in the NT. Do a word search for the word "Maccabees" for Matthew - Revelation. If you find such a word in the NT, I'll retract my statement. Otherwise, you admit your falsehood.


Again, to allude to an EVENT is entirely, completely, wholly unrelated to referencing a BOOK. A book is not an event, an even is not a book. Why does this very simple point SO allude you? You can't even prove that the ONLY WAY the author of Hebrews could know about this historical event was from 2 Maccabees..... much less that ERGO this unknown individual THUS held that official authoritative Ruling Body of all Christianity declared 2 Maccabees to be inerrant, canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God. Dude, you could not be more illogical, more absurd. You make no sense. Which is why you don't agree with yourself.... you don't believe that just because some book reports and event ERGO it's canonical Scripture.... you don't believe that because some dude did or did not regard something as Scripture THEREFORE it is or isn't. You don't believe that church council meetings are authoritative. You don't even agree with yourself.




.

 

[Josiah]

The New Testament never claims “Jesus didn’t celebrate it”

Let's follow your "logic" ... The Bible never says there are NOT flying purple people eaters living on Mars.... ERGO it is a dogmatic fact that there are flying purple people eaters are Mars. Sometimes I read your posts and am just stunned.... THINK, my brother, THINK.




.

 

[NathanH83]

That was not your claim now was it. You stated “Jesus did celebrate it." Just another example of making a claim with zero evidence.

YOU are the one who claimed Jesus refused to celebrate Hanukah. Where is your evidence?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Origen]

You made the claim Jesus refused to celebrate it.

That is a lie. I never said that and you know it.

Do you have any reasonable suspicion that Jesus refused to celebrate it?

No, nor do you have any source stating that he did.

Why are you claiming Jesus didn’t celebrate Hanukkah?

Another lie. I never made that claim.

 

[Origen]

YOU are the one who claimed Jesus refused to celebrate Hanukah.

Another lie. I made no such claim. You must be really desperate.

Anyone can go back and look at my post and see I never made such a claim. In fact I encourage everyone to check posts 189, 192, and 196.

 

[NathanH83]

Another lie. I made no such claim. You must be really desperate.

Anyone can go back and look at my post and see I never made such a claim. In fact I encourage everyone to check posts 189, 192, and 196.

YOU made the claim that Jesus refused to celebrate Hanukkah. Now back up your claim. Show me the evidence that Jesus refused to celebrate Hanukkah.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Origen]

YOU made the claim that Jesus refused to celebrate Hanukkah.

Another lie. I said the New Testament never claims “Jesus celebrate it."

 

[Andrew]

Augustine of Hippo Enchiridion of Christian Doctrine Book 2 par 12-13 (354-430 ad)

“But let us now go back to consider the third step here mentioned, for it is about it that I have set myself to speak and reason as the Lord shall grant me wisdom. The most skillful interpreter of the sacred writings, then, will be he who in the first place has read them all and retained them in his knowledge, if not yet with full understanding, still with such knowledge as reading gives,-those of them, at least, that arc called canonical. For he will read the others with greater safety when built up in the belief of the truth, so that they will not take first possession of a weak mind, nor, cheating it with dangerous falsehoods and delusions, fill it with prejudices adverse to a sound understanding. Now, in regard to the canonical Scriptures, he must follow the judgment of the greater number of catholic churches; and among these, of course, a high place must be given to such as have been thought worthy to be the seat of an apostle and to receive epistles.

@Origen Accordingly, among the canonical Scriptures he will judge according to the following standard: to prefer those that are received by all the catholic churches to those which some do not receive. Among those, again, which are not received by all, he will prefer such as have the sanction of the greater number and those of greater authority, to such as are held by the smaller number and those of less authority. If, however, he shall find that some books are held by the greater number of churches, and others by the churches of greater authority (though this is not a very likely thing to happen), I think that in such a case the authority on the two sides is to be looked upon as equal.


13. Now the whole canon of Scripture on which we say this judgment is to be exercised, is contained in the following books:-Five books of Moses, that is, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; one book of Joshua the son of Nun; one of Judges; one short book called Ruth, which seems rather to belong to the beginning of Kings; next, four books of Kings, and two of Chronicles -these last not following one another, but running parallel, so to speak, and going over the same ground. The books now mentioned are history, which contains a connected narrative of the times, and follows the order of the events. There are other books which seem to follow no regular order, and are connected neither with the order of the preceding books nor with one another, such as Job, and Tobias, and Esther, and Judith, and the two books of Maccabees, and the two of Ezra, which last look more like a sequel to the continuous regular history which terminates with the books of Kings and Chronicles. Next are the Prophets, in which there is one book of the Psalms of David; and three books of Solomon, viz., Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes. For two books, one called Wisdom and the other Ecclesiasticus, are ascribed to Solomon from a certain resemblance of style, but the most likely opinion is that they were written by Jesus the son of Sirach. Still they are to be reckoned among the prophetical books, since they have attained recognition as being authoritative. The remainder are the books which are strictly called the Prophets: twelve separate books of the prophets which are connected with one another, and having never been disjoined, are reckoned as one book; the names of these prophets are as follows:-Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; then there are the four greater prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel. The authority of the Old Testament is contained within the limits of these forty-four books. That of the New Testament, again, is contained within the following:-Four books of the Gospel, according to Matthew, according to Mark, according to Luke, according to John; fourteen epistles of the Apostle Paul-one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Colossians, two to Timothy, one to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews: two of Peter; three of John; one of Jude; and one of James; one book of the Acts of the Apostles; and one of the Revelation of John.