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

[Lamb]

2 pages of Yes He did, No it doesn't state that...

Can we progress past this now since neither side is going to budge?

 

[Origen]

I claimed what?

I have posted your exact words more than once.

Here again are your words.

During the feasts Jesus is preaching that He is the LIGHT and that HE is the Temple and the WAY, the feasts are all celebrations of God showing the Israelites the WAY by HIS LIGHT, this is precisely the reason Jesus went to Temple during the feast of tabernacles and dedication, to preach that He himself is the way to the Father, he did this knowing that they wanted to stone him and kill him

At first you clearly put Jesus' preaching about the temple in the context of John 8, 9, and 10. You were trying to link it with the feast of dedication.

By now you must be aware that no where in John 8, 9, or 10 does Jesus even use the word "temple." Clearly you are trying to back tract on what you initially claimed which is demonstrably false.

 

[Andrew]

And thus NOT what you claimed. NOT what the verse states.

And FINALLY, you admit it. This is NOT what the Bible says All the times, post after post, when you and Nathan stated "The Bible states" well... you now admit what you have evaded for 14 pages now.... no, it does NOT. Your claim was false. Well, all the claims were false.

Origin, our brother... with the patience of a saint.... for MANY, MANY pages tried to convey to you what you FINALLY admit but insisted was not the case before. Your claims about what John 10:22 states were all ... well....not so, not truth. They are simply the theorizing of you yourself, your "commentary" 2021 edition.


Now, where does the verse (not your little theorizing) prove that CHRISTIANITY, at a meeting of a certain date and place, authoritatively declare that some unidentified books Nathan calls "apocrypha" are The inerrant, fully canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God? Let me ask again, yet again, SO WHAT? John 10:22 says it was winter.... the Feast of Dedication time.... Okay, how does that prove that some books Nathan won't identify are THUS fully canonical, PROCLAIMED so by all Christianity? You brought back the discussion here to that point just a few posts ago with your claim (albeit different than his) but just keep ignoring how John 10:22 proves that all Christians from 33-1550 AD held that some or all of books Nathan won't identify are fully canonical Scriptures - equal to say the Epistle to the Romans? Okay, you admit John 10:22 states NONE of the many things you said it did.... good..... now how does that prove CHRISTIANITY proclaimed some books to be fully canonical?




.



.



.

You really believe that when I looked at the words in the bible I literally saw "preached" and "attended" and "celebrated"?

I personally never stated that, I believe Nathan did but he was stating the obvious none the less, Jesus makes it pretty big deal to not enter by jewry and to go alone, thus to attend the tabernacle feast while not revealing his identity, at the dedication feast he was discovered because his miracles and words had uncovered him and they took up stones against him. Again, to celebrate in religious terms could be to perform a congregational duty during an observance of a religious holiday, which he did as High Priest, he did this especially to reach the Jewish congregation and Jewish community as a whole

 

[Andrew]

I have posted your exact words more than once.

Here again are your words.

At first you clearly put Jesus' preaching about the temple in the context of John 8, 9, and 10. You were trying to link it with the feast of dedication.

By now you must be aware that no where in John 8, 9, or 10 does Jesus even use the word "temple." Clearly you are trying to back tract on what you initially claimed which is demonstrably false.

The FEASTS (plural) starts in chapter 2, why do you keep going on about just a few chapters? You skipp right over the first 2 feasts

 

[RichWh1]

What was the Temple used for?
Primarily it was used for prayer
Secondarily it was used for sacrificing


The Feast of Dedication was celebrated as the sacrifices were able to be made to God once again.

Jesus was the Sacrifice that would take away sin forever, ending the need for future sacrifices

He entered the Temple, went to the Portico of Solomon, which would indicate His deity and royalty

The Jews were asking Him if He was the Messiah. He said He was;it was at the Temple in Jerusalem that Jesus said he was the Messiah

What is in the Temple? The presence of God. It would have been appropriate for Jesus to go to the Temple and show Himself the Light of the world on the Festival of Lights!

John’s gospel focused on the deity of Jesus so the reason John mentioned Jesus going to Jerusalem Was to show the reader that Jesus was the Messiah.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Andrew]

So you are NathanH83?
If so it is very dishonest to make multiple accounts.

I am also Josiah and Origen, haven't you figured that out yet?

 

[NathanH83]

Nathan and I stand with other Christians of the 1rst, 2nd and 3rd century and so on, we also stand with the inherent quotations of the New Testament, we stand with the prophecy of Jesus in Wisdom Chapter 2, we stand with the alms givings and charity in Tobit, we stand with the 7 angels before the throne first mentioned in Tobit, we stand with OT prophecy and NT references to the Maccabees, we stand with the pre-19th century-bible-society BIBLES which were accepted by all denominations which included the apocrypha section.

Origen and Josiah don’t make any sense. Their arguments are so nonsensical.

John's gospel tells us that Jesus took part in the feasts of Passover and Tabernacles. So, when it says he was at the temple during the Feast of Dedication, the default assumption that any normal person would conclude is that Jesus also chose to take part in Hanukkah, unless it specifies otherwise.

Only if it specifically stated that Jesus refused to celebrate Hanukkah would we assume that he didn't. The default assumption would be that he did.

No normal person who is just reading the text is going to get even the slightest impression from what is written that Jesus was refusing to take part.

When Jesus told his disciples that he was refusing to take part in Tabernacles, he specifically told his brothers that he's not going up to Jerusalem, but will stay in Galilee. Now, he went secretly later on. But when Jesus wanted to give the impression that he wasn't going, he did so by refusing to go up to Jerusalem. If Jesus was refusing to take part in Hanukkah, then we should see something significant, like refusing to go to Jerusalem.

It's not unreasonable to assume that Jesus took part. It WOULD be unreasonable to assume that he didn't take part, when there's nothing in the context to suggest that he refused. It's an unreasonable suspicion. But Origen and Josiah just want to play word games instead of just acknowledge the truth due to their pre-conceived notions. And it's all fueled by a hatred for the apocrypha due to pre-conceived, false notions taught by Protestants, mixed with anti-Catholic bigotry and discrimination.

 

[NathanH83]

So you are NathanH83?
If so it is very dishonest to make multiple accounts.

Ha!
No. We’re not the same person. Although we share the same last name. No relation though.

 

[Andrew]

What was the Temple used for?
Primarily it was used for prayer
Secondarily it was used for sacrificing

Jesus was the Sacrifice that would take away sin forever, ending the need for future sacrifices

He entered the Temple, went to the Portico of Solomon, which would indicate His deity and royalty

The Jews were asked Him if He was the Messiah. He said Ge was;it was at the Temple in Jerusalem that Jesus said he was the Messiah

What it in the Temple? The presence of God. It would have been appropriate for Jesus to go to the Temple and show Himself the Light of the world on the Festival of Lights!

John’s gospel focused on the deity of Jesus so the reason John mentioned Jesus going to Jerusalem Was to show the reader that Jesus was the Messiah.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hallelujah!!!! Finally someone understands why the High Priest attended and preached at these Jewish festivals -because Jews flocked to the Temple annually for the feast of Tabernacles and the Feast of dedication in observance of the Temple! This is how Jesus ministered to the observant Jewish congregation by their mass pilgrimages and gatherings to Jerusalem at the Temple during these Temple feasts!

 

[Origen]

The FEASTS (plural) starts in chapter 2, why do you keep going on about just a few chapters? You skipp right over the first 2 feasts

You not mention that one at first. Only after I point out to you that no where in John 8, 9, or 10 does Jesus even use the word "temple."

However you did specifically mentioned ONLY the feast of tabernacles and dedication in your post trying to make a connection between the feast of dedication and Jesus' temple teachings. The wedding feast has no connection to the temple nor did it happen during the feast of dedication.

 

[Origen]

I am also Josiah and Origen, haven't you figured that out yet?

 

[Origen]

Origen and Josiah don’t make any sense. Their arguments are so nonsensical.

I know.

John 10:22 NEVER states "Jesus celebrated" anything.
John 10:22 NEVER states "Jesus attended"anything.
The text NEVER states "Jesus made sure he was in Jerusalem during Hanukkah."

I wonder where we got that information. I KNOW! John 10:22

At that time the Feast of Dedication took place at Jerusalem. It was winter, and Jesus was walking in the temple, in the colonnade of Solomon.

And that pesky habit of me asking for primary sources as evidence would be a burden if you had any.

 

[Andrew]

You not mention that one at first. Only after I point out to you that no where in John 8, 9, or 10 does Jesus even use the word "temple."

However you did specifically mentioned ONLY the feast of tabernacles and dedication in your post trying to make a connection between the feast of dedication and Jesus' temple teachings. The wedding feast has no connection to the temple nor did it happen during the feast of dedication.

Well it was not my intention in anyway to mislead, the wedding feast was not a private event, it's a public Jewish feast but I see it as Jesus getting his feet wet for later on as he attends the feasts he hits his peak during the Temple feasts where they wish to take up stones. Jesus recognized the dedication as a Temple feast, before the maccabees it was called the festival of lights which was at that time a ceremonial festival that was part of shakot (sp?)(feast of tabernacles), this was all to commemorate the exodus and the light of God day and night guiding them as they camped or "tabernacled" in the desert with God, the camp lights shined alongside the Light of God at night thus the israelites and God camped (tabernacled) together.

Hence why Jesus attended the feasts, healing the blind and ministering to the Jews as the Light and the Temple of God

 

[NathanH83]

I know.

John 10:22 NEVER states "Jesus celebrated" anything.
John 10:22 NEVER states "Jesus attended"anything.
The text NEVER states "Jesus made sure he was in Jerusalem during Hanukkah."

I wonder where we got that information. I KNOW! John 10:22

At that time the Feast of Dedication took place at Jerusalem. It was winter, and Jesus was walking in the temple, in the colonnade of Solomon.

And that pesky habit of me asking for primary sources as evidence would be a burden if you had any.

Do you even have a point? There’s no evidence that Jesus refused to celebrate. I mean, you’re literally arguing about nothing. It’s like you’re just arguing for arguing’s sake.

 

[Andrew]

@Origen
Remember back in thr 2nd and 3rd century when YOU yourself claimed that the churches back then USED the so called apocrypha?
That's right, I found some of your old posts online from a conversation you had with some dude with the user name "Africanus".


Origen to Africanus par 1 (185-240ad)
Your letter, from which I learn what you think of the Susanna in the Book of Daniel, which is used in the Churches

Origen to Africanus par 2 (185-240ad)
In answer to this, I have to tell you what it behoves us to do in the cases not only of the History of Susanna, which is found in every Church of Christ in that Greek copy which the Greeks use, but is not in the Hebrew, or of the two other passages you mention at the end of the book containing the history of Bel and the Dragon, which likewise are not in the Hebrew copy of Daniel; but of thousands of other passages also which I found in many places when with my little strength I was collating the Hebrew copies with ours. For in Daniel itself I found the word "bound" followed in our versions by very many verses which are not in the Hebrew at all, beginning (according to one of the copies which circulate in the Churches)

Origen to Africanus par 13 (185-240ad)
However, since the Churches use Tobias, you must know that even in the captivity some of the captives were rich and well to do.

 

[pinacled]

@Origen
Remember back in thr 2nd and 3rd century when YOU yourself claimed that the churches back then USED the so called apocrypha?
That's right, I found some of your old posts online from a conversation you had with some dude with the user name "Africanus".


Origen to Africanus par 1 (185-240ad)
Your letter, from which I learn what you think of the Susanna in the Book of Daniel, which is used in the Churches

Origen to Africanus par 2 (185-240ad)
In answer to this, I have to tell you what it behoves us to do in the cases not only of the History of Susanna, which is found in every Church of Christ in that Greek copy which the Greeks use, but is not in the Hebrew, or of the two other passages you mention at the end of the book containing the history of Bel and the Dragon, which likewise are not in the Hebrew copy of Daniel; but of thousands of other passages also which I found in many places when with my little strength I was collating the Hebrew copies with ours. For in Daniel itself I found the word "bound" followed in our versions by very many verses which are not in the Hebrew at all, beginning (according to one of the copies which circulate in the Churches)

Origen to Africanus par 13 (185-240ad)
However, since the Churches use Tobias, you must know that even in the captivity some of the captives were rich and well to do.

Please cite a link so that others are able to read source material.
Otherwise your comments are mere hearsay.

 

[Andrew]

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.

Tyrannius Rufinus Apology book 2 par 33 (340-410 ad)

"We cannot doubt that, amongst other things necessary for the instruction of the church, he himself delivered to them the treasury of the sacred books, which, no doubt, had even then begun to be read under his presidency and teaching. What are we to say then? Did Peter the Apostle of Christ deceive the church and deliver to them books which were false and contained nothing of truth? Are we to believe that he knew that the Jews possessed what was true, and yet determined that the Christians should have what was false?"

Tyrannius Rufinus Apology book 2 par 32 (340-410 ad)

"Perhaps it was a greater piece of audacity to alter the books of the divine Scriptures which had been delivered to the Churches of Christ by the Apostles to be a complete record of their faith by making a new translation under the influence of the Jews."

Tyrannius Rufinus Apology book 2 par 33 (340-410 ad)
"In all this abundance of learned men, has there been one who has dared to make havoc of the divine record handed down to the Churches by the Apostles and the deposit of the Holy Spirit? For what can we call it but havoc, when some parts of it are transformed, and this is called the correction of an error? For instance, the whole of the history of Susanna, which gave a lesson of chastity to the churches of God, has by him been cut out, thrown aside and dismissed. The hymn of the three children, which is regularly sung on festivals in the Church of God, he has wholly erased from the place where it stood. But why should I enumerate these cases one by one, when their number cannot be estimated? This, however, cannot be passed over. The seventy translators, each in their separate cells, produced a version couched in consonant and identical words, under the inspiration, as we cannot doubt, of the Holy Spirit; and this version must certainly be of more authority with us than a translation made by a single man under the inspiration of Barabbas"

 

[Andrew]

Please cite a link so that others are able to read source material.
Otherwise your comments are mere hearsay.

Have fun!

Early Church Fathers on Apocrypha/ Deuterocanonical Books

The Early Church Fathers on various topics: This was a 3700 hour project which included going through 22896 pages of the 38 volume set call...

practicalapologetics.blogspot.com

 

[pinacled]

Have fun!

Early Church Fathers on Apocrypha/ Deuterocanonical Books

The Early Church Fathers on various topics: This was a 3700 hour project which included going through 22896 pages of the 38 volume set call...

practicalapologetics.blogspot.com

Deception is unbecoming of a soul seeking purity.

If you are origjn and Josiah then be honest about your position.

 

[Andrew]

Augustine of Hippo City of God Book 18 ch 36 (354-430 ad)
From this time, when the temple was rebuilt, down to the time of Aristobulus, the Jews had not kings but princes; and the reckoning of their dates is found, not in the Holy Scriptures which are called canonical, but in others, among which are also the books of the Maccabees. These are held as canonical, not by the Jews, but by the Church, on account of the extreme and wonderful sufferings of certain martyrs, who, before Christ had come in the flesh, contended for the law of God even unto death, and endured most grievous and horrible evils.