In what ways does the Apocrypha point to Jesus as Savior?

[Andrew]

The question was asked "Why did he think that?"

My answer was no one knows. Then I explain why. Jerome does not tell us and there is no record of it.

We all can read what he claims. The question is why does he believe it and why is there no record of it. And that he does not explain.

How about "Why did Jerome claim that"?

because it's a fact maybe?

 

[Origen]

How about "Why did Jerome claim that"?

because it's a fact maybe?

Or maybe he was just plain wrong.

 

[Josiah]

Yet for some reason Jerome stated that the council of Nicaea found Judith to be holy scripture. Why did he think that?

The decisions of the First Ecumenical Council are well known, and it did NOTHING regarding the canon. None of the Ecumenical Councils did.




.

 

[Josiah]

Exactly.

That's correct.

The three LOCAL, REGIONAL, LATIN, WESTERN gatherings of a diocese presided by a bishop in submission to the Pope were just that. Nothing more or other. NOT what you have claimed for a year, NOT one of the 3-7 ECUMENICAL COUNCILS, not ALL CHRISTIANITY, not PAN-CHRISTIAN. There's no evidence that these were even known outside that single diocese. IF these were among the 3-7 Ecumenical Councils (and you are the only one on the planet to know that), then why does only ONE individual denomination on the planet fallow it, and only since 1550? Friend, these meetings were NOT those of all CHRISTIANITY or all CHRISTIANS, you are simply insisting on a falsehood.

Oh, wait, no, the east still has them.

Oh how you love to speak of "THEM" and "THEY"....

EASTERN Orthodox churches have a various DIFFERENT collections of Scripture, there is no agreement in the East as to what is and is not Scripture. And NOWHERE in the East has this EVER been nailed down, it's purely local tradition, a matter of various different Traditions. And not one of them notes any of the 3 tiny, local, regional, western meetings of bishops in submission to the Pope... NO Eastern Church mentions them. So, you are wrong here too...... there are different Bibles in the East, the East is not in agreement with itself or the Roman Catholic Church or the Anglican Church on this... nor any of the 3 obscure (and until the Reformation forgotten) little meetings of 3 different dioceses. There is ZERO evidence that the 3 NON- Ecumenical meetings, 3 WESTERN meetings, 3 LATIN meetings is why the East has DIFFERENT books than those 3 meetings mention.

You are just wrong again. Yet again.

Why does the eastern orthodox still have them?

Oh how you and our friend LOVE to speak of "THEY" and "THEM"


The EAST has no consensus on what is and is not Scripture. And the VARIOUS, DIFFERENT collections in the East are purely a matter of Tradition, it's NEVER been officially declared or nailed down, no EVER (which may by why there is no common collection in the East). The Orthodox churches have DIFFERENT collections from each other, and different than the RCC and Anglican Churches, and DIFFERENT than the 3 obscure, little, western, Latin meetings of individual dioceases that Nathan wants to count as one of the 3-7 Ecumenical Councils. There's no evidence anyone in the East ever heard of these 3 little Latin Papal meetings, or cared but CLEARLY didn't follow them because there is NOT ONE Orthodox church that follows the decision of any of these 3 meetings.

We have solid reports of the decisions of the 3-7 Ecumenical Meetings, Pan-Christian, All-Christianity meetings. And NONE of them did ANYTHING about the canon. We know their actions, we know their decisions, we know how Christianity largely embraced those decisions. Perhaps it's reasonable to conclude that IF any of them HAD declared a canon, we'd all have the SAME one. But Christians have DOZENS of DIFFERENT collections. CHRISTIANITY has never declared certain collection of canonical Scriptures.... and even these 3 meetings of Papal bishops said nothing about them being equally so.




.

 

[Andrew]

Or maybe he was just plain wrong.

Perhaps he was wrong in some other areas then?

 

[Origen]

Perhaps he was wrong in some other areas then?

That goes without saying about EVERYONE (except Jesus). It is very assuming that NOW you want to believe Jerome.

 

[Josiah]

That goes without saying about EVERYONE (except Jesus). It is very assuming that NOW you want to believe Jerome.

Obviously.


Except for Jesus, no one man speaks for CHRISTIANITY and is infallible. One person (whether Polycarp, Marcion, Ignatius, Tertulian, Luther, Joseph Smith, Jim Jones) is infallible and the Mouth of Jesus in all his opinions and words.; no one individual (except for Jesus) speaks authoritatively for all Christianity).

Yes, of course, you can find some INDIVIDUAL Christians who label some books specifically as "SCRIPTURE", books such as The Didache, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermes ... indeed several did, and they were very widely circulated among Christians and often quoted. But this does NOT mean that ERGO those 3 separate, obscure, Latin, Western diocese meetings of bishops in submission to the Pope were among the 3 - 7 Ecumenical Meetings and were authoritative/definitive for ALL CHRISTIANITY (it's just none knew that except one individual singular denomination, and that only after 1550).




.

 

[Andrew]

That goes without saying about EVERYONE (except Jesus). It is very assuming that NOW you want to believe Jerome.

and NOW you don't want to believe Jerome :/

 

[Origen]

and NOW you don't want to believe Jerome :/

Not true. I have never said one way or the other. I simply point out the facts (i.e. historically what Jerome actually said or did with verifiable primary sources).

The facts in this case are:
(1) Jerome does not explain why he believes it.
(2) There is no record of such an event.

 

[NathanH83]

It sounds to me that Jerome wanted to exclude the books that he called apocrypha, because the Jews told him that these books don’t belong. But the church authorities required him to include them, apparently because they had reason to believe the council of Nicaea accepted those books as scripture. Jerome probably said that the Nicene Council accepted Judith because the church authorities told him that. And they probably had good reason to believe that, as they probably had access to more documentation than we do.

Then after the 3 councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage the people who wanted these books taken out calmed down and accepted church authority, probably based upon the principle of 2 or 3 witnesses. 2 or 3 church councils was probably enough for them.

But as the works of Jerome were copied and studied throughout the years, the controversy picked back up and continued into later years, until it finally came to a major clash in the 1500’s, due to how the Catholic Church was badly misinterpreting the “apocryphal” books.

In my opinion, I don’t think these books actually teach the Catholic doctrines that they think they do. I think that when you interpret them correctly, they’ll be more in line with Protestant teachings.

Like, I really don’t think 2 Maccabees teaches purgatory.

 

[Albion]

Like, I really don’t think 2 Maccabees teaches purgatory.

It absolutely does not.

There is one rather weak hint there that the Jews of that time--or some of them anyway--might have had a concept that is similar to maybe 5% of what the later doctrine of "Purgatory" was about. That's the most that can be said for it.

 

[NathanH83]

It absolutely does not.

There is one rather weak hint there that the Jews of that time--or some of them anyway--might have had a concept that is similar to maybe 5% of what the later doctrine of "Purgatory" was about. That's the most that can be said for it.

I’m glad someone else agrees

 

[Josiah]

It sounds to me that Jerome wanted to exclude the books that he called apocrypha, because the Jews told him that these books don’t belong.

Would you please quote him stating that?

Why do you accept the personal opinions of one (when they happen to agree with you on at least ONE book of the "them") but reject the personal opinions of others (when they happen to disagree with you on at least one of the "them" books you accept)?

they had reason to believe the council of Nicaea accepted those books as scripture. Jerome probably said that the Nicene Council accepted Judith

Quote these "them" stating they required Jerome to include "them" BECAUSE Jerome told them the Nicene Council declared Judith to be inerrant, fully/equal canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God.

Seems to me you are assuming a LOT.... then GUESSING an enormous amount of things to support your assumption.... neither with any evidence, any substantiation whatsoever, just your vivid imagination and circular reasoning.

they probably had good reason to believe that, as they probably had access to more documentation

.... trying to substantiate claims you've been making for over a year now with a chain of assumptions and personal guesses.

At least you've given up even trying to imply you are actually talking about history, about facts..... you are at least admitting it's all just your own assumptions and guessing. Progress.

Eventually, perhaps you'll admit your errors about the Ecumenical Councils, about ALL CHRISTIANITY and ALL CHRISTIANS, about verses in the Bible mentioning books they obviously don't, and a host of other falsehoods you've spread. And eventually you may realize the "they" and "them" you speak up are your assumptions and guesses, and that there is no single collection of Scriptures - never has been, still isn't... there is a reason you won't list the "them" books because you'd need to admit only ONE single denomination on the planet agrees with you on "them". And that not officially until the 15th or 16th Century.

But there's progress. You are now admitting to GUESSING;. You would have done better to admit that a year ago.




.

 

[Albion]

There is no formal "accepting" by the wider church of inspired books of Scripture until the several councils that canonized the entire Bible in the late 300s reached their decision.

 

[Josiah]

There is no formal "accepting" by the wider church of inspired books of Scripture until the several councils that canonized the entire Bible in the late 300s reached their decision.

ALBION -


There were no such councils.

Our friend, Nathan, claimed for many months that 3 meetings just before 400 were ECUMENICAL meetings, authoritative and binding meetings of ALL-Christianity, PAN-Christianity, ALL CHRISTIANS on Earth. This is a myth. These 3 meetings (obscure and largely forgotten until the RCC dug them up in the Reformation to prove that IT ITSELF - that one church group - always had the same Bible) were just local, regional, Latin meetings of a diocese, each presided by a Bishop in submission to the Bishop of Rome. They were NOT among the 7 Ecumenical Councils. None of these "decided" anything beyond that single diocese (and even that is questionable). It is obvious they were not ECUMENICAL because not one Eastern Church ever abided by any of them.... and long after this, the Latin Church debated books these 3 accepted, even added a book they never mentioned for over 1000 years in many tomes.

There are other "problems" too with the claims of our friends. There is no "THEM".....they assume (wrongly) that there was one universal "set" of these "them" they talk about (but never list). Nope. To this day, the EO churches have SEVERAL DIFFERENT sets of "them." The 39 Articles of the Anglican Communion has yet another. Not one denomination that in ANY way embraces the never-defined "them" agrees with any other on what "them" are. IF there had been some Binding, Authoritative ECUMENICAL meeting of The Ruling Body of All Christianity, then there would be ONE collection - for all Christianity - in perfect submission to that Decision. But there isn't and NEVER HAS BEEN. Oh, and would we have needed THREE separate meetings if ANY of them was actually authoritative and binding upon all Christianity?


ALBION -

Now, IF Nathan and Andrew has said, "These 3 meetings of local Latin dioceses give us powerful evidence of what people IN THAT AREA and AT THAT TIME regarded as "Scripture" (although we don't know if they regarded all as equally so)." Then everyone here would have said "AMEN" an that would have ended the discussion. That would be a reasonable conclusion. And a very common one. But the claim is one of the ECUMENICAL COUNCILS made a binding, definitive, authoritive decision by The Ruling Body of All CHRISTIANITY and all CHRISTIANS docilicly submitted to it so all had the same collection of Scriptures." But that's pure myth. All of it. THAT'S the discussion.


AND, IF Nathan and Andrew had said "Most Christians today (and throughout history) have had more books in their Bibles than that of Calvinists and modern "Evangelicals" - an additional 7 or 10 or 13 or more - although sometimes regarded as "apocrypha" (not authentic, not authoritative) or "deuterocanonical" (secondary, below and subject to the rest).... no denomination has the same collection of extra books, each is unique, but they have these books. And in my opinion, these are often helpful, informational and inspirational and should be read as Martin Luther advised." Again, I don't think there would have been much argument, certainly not from me. But that's not what they've. They've argued there is ONE set of "them" and they MUST be in all Bibles today because ALL CHRISTIANS (or "most" , 50% + 1) embraced the these "them" as inerrant, fully/equally canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God..... CHRISTIANITY declared this single set of "THEM" as fully so at a meeting of 1he Ruling Body of all Christianity at one of the ECUMENICAL COUNCILS and all submitted to this (with the same Bible) until Luther ripped them out of the Bible (they never appear in his translation) and American Evangelicals prohibited publishing houses from putting them in their publications. It's just not true.


The question is not if some Christians read, used and quoted from some of the "them"... of course some did. Can be find evidence that some individuals called them "Scripture" (the word just means a writing), yup. And the same can be said of a number of other books, too (which our friends do not accept). The question is not whether some of these "them" are good to read. The question is all the dogmatic claims made.... that the Bible mentions one of these books.... that there is a defined set of "them".... that "every" or "most" Christians from 33 AD - 1530 AD all had the exact same Bible and accepted everything in it EQUALLY... That there was a meeting of The Ruling Body of ALL CHRISTIANITY and ALL CHRISTIANS that declared a "set" of books as The inerrant, fully/equally canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God (it's just no one seems to have known this since there was no single book among all Christians).... that some Ruling Body of all PROTESTANTISM ripped these out at a Council of Protestantism and they aren't allowed to be included in tomes with "BIBLE" on the cover. Nathan has no evidence, no substantiation for all this, but he DOES have a long, long chain of baseless assumptions and a LOT of guessing. And while he's been asked many times if he has a POINT to all this, it seems not..... although he thinks these "them" are valuable and that Christians only read what if found in their Bible tome and thus don't read these.





.

 

[NathanH83]

Would you please quote him stating that?

Why do you accept the personal opinions of one (when they happen to agree with you on at least ONE book of the "them") but reject the personal opinions of others (when they happen to disagree with you on at least one of the "them" books you accept)?






Quote these "them" stating they required Jerome to include "them" BECAUSE Jerome told them the Nicene Council declared Judith to be inerrant, fully/equal canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God.

Seems to me you are assuming a LOT.... then GUESSING an enormous amount of things to support your assumption.... neither with any evidence, any substantiation whatsoever, just your vivid imagination and circular reasoning.






.... trying to substantiate claims you've been making for over a year now with a chain of assumptions and personal guesses.

At least you've given up even trying to imply you are actually talking about history, about facts..... you are at least admitting it's all just your own assumptions and guessing. Progress.

Eventually, perhaps you'll admit your errors about the Ecumenical Councils, about ALL CHRISTIANITY and ALL CHRISTIANS, about verses in the Bible mentioning books they obviously don't, and a host of other falsehoods you've spread. And eventually you may realize the "they" and "them" you speak up are your assumptions and guesses, and that there is no single collection of Scriptures - never has been, still isn't... there is a reason you won't list the "them" books because you'd need to admit only ONE single denomination on the planet agrees with you on "them". And that not officially until the 15th or 16th Century.

But there's progress. You are now admitting to GUESSING;. You would have done better to admit that a year ago.




.

You don’t have any evidence of your own to counteract these things.

If Jerome thought the Nicene council accepted Judith as scripture, then there has to be a reason why he thought that. My best guess is that this is what he was told by the church leadership who demanded that he include it in his translation.
And it does make sense that they would have more documentation available to them back then than what we have today.

You haven’t shown any evidence disproving this.

We know there were men like Athanasius who attended the council of Nicea, and he considered these books (Judith, Tobit, Esther, etc.) to be non-canonical. But then we see 3 early church councils later on declaring those books to be scripture. So it’s a very logical assumption to say that there were many at the Council of Nicaea who accepted those books as canonical. Especially since Eastern Orthodox, Coptic, Russian, and Ethiopian churches still accept them to this day.

You haven’t shown one bit of positive evidence that would suggest that the whole entire council of Nicaea rejected these books as non-canonical. Nor have you shown any local councils that rejected them, except for the council of Laodicea. And that’s about it.

You don’t really show a lot of evidence. You LOVE to point the finger at other people for not having evidence. You like to tear down and deride people in a very harsh, mean, and hate-filled manner. But when it comes to actually providing positive evidence of your to own back up your beliefs that these books don’t belong, you don’t really prove much.

I mean, what do you got?
You got the unbelieving Jews.
You got the council of Laodicea.
You got Athanasius.

I mean, that’s not alot.

To think, that I can show at least 3 councils that accepted these books, and you can only show one.

I can show at least one church father claiming the Nicene council accepted these books. You can’t show one church father claiming the Nicene council rejected them.

All these other churches, Coptic, Ethiopian, Russian, Eastern Orthodox,…these that are not Catholic, but actually accept the books in the Catholic Bible, and even MORE books than the Catholics accept.

I mean, the Protestant position which says that we should have all these books omitted from the Bible…there’s just not lot of evidence for it. It’s just not consistent with the historical Christian faith.

It’s no wonder you love to point the finger so much at others for not having evidence. It draws attention away from the fact that your beliefs have very little evidence.

 

[pinacled]

Seems the thread has veered off topic quite awhile now.

From the the amount of apocrypha I've read I don't recall any of them pointing to Messiah

 

[Josiah]

You don’t have any evidence of your own to counteract these things.

NATHAN


So, as you've shown, you have NOTHING.....
No evidence..... nothing whatsoever for all your claims...... just a LONG list of your assumptions and admissions of much guessing on your part.

You haven’t shown any evidence disproving this.

I have no need to DISPROVE your claims, assumptions and admitted guessing. YOU are making the remarkable claims..... the ball is in your court. How absurd, how silly!


Friend, this is NOT how debate or logic or apologetics works. IF Bob says, "There are 4598 little purple flying people eaters living on Venus" is not not Jim's responsibility to prove this wrong (nor can him), it's Bob's requirement to prove his claim to be true. You know this. We all know this. Everyone over the age of 5 knows this. When you try to turn the table like this, it is a sure sign that you KNOW you have nothing.

We know

.... that NONE of the Ecumenical Councils decided anything about Scripture or the canon. You are just assuming and (admittedly) guessing. We know what each of these did, and NONE of the 7 did ANYTHING in this regard.

It’s a ... assumption to say that there were many at the Council of Nicaea who accepted those books as canonical.

Assumptions are not evidence.
Assumptions are not substantiation.
Your many guesses are also not evidence.
Personal guessing are not substantiation.

Some at the Council may have thought that the world was flat, but that doesn't change what the Council did. Come on!

No one is saying that some people had opinions here.... rarely do people lack opinions. A LOT of American Evangelicals think that Donald Trump was a great president, that does NOT mean that ERGO there was a date/place meeting of All CHRISTIANITY where the Ruling Body of all Christianity authoritatively and definitively declared Trump to be wonderful. Come on.

Especially since Eastern Orthodox, Coptic, Russian, and Ethiopian churches still accept them to this day.

Which "THEM?" Because those churches do NOT follow the set at those 3 LATIN regional meetings you claim were binding upon ALL CHRISTIANITY. And those groups don't have the same "THEM." And NONE of those EVER officially, authoritatively declared anything about th canon, ALL of them accept this issue as TRADITION (not decision) and NOT a universal one (thus they are okay with other Orthodox churches having DIFFERENT Bibles)... and NONE of those churches has EVER declared (or even specificially opinioned) that all those books are EQUALLY canonical.

Nathan, You haven’t shown one bit of positive evidence that the whole entire council of Nicaea accepted these books as canonical. You don’t really show any evidence, but you DO have a lot of vague "THEY" and "THEM"... a lot of big assumptions... and a lot of admitted guessing.

the Protestant position which says that we should have all these books omitted from the Bible…

Is a lie.

PROTESTANTISM has never said that. Your pastor may have said that.... your denomination may have said that.... some modern American "Evangelicals" may think that. But PROTESTANTISM has never said that. It's just another falsehood you keep repeating like a broken record, offering NOTHING to support it as true.

And friend, Bibles are published by publishing houses. And they are permitted to be ANYTHING in the tome they want. They can put in maps, notes, concordances, illustrations.... mine has all of those plus a lectionary, Luther's Small Catechism... and in the accompany book, additional books (more MORE than modern Catholics). Maybe in some countries, but in the USA, there is no law about what publishing houses may put in tomes. If you want to buy a KJV with some extras books in it, you MAY. It's not against the law. NO ONE is telling you that you are forbidden to read what you want. Come on.

IF you have a problem with your church and pastor.... or your denomination.... take it up with them (not us).... And stop all the falsehoods, the incredible assumptions, the (admitted) guessing.




.

 

[Albion]

ALBION -


There were no such councils.

Of course there were!

But they were not Ecumenical Councils, nor did I represent them as having been Ecumenical Councils.

Our friend, Nathan, claimed for many months that 3 meetings just before 400 were ECUMENICAL meetings, authoritative and binding meetings of ALL-Christianity, PAN-Christianity, ALL CHRISTIANS on Earth.

He was wrong about that. However, I was reacting to something else, specifically the idea that we need to turn to the Council of Nicaea or Jerome or someone else for the "official" decision.

 

[Andrew]

Seems the thread has veered off topic quite awhile now.

From the the amount of apocrypha I've read I don't recall any of them pointing to Messiah

Wisdom Chapter 2?