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

[TonyC7]

They had no incentive? Really? I can think of a perfectly sensible motive! You need to listen to David Bercot’s audio teaching.

Besides, the whole reason it’s called “Apocrypha” is because the Jews were hiding it. Well, why hide it? Sounds like they were embarrassed by something.

Basically, the Jews wanted to discredit the New Testament. So, they came up with the doctrine that in order for something to be scripture, there has to be prophets. But the succession of the prophets ended in the days of Ezra, with prophets like Zechariah, Haggai, Malachi, etc. So, since prophecy stopped at that time, then so did scripture.

This is a blatant rejection of the New Testament, which clearly says that Jesus is the prophet that Moses talked about, and that John the Baptist is the greatest of prophets. John the Beloved also prophesied, as well as Paul and many other disciples. Therefore, the New Testament can, in fact, be scripture.

But in order for the Jews to stick with their teaching that the prophets ended in Ezra's day, and therefore scirpture ended in Ezra's day (in order to discredit the New Testament), they had to also say that the Maccabees cannot be scripture, since it came after Ezra's day. Also, 1 Maccabees chapter 14 says they made Simon their high priest and leader "until a trustworthy prophet should arise" indicating that there IS a prophet "coming soon to a synagogue near you."

So, since the Jews who rejected the New Testament had to stick with their doctrine that they were using to discredit the New Testament, they had to also discredit the Maccabees as well. Why do you think the Jewish rabbis were hiding the Hebrew copies of 1 Maccabees? That's what Jerome said, that they were hiding it. That's why he called it "Apocrypha" which means "hidden."

I'd be glad to give you the youtube links to David Bercot's message on the topic. He makes a very compelling case for it.

Here's David Bercot's audio messages on the apocrypha:

Part 1:

Part 2:

That is not even logically coherent. The Jews had no motivation to deny the Christian Scriptures - they were irrelevant to them. They didn't even accept Christ! And by the time 90 A.D. came around, the New Testament wasn't even complete yet, and many of the books had only been written for a short period of time. The issue for the Jews was not to deny the Christian New Testament, it was to obscure the clear Old Testament prophecies in their own Scriptures that Jesus clearly fulfilled. The writings of the New Testament were just documentation of what was already widely known about Jesus during the first century.

Further, in light of the events of 70 A.D., do you think the Jews may have had some other things to worry about other than being preoccupied with denying their own writings on the basis of what they considered an annoying conspiracy theory? The Jews NEVER considered the Apocrypha as Scripture. EVER! All the history we have attests to that and yet you have NO evidence to the contrary!

Don't you see what's happening here? Bercot is trying to make a square peg fit into a round hole. Who knows what his true doctrinal motivation is, but I'm sure he has one. You are being deluded by his teachings and have bought into it completely, even though the arguments do not make sense and they fly in the face of everything we know about history.

 

[NathanH83]

That is not even logically coherent. The Jews had no motivation to deny the Christian Scriptures - they were irrelevant to them. They didn't even accept Christ! And by the time 90 A.D. came around, the New Testament wasn't even complete yet, and many of the books had only been written for a short period of time. The issue for the Jews was not to deny the Christian New Testament, it was to obscure the clear Old Testament prophecies in their own Scriptures that Jesus clearly fulfilled. The writings of the New Testament were just documentation of what was already widely known about Jesus during the first century.

Further, in light of the events of 70 A.D., do you think the Jews may have had some other things to worry about other than being preoccupied with denying their own writings on the basis of what they considered an annoying conspiracy theory? The Jews NEVER considered the Apocrypha as Scripture. EVER! All the history we have attests to that and yet you have NO evidence to the contrary!

Don't you see what's happening here? Bercot is trying to make a square peg fit into a round hole. Who knows what his true doctrinal motivation is, but I'm sure he has one. You are being deluded by his teachings and have bought into it completely, even though the arguments do not make sense and they fly in the face of everything we know about history.

The Jews have no motive to deny the Christian scriptures? Uh, yea they do. They deny the Christian scriptures still to this day. And from about every teaching I've heard, the Christian New Testament books were all completed by about 90 AD. So, I don't know where you're getting your information.

The destruction of the temple in 70 AD was further motive for them to reject Maccabees. Many Jewish rabbis forbade the celebration of Hanukkah immediately after the temple's destruction. They didn't want to celebrate the rededication of a temple that doesn't even exist anymore. It wasn't until centuries later that they started celebrating Hanukkah again, focusing more on the fabled oil that lasted for 8 days.

Besides, we know that the prophecies in Daniel foretell of the events in Maccabees. Why don't you want Christians to understand the prophecies in Daniel 8? Do you really want Christians to be kept in the dark?

 

[TonyC7]

The Jews have no motive to deny the Christian scriptures? Uh, yea they do. They deny the Christian scriptures still to this day. And from about every teaching I've heard, the Christian New Testament books were all completed by about 90 AD. So, I don't know where you're getting your information.

The destruction of the temple in 70 AD was further motive for them to reject Maccabees. Many Jewish rabbis forbade the celebration of Hanukkah immediately after the temple's destruction. They didn't want to celebrate the rededication of a temple that doesn't even exist anymore. It wasn't until centuries later that they started celebrating Hanukkah again, focusing more on the fabled oil that lasted for 8 days.

Besides, we know that the prophecies in Daniel foretell of the events in Maccabees. Why don't you want Christians to understand the prophecies in Daniel 8? Do you really want Christians to be kept in the dark?

Sir you are full of misinformation. The Book of Revelation was not written until 95 A.D. You think the Jews were preoccupied with denying letters written from one Christian to another while they were dealing with the destruction of their way of life? The Jews at Jamnia were forced to rebrand their religion into a religion of works, as they had now no Temple to perform ritual sacrifices for atonement. Judaism could no longer function as Mosaic Judaism, so it morphed into Rabbinic Judaism. Yes, they obscured certain OT prophecies about Jesus in order to make it seem like Jesus wasn't the Messiah. This is well known and well acknowledged by scholars. But what is NOT well known is your bunk about some conspiracy to remove the Apocrypha, which did not prophecy about Jesus, and no Christian Scriptures quoted to prove anything about Jesus. Your explanation has failed the true test of logic and is only found in your imagination. History debunks your pet theories.

The destruction of Jerusalem was no motivation for the Jews to deny their own supposed "Scriptures." There is no evidence of this anywhere outside of your imagination. All of the historical sources we have indicate that the Jews NEVER considered the Apocrypha on the same level as the inspired Scriptures. They were secondary historical Jewish writings, and there are MANY of them.

Again, you tell me I don't want Christians to understand the prophecies in Daniel? That right there is your failure of logic that you keep returning to. I use Maccabees to teach the historical fulfillments in Daniel 11. I also use history books of wide variety of origin to enhance understanding of Biblical events. But that is NOT EQUIVALENT to wanting to make it PART OF SCRIPTURE. Why is this so difficult for you? Denying its inspiration is not the same as denying its value as a secondary supporting historical source. No matter how many times you keep repeating this, it does nothing but expose how empty your logic is.

 

[NathanH83]

Sir you are full of misinformation. The Book of Revelation was not written until 95 A.D. You think the Jews were preoccupied with denying letters written from one Christian to another while they were dealing with the destruction of their way of life? The Jews at Jamnia were forced to rebrand their religion into a religion of works, as they had now no Temple to perform ritual sacrifices for atonement. Judaism could no longer function as Mosaic Judaism, so it morphed into Rabbinic Judaism. Yes, they obscured certain OT prophecies about Jesus in order to make it seem like Jesus wasn't the Messiah. This is well known and well acknowledged by scholars. But what is NOT well known is your bunk about some conspiracy to remove the Apocrypha, which did not prophecy about Jesus, and no Christian Scriptures quoted to prove anything about Jesus. Your explanation has failed the true test of logic and is only found in your imagination. History debunks your pet theories.

The destruction of Jerusalem was no motivation for the Jews to deny their own supposed "Scriptures." There is no evidence of this anywhere outside of your imagination. All of the historical sources we have indicate that the Jews NEVER considered the Apocrypha on the same level as the inspired Scriptures. They were secondary historical Jewish writings, and there are MANY of them.

Again, you tell me I don't want Christians to understand the prophecies in Daniel? That right there is your failure of logic that you keep returning to. I use Maccabees to teach the historical fulfillments in Daniel 11. I also use history books of wide variety of origin to enhance understanding of Biblical events. But that is NOT EQUIVALENT to wanting to make it PART OF SCRIPTURE. Why is this so difficult for you? Denying its inspiration is not the same as denying its value as a secondary supporting historical source. No matter how many times you keep repeating this, it does nothing but expose how empty your logic is.

See, that doesn’t make sense though. If Daniel 8 and 11 prophesy about the events in Maccabees, then it only makes sense for Maccabees to be in the Bible. And the early church declared it to be a part of the Bible. And the only reason they declared it to be, is because that was the tradition handed down to them, all the way back to the earliest disciples. And if Jesus’ disciples accepted them, then so did the Jews back then.

Why can’t Maccabees be scripture? Just because the unbelieving Jews today tell you that it doesn’t belong?

Most people at my church don’t know that Maccabees is real history. They think that it’s fake stuff that Catholics made up, and they stay away from it like the plague. As a result, they don’t know the fulfillment of these prophecies in Daniel. That is a real tragedy. And it’s people who tell them that it’s not scripture that’s causing it.

 

[Origen]

Jerome just said it for no reason with nothing causing him to think that?

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

I mean, this is basic common sense.

Something is NOT common sense if there is NO reason\evidence to believe it. There is zero historical evidence for your claims.

Jerome says that the Nicene council decided that Judith is holy scripture

First of all you are overstating what Jerome said. Second, there is no record of such of an event. Third, we do have many witnesses\sources on the council of Nicaea and none of them mention it.

then it kind of makes it seem like the men at the council of Nicaea probably accepted these books as scripture.

Again, zero evidence.

Athanasius who specifically said he believes otherwise.

Correct, and HE WAS THERE.

I mean, it’s not that hard to figure out.

You must mean by the phrase "it’s not that hard to figure out" fabricate a fantasy.

But if someone was to claim that ZERO of the attendees at the Nicene council accepted these books as scripture, that would be very far-fetched.

Enough with the fallacies.

 

[Albion]

They weren't accepted as definitely inspired?

No. The decision to include them in the canon of the Bible was made as a concession to unfinished business. As said, the Jews were divided into two camps about the Apocrypha, and the Christians as a whole were undecided, so....

Cite a protestant declaration of canon ever

Not sure what you're asking here. The churches which are most often remembered for having taken a stand about this matter were the Lutheran and the Anglican ones, and they both decided that these books were not part of the Bible. But the Apocrypha had some value, even if NOT inspired, and therefore these books were deemed to be valuable reading for advice on "manners and morals." After all, the Apocrypha is almost entirely a collection of morality tales, not following the format of the (rest of) the Old Testament. Some reading from the Apocrypha is appointed to be read in both Lutheran and Anglican churches even yet.

 

[NathanH83]

But, but, but…
Trent Horn says so.

 

[NathanH83]

If I said there may be life on Mars, I might have a reason for saying so but it doesn't make it true.

Not only do you totally confuse your own opinions with fact, you do that with others if they agree with you on a point.

You have NO evidence that any Jew told Jerome anything....
You have NO evidence that any opinion of this one man is thus fact...
You have NO evidence that anyone at the Council of Nicea discussed what is and is not Scripture or any function thereof.
You are just making this all up. You admit to assuming and guessing.

This we KNOW. The Council of Nicea did NOTHING in this regard. NOTHING. Absolutely nothing whatsoever. None of the 7 Ecumenical Councils did. Individuals had their opinions.... individual dioceses sometimes did things for that diocese... in time, a handful of denominations officially decided things (the Church of England, the Catholic Church, the Reformed Church, the LDS Church) but CHRISTIANITY never did anything about this (witness the great many DIFFERENT Bibles we have), and PROTESTANTISM never did anything about this (there is no Ruling Body CAPABLE of doing anything about this, Protestantism could not do anything about this if it wanted to, it has no means to do it).





.




.

You know how you so often say “West, Local, Latin”?

Ok? Why do you automatically assume that the west Latin church was wrong?
And if it is wrong, well, the eastern church had even more books. The churches down south in Ethiopia had even more books than the eastern church.

So, If these western latin churches were wrong, why do you automatically assume they included too much? What if it’s the other direction, that they included too little?

After all, the Ethiopians included Enoch. Jude quoted Enoch!
The Ethiopians included 4 Esdras.
Jesus quoted 4 Esdras!

I’m inclined to think maybe the Ethiopians are more on track.

 

[Lamb]

2 Esdras 7:28-29 (KJV)

“For my son Jesus shall be revealed with those that be with him, and they that remain shall rejoice within four hundred years.
After these years shall my son Christ die, and all men that have life.”


Ezra lived about 400 years before Christ. So that’s a pretty amazing prophecy.

Actually scholars are stating that 2 Esdras was written by several authors and around 2nd century AD.

 

[NathanH83]

Actually scholars are stating that 2 Esdras was written by several authors and around 2nd century AD.

That’s what they say. But I haven’t seen any evidence for it.

 

[NathanH83]

Actually scholars are stating that 2 Esdras was written by several authors and around 2nd century AD.

I’ve tried to find out why scholars think 2 Esdras (4 Esdras) was written after the time of Christ. And all I’ve found so far is that they think its prophecies are too accurate to be true.

Like, it talks about this eagle with 3 heads and 12 feathers. Apparently the eagle is supposed to be Rome, and the 12 feathers represent 12 emperors (or something like that). And apparently the prophesy is so dead-on accurate, that they find it to be highly suspect, and must have been written after the events took place.

But I don’t understand how that’s supposed to be convincing evidence, since these same “scholars” say the same thing about Daniel.

Because Daniel 8 and 11 prophesy so accurately about the Greek empire and the events of Maccabees, then scholars today say that Daniel must not have been written until after the Maccabean revolt, because there’s just no possible way that Daniel could have actually prophesied something so accurately. So Daniel must have been written after the events of the Maccabees.

Well, I don’t believe that about Daniel. I believe Daniel accurately prophesied because he heard from the Lord.

I just don’t really see where the evidence is, from a Christian perspective, that would prove 2 Esdras was written after the time of Christ. Secular scholars who reject the Bible don’t really convince me.

 

[pinacled]

I’ve tried to find out why scholars think 2 Esdras (4 Esdras) was written after the time of Christ. And all I’ve found so far is that they think its prophecies are too accurate to be true.

Like, it talks about this eagle with 3 heads and 12 feathers. Apparently the eagle is supposed to be Rome, and the 12 feathers represent 12 emperors (or something like that). And apparently the prophesy is so dead-on accurate, that they find it to be highly suspect, and must have been written after the events took place.

But I don’t understand how that’s supposed to be convincing evidence, since these same “scholars” say the same thing about Daniel.

Because Daniel 8 and 11 prophesy so accurately about the Greek empire and the events of Maccabees, then scholars today say that Daniel must not have been written until after the Maccabean revolt, because there’s just no possible way that Daniel could have actually prophesied something so accurately. So Daniel must have been written after the events of the Maccabees.

Well, I don’t believe that about Daniel. I believe Daniel accurately prophesied because he heard from the Lord.

I just don’t really see where the evidence is, from a Christian perspective, that would prove 2 Esdras was written after the time of Christ. Secular scholars who reject the Bible don’t really convince me.

Try to focus on examples that pertain to the question put forth in the op

 

[Josiah]

Why do you automatically assume that the west Latin church was wrong?

I'm not the one making all those countless assumptions.... and then all that guessing from those.... all to try to prove your assumptions and guessing and wild leaps verify your assumptions.


Why do you assuming that 3 Western, Latin, Diocese meetings of bishops submissive to the Pope are thus infallible, binding, definitive for ALL CHRISTIANITY, EVERY CHRISTIAN? You don't abide by local meetings of the Latin Church, why should we? You don't think the Latin Church is infallible or authoritative, why should we?


And of course, I simply pointed out that you are wrong... CHRISTIANITY did not declare the unique Roman Catholic Bible (shared by no other) to be THE precise collection of inerrant, fully/equal canonical, divinely-inscrpturated words of God. In fact, even that one single inidividual denominatiuon has never declared all that. You are wrong when you insist CHRISTIANITY did something.

You are also wrong that every Christian and every Christian church had the exact SAME Bible until John Calvin came along.... Christianity has NEVER had one Bible, we've NEVER agreed on what is and is not Scripture and we've never declared that all such is equally canonical.

And you are wrong when you insist that the words of Scripture include mentions of books you personally today think are Scripture but John Calvin did not; very few books are specially mentioned in the Bible and NONE of the "them" (yow won't indentify) is among those Calvin dropped.

the eastern church had even more books. The churches down south in Ethiopia had even more books than the eastern church.

THINK!

There goes your whole premise you've repeated for over a year now.... that there was some binding, authoritative, ECUMENICAL, ALL-CHRISTIANITY meeting at which the exact corpus of Scripture was identified. You can't identify this meeting (and we all know why) but you give the proof that it never happened.... there was and is NO SINGLE corpus of books, NO SINGLE Bible, NO SINGLE embrace of what is and is not Scripture. So IF that meeting you insist actually happened (but you can't identify), then all Christians would all have THAT Bible, THAT corpus of Scriptures. They don't. They never have. Your foundational claim is wrong, and if you actually THOUGHT about what you post, you would have realized that over a year ago.


And by the way, NONE of those churches hold to those DIFFERENT Bibles because anything or anyone declared anything.... none of the collections are even official.... the Eastern Church holds that what is Scripture is a matter of TRADITION, and that Tradition is not perfect or absolute or universal. They don't argue with each other OR with the Latin Church (none of whom agree with any other on this point) because it's NOT a matter of CHRISTIANITY declaring but of TRADITION that is NOT universal or perfect or absolute. The Roman Catholic Church declared differently in the Reformation, insisting that IT ITSELF alone did that at 3 forgotten, obscure, local meetings of Papal bishops, it always had the SAME unique, different Bib;e. But the RCC has never gone as far as you, never claiming these had ANY meaning or significance to OTHER churches, only itself.... at Trent, the Catholic Church declared this issue is not Tradition but Declaration, and appointed just it itself alone to declare it. So did John Calvin. So did the Anglican Communion. So did the LDS. But until then, it was TRADITION - imperfect, not absolute. And only recently has any suggested all books in these different corpus are EQUALLY canonical, that's a very new thought. Some earlier considered a ranking of canonicity, including that some Scriptures were deuterocanonical, even apocrypha.





.

 

[NathanH83]

I'm not the one making all those countless assumptions.... and then all that guessing from those.

Why do you assuming that 3 Western, Latin, Diocese meetings of bishops submissive to the Pope are thus infallible, binding, definitive for ALL CHRISTIANITY, EVERY CHRISTIAN? You don't abide by local meetings of the Latin Church, why should we? You don't think the Latin Church is infallible or authoritative, why should we?


And of course, I simply pointed out that you are wrong... CHRISTIANITY did not declare the unique Roman Catholic Bible (shared by no other) to be THE precise collection of inerrant, fully/equal canonical, divinely-inscrpturated words of God. In fact, even that one single inidividual denominatiuon has never declared all that. You are wrong when you insist CHRISTIANITY did something.

You are also wrong that every Christian and every Christian church had the exact SAME Bible until John Calvin came along.... Christianity has NEVER had one Bible, we've NEVER agreed on what is and is not Scripture and we've never declared that all such is equally canonical.

And you are wrong when you insist that the words of Scripture include mentions of books you personally today think are Scripture but John Calvin did not; very few books are specially mentioned in the Bible and NONE of the "them" (yow won't indentify) is among those Calvin dropped.






THINK!

There goes your whole premise you've repeated for over a year now.... that there was some binding, authoritative, ECUMENICAL, ALL-CHRISTIANITY meeting at which the exact corpus of Scripture was identified. You can't identify this meeting (and we all know why) but you give the proof that it never happened.... there was and is NO SINGLE corpus of books, NO SINGLE Bible, NO SINGLE embrace of what is and is not Scripture. So IF that meeting you insist actually happened (but you can't identify), then all Christians would all have THAT Bible, THAT corpus of Scriptures. They don't. They never have. Your foundational claim is wrong, and if you actually THOUGHT about what you post, you would have realized that over a year ago.


And by the way, NONE of those churches hold to those DIFFERENT Bibles because anything or anyone declared anything.... none of the collections are even official.... the Eastern Church holds that what is Scripture is a matter of TRADITION, and that Tradition is not perfect or absolute or universal. They don't argue with each other OR with the Latin Church (none of whom agree with any other on this point) because it's NOT a matter of CHRISTIANITY declaring but of TRADITION that is NOT universal or perfect or absolute. The Roman Catholic Church declared differently in the Reformation, insisting that IT ITSELF alone did that at 3 forgotten, obscure, local meetings of Papal bishops, it always had the SAME unique, different Bib;e. But the RCC has never gone as far as you, never claiming these had ANY meaning or significance to OTHER churches, only itself.... at Trent, the Catholic Church declared this issue is not Tradition but Declaration, and appointed just it itself alone to declare it. So did John Calvin. So did the Anglican Communion. So did the LDS. But until then, it was TRADITION - imperfect, not absolute. And only recently has any suggested all books in these different corpus are EQUALLY canonical, that's a very new thought. Some earlier considered a ranking of canonicity, including that some Scriptures were deuterocanonical, even apocrypha.





.

I have a hard time understanding what your motive is.
You have never even once told me what books you think ought to be included in the Bible. I don’t know if you favor the Protestant canon, or the Catholic one, or the Eastern Orthodox one, or the Ethiopian one. So, since I don’t know where you’re coming from, then I don’t understand what you’re arguing for.

It sounds to me like you’re just arguing for argument’s sake. And most of what you say has been copied and pasted from your previous posts over and over again. You literally just repeat yourself over and over. But you never actually share what it is you’re in favor of. So, I really don’t know what your arguing for. You’re just arguing for the sake of arguing.

Why? What’s your angle? What’s your point? What are you getting at?

Do you favor the 66 books of the Protestant canon? Or do you think there should be even more books than the Catholic one? I really don’t know what your arguing for.

Also, whenever you start to repeat yourself with the same copied and pasted jargon, it just causes me to stop reading. I already read it the first 1,000 times you posted it.

 

[Lamb]

Could we please get my thread back on point? So far 3 verses out of all those apocryphal books have been listed. There is no other evidence to prove that those books lead a person to Jesus as Savior?

 

[NathanH83]

I'm not the one making all those countless assumptions.... and then all that guessing from those.... all to try to prove your assumptions and guessing and wild leaps verify your assumptions.


Why do you assuming that 3 Western, Latin, Diocese meetings of bishops submissive to the Pope are thus infallible, binding, definitive for ALL CHRISTIANITY, EVERY CHRISTIAN? You don't abide by local meetings of the Latin Church, why should we? You don't think the Latin Church is infallible or authoritative, why should we?


And of course, I simply pointed out that you are wrong... CHRISTIANITY did not declare the unique Roman Catholic Bible (shared by no other) to be THE precise collection of inerrant, fully/equal canonical, divinely-inscrpturated words of God. In fact, even that one single inidividual denominatiuon has never declared all that. You are wrong when you insist CHRISTIANITY did something.

You are also wrong that every Christian and every Christian church had the exact SAME Bible until John Calvin came along.... Christianity has NEVER had one Bible, we've NEVER agreed on what is and is not Scripture and we've never declared that all such is equally canonical.

And you are wrong when you insist that the words of Scripture include mentions of books you personally today think are Scripture but John Calvin did not; very few books are specially mentioned in the Bible and NONE of the "them" (yow won't indentify) is among those Calvin dropped.






THINK!

There goes your whole premise you've repeated for over a year now.... that there was some binding, authoritative, ECUMENICAL, ALL-CHRISTIANITY meeting at which the exact corpus of Scripture was identified. You can't identify this meeting (and we all know why) but you give the proof that it never happened.... there was and is NO SINGLE corpus of books, NO SINGLE Bible, NO SINGLE embrace of what is and is not Scripture. So IF that meeting you insist actually happened (but you can't identify), then all Christians would all have THAT Bible, THAT corpus of Scriptures. They don't. They never have. Your foundational claim is wrong, and if you actually THOUGHT about what you post, you would have realized that over a year ago.


And by the way, NONE of those churches hold to those DIFFERENT Bibles because anything or anyone declared anything.... none of the collections are even official.... the Eastern Church holds that what is Scripture is a matter of TRADITION, and that Tradition is not perfect or absolute or universal. They don't argue with each other OR with the Latin Church (none of whom agree with any other on this point) because it's NOT a matter of CHRISTIANITY declaring but of TRADITION that is NOT universal or perfect or absolute. The Roman Catholic Church declared differently in the Reformation, insisting that IT ITSELF alone did that at 3 forgotten, obscure, local meetings of Papal bishops, it always had the SAME unique, different Bib;e. But the RCC has never gone as far as you, never claiming these had ANY meaning or significance to OTHER churches, only itself.... at Trent, the Catholic Church declared this issue is not Tradition but Declaration, and appointed just it itself alone to declare it. So did John Calvin. So did the Anglican Communion. So did the LDS. But until then, it was TRADITION - imperfect, not absolute. And only recently has any suggested all books in these different corpus are EQUALLY canonical, that's a very new thought. Some earlier considered a ranking of canonicity, including that some Scriptures were deuterocanonical, even apocrypha.





.

I also don’t know what you mean when you say that Maccabees was not in everyone’s Bibles. Uh, yea it was. Maccabees was in everyone’s Bibles. It was in the western latin Bibles, the eastern Greek and Russian Bibles, the southern Coptic and Ethiopian Bibles. Even the Protestant Bibles had Maccabees until 1885.

Is it really good and right for all these Bibles in modern American Christianity to be missing Maccabees? Everyone’s Bibles included it until 1885, and now we’re all missing it???

And when I say that it doesn’t make sense for our Bibles not to include this history since Daniel prophesies about it…. People say “not necessarily” as if to say that the Bible can prophecy about history that is not in the Bible.

Ok, I get that the Bible can prophesy about things that are not in the Bible. BUT…Maccabees has historically been in everyone’s Bibles before the 1800’s. So…it kind of makes sense for that to be in the Bible.

 

[Josiah]

I have a hard time understanding what your motive is.

NATHAN,


My motivation? Truth.

When people post wild, false things..... Lies.... I think correction is good; I think truth matters.

I have no idea what your motivation is for ALL those countless (wild) assumptions.... ALL that guessing..... why you are SO passionate about all Christianity officially declaring some set of books you won't identify be The inerrant, fully/equally canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God... not sure what Dogma you think is found that that ALL CHRISTIANITY must embrace or denounce as heresy. Many of us have asked you, many times but you've always ignored the question. Well doesn't matter. Whatever your enormous passion and purpose, what you post is typically wrong. And I hold that truth matters. Why this incredibly passionate fight for the RCC's unique set of deuterocanonical books?

Why? What’s your angle? What’s your point?

Truth.

When bold, wild STATEMENTS and CLAIMS are made - that clearly are false - I think truth should be declared. Perhaps this is very radical and strange to you.




As I posted (but I sincerely doubt you typically read what others post)

....IF you had posted, "Most Christians have larger biblical tomes than Calvinists and American Evangelicals today" then everyone here would have said "AMEN" and that would be it.

.... IF you had posted, "There are many different Bibles in Christianity, and a lot of them contain various collections of books often regarded as deuterocanical or apocrypha (although no two denominations agree on which set and rarely is this official)." Then everyone here would have agreed with that.

... IF you had posted, "I have read some of the books some embrace (perhaps as deuterocanonical or apocrypha) and have found much here to be, inspirational and transformational (and often helpful in understanding Scripture)." Everyone here would have said, "Awesome" and perhaps shared they've read and appreciated these books. too.

... IF you had posted, "Some denominations include readings from their unique collection of deuterocanonical/apocrypha) books in their Sunday Lectionary... these include all the Eastern Orthodox Churches, the Roman Catholic Church, Anglicans and some Lutherans. Some Lutherans formally study these" Again, once again, you'd be correct. No one here would dispute that, several of us would confirm your point as very true.

... IF you had posted, "What Christians have (and still) regard as "Scripture" is a matter of Tradition, an informal and unofficial growing consensus - never absolute or universal but profound nonetheless - more solid around some, less so others, still others often seen as deuterocanonical or apocrypha." Again, true... and no debate. You could add that after the Reformation, some DENOMINATIONS have been official, formal declarations of the list of Scripture FOR ITSELF ALONE (nothing ecumenical, nothing regarding Christianity), you'd be right about that too.

... IF you had posted, "I'm really mad at my pastor and my denomination for not mentioning books beyond John Calvin's list, even insisting that I'm forbidden to read them, my pastor really ticks me off!" Okay. I doubt any here would identify with your anger.... some of us would mention that our pastors and churches encourage us to read them, even do studies on them.



The above is true. But you said none of those things. Here's what you've been claiming and guessing and assuming...


... ALL CHRISTIANITY, ALL CHRISTIANS have accepted the identical corpus of books as Scripture and in their Bibles forever. Wrong. This has never been true. It's a lie (sorry to be so blunt). And your implication that they've all accepted a single corpus as EQUALLY and FULLY canonical is also baseless. We STILL can't confirm that's true.

.... CHRISTIANITY declared (on a date, at a place) EXACTLY the corpus of books to be regarded as Scripture, as fully/equally canonical. And all Christians (then and now) must submit to this grand Ecumenical Council. No such meeting ever happened, it's a lie. No such declaration was ever made by the Ruling Body of all Christianity. NEVER were books but IN (and thus it's laughable to keep insisting someone/something took "them" OUT).

... PROTESTANTISM ripped out some of the books that CHRISTIANJTY put in. Wrong. It's a lie. Protestantism has never done anything; it cannot, it has no governing body for all the thousands of Protestant denominations and hundreds of millions of Protestants. Anglicanism and Luther put MORE books in their tomes than the modern RCC. You may have a beef with John Calvin but Calvin is not PROTESTANTISM, you may have a beef with your pastor, but he/she is not PROTESTANTISM. True.... some Protestants regard deuterocanonical books as deuterocanonical and some Protestants can't name any of them (or half of the books in their Bible) but they are not PROTESTANTISM and not all PROTESTANTS.

... The Bible itself mentions books you regard as Scripture and fully canonical. It's a lie. Reality: VERY few books are mentioned in the Bible and none of those are among the "them" you won't identify. Fact.

.... A book that contains accurate history MUST be The inerrant, fully/equally canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God. Nope.

... If any book mentions an event, and the Bible mentions that event, those books that mentioned the event are ergo among The inerrant, fully/equally canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God. Nope. That's just incredibly silly.

... if something is found within the covers of a book with "BIBLE" written on the cover, therefore all that has been authoritatively declared by CHRIISTIANITY to be The inerrant, fully/equally canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God, all that and only that. Nope. Wrong.

... The Council of Nicea discussed the correct collection of Scripture and stated the exact list of what is Scripture, declaring all on that specific list as equally canonical." A lie. While it's POSSIBLE the participants discussed if the Earth is flat and officially. formally declared that, we have ZERO evidence of that (exactly the same evidence we have for that council declaring the RCC's List as the correct one for fully/equally canonical Scripture). Sometimes, I read your posts and just shake my head in amazement.

I doubt you've read more than a dozen words here.... or considered even those. But thank you. Your falsehoods have caused me to do some study and to learn and I'm thankful for that. It's been a waste of time in regards to you but not others. I'm so thankful too for Origen here, a man with the patience of a saint, who has been most informational and helpful, not to you (of course, I doubt you read or consider anything) but to me. You will go on. And on and on and on and on and on. Like a broken record. In post after post, thread after thread, with your assumptions and guessing and falsehoods... and eventually folks here will just put you on their ignore list but where there is falsehood, there can be truth in response. And truth is good.





.

 

[Origen]

NATHAN,

My motivation? Truth.

When people post wild, false things..... Lies.... I think correction is good; I think truth matters.

I have no idea what your motivation is for ALL those countless (wild) assumptions.... ALL that guessing..... why you are SO passionate about all Christianity officially declaring some set of books you won't identify be The inerrant, fully/equally canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God... not sure what Dogma you think is found that that ALL CHRISTIANITY must embrace or denounce as heresy. Many of us have asked you, many times but you've always ignored the question. Well doesn't matter. Whatever your enormous passion and purpose, what you post is typically wrong. And I hold that truth matters. Why this incredibly passionate fight for the RCC's unique set of deuterocanonical books?


Truth.

When bold, wild STATEMENTS and CLAIMS are made - that clearly are false - I think truth should be declared. Perhaps this is very radical and strange to you.

As I posted (but I sincerely doubt you typically read what others post)

....IF you had posted, "Most Christians have larger biblical tomes than Calvinists and American Evangelicals today" then everyone here would have said "AMEN" and that would be it.

.... IF you had posted, "There are many different Bibles in Christianity, and a lot of them contain various collections of books often regarded as deuterocanical or apocrypha (although no two denominations agree on which set and rarely is this official)." Then everyone here would have agreed with that.

... IF you had posted, "I have read some of the books some embrace (perhaps as deuterocanonical or apocrypha) and have found much here to be, inspirational and transformational (and often helpful in understanding Scripture)." Everyone here would have said, "Awesome" and perhaps shared they've read and appreciated these books. too.

... IF you had posted, "Some denominations include readings from their unique collection of deuterocanonical/apocrypha) books in their Sunday Lectionary... these include all the Eastern Orthodox Churches, the Roman Catholic Church, Anglicans and some Lutherans. Some Lutherans formally study these" Again, once again, you'd be correct. No one here would dispute that, several of us would confirm your point as very true.

... IF you had posted, "What Christians have (and still) regard as "Scripture" is a matter of Tradition, an informal and unofficial growing consensus - never absolute or universal but profound nonetheless - more solid around some, less so others, still others often seen as deuterocanonical or apocrypha." Again, true... and no debate. You could add that after the Reformation, some DENOMINATIONS have been official, formal declarations of the list of Scripture FOR ITSELF ALONE (nothing ecumenical, nothing regarding Christianity), you'd be right about that too.

... IF you had posted, "I'm really mad at my pastor and my denomination for not mentioning books beyond John Calvin's list, even insisting that I'm forbidden to read them, my pastor really ticks me off!" Okay. I doubt any here would identify with your anger.... some of us would mention that our pastors and churches encourage us to read them, even do studies on them.

The above is true. But you said none of those things. Here's what you've been claiming and guessing and assuming...

... ALL CHRISTIANITY, ALL CHRISTIANS have accepted the identical corpus of books as Scripture and in their Bibles forever. Wrong. This has never been true. It's a lie (sorry to be so blunt). And your implication that they've all accepted a single corpus as EQUALLY and FULLY canonical is also baseless. We STILL can't confirm that's true.

.... CHRISTIANITY declared (on a date, at a place) EXACTLY the corpus of books to be regarded as Scripture, as fully/equally canonical. And all Christians (then and now) must submit to this grand Ecumenical Council. No such meeting ever happened, it's a lie. No such declaration was ever made by the Ruling Body of all Christianity. NEVER were books but IN (and thus it's laughable to keep insisting someone/something took "them" OUT.

... PROTESTANTISM ripped out some of the books that CHRISTIANJTY put in. Wrong. It's a lie. Protestantism has never done anything; it cannot, it has no governing body for all the thousands of Protestant denominations and hundreds of millions of Protestants. Anglicanism and Luther put MORE books in their tomes than the modern RCC. You may have a beef with John Calvin but Calvin is not PROTESTANTISM, you may have a beef with your pastor, but he/she is not PROTESTANTISM. True.... some Protestants regard deuterocanonical books as deuterocanonical and some Protestants can't name any of them (or half of the books in their Bible) but they are not PROTESTANTISM and not all PROTESTANTS.

... The Bible itself mentions books you regard as Scripture and fully canonical. It's a lie. Reality: VERY few books are mentioned in the Bible and none of those are among the "them" you won't identify. Fact.

.... A book that contains accurate history MUST be The inerrant, fully/equally canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God. Nope.

... If any book mentions an event, and the Bible mentions that event, those books that mentioned the event are ergo among The inerrant, fully/equally canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God. Nope. That's just incredibly silly.

... if something is found within the covers of a book with "BIBLE" written on the cover, therefore all that has been authoritatively declared by CHRIISTIANITY to be The inerrant, fully/equally canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God, all that and only that. Nope. Wrong.

I doubt you've read more than a dozen words here.... or considered even those. But thank you. Your falsehoods have caused me to do some study and to learn and I'm thankful for that. It's been a waste of time in regards to you but not others. I'm so thankful too for Origen here, a man with the patience of a saint, who has been most informational and helpful, not to you (of course, I doubt you read or consider anything) but to me. You will go on. And on and on and on and on and on. Like a broken record. In post after post, thread after thread, with your assumptions and guessing and falsehoods... and eventually folks here will just put you on their ignore list but where there is falsehood, there can be truth in response. And truth is good.

I could not agree more. Honesty, accuracy, and academic integrity are of the upmost importance. The absolute truth should be the standard we all live by no matter how much it hurts. Anything less is a slap in the fact of God HIMSELF.

 

[Josiah]

I could not agree more. Honesty, accuracy, and academic integrity are of the upmost importance. The absolute truth should be the standard we all live by no matter how much it hurts. Anything less is a slap in the fact of God HIMSELF.

Amen.


Sin can cause all of us to think more highly of ourselves than we should, even to the absurd length of equating our opinions with God's truth, our assumptions fact, our guessing with God's words. This is a sin.... and should be confessed.

Luther said, "Humility is the foundation of all good theology." I think that's wise. Not equating OUR brain with God's..... not subjecting God;s truth to what "makes sense" to our puny, fallen, sinful brain. But I confess, we all can fall into that.... the devil encourages that... no one is guiltless on that point. I so recall a Greek Orthodox friend of mine who is apt to say "The problem with Christians is their unwillingness to shut up." And my doctrine teacher who commented, "No heretic got into trouble by saying too little but by saying too much." There are times when we all need to be reminded: "That's you talking, not God.... that's your opinion, not fact."

The Germans have a wonderful word, "schwaffel" (I hope I'm spelling it correctly).... it means to passionately share an opinion or theory. To ponificate one's theories. What in college we called "BS'ing." Now, there's nothing inherently wrong with theorizing or "B.S." per se, the problem is an ego SO big that it assumes such is fact and then condemns, ridicules, accuses, and flames others who simply ask "where's the substantiation for that?" Have the honesty to admit when it's "schwaffel." To admit, "this is just my opinion, my guess." It's called honesty. It respects truth.

Perhaps our friend has fallen into this error..... perhaps he just uses WAY, WAY too much hy0erbole and generalizations... perhaps he is just a poor writer. But it seems he holds to myths... and exempts them from responsibility, accountability,truth. And when that's not docilicly submitted to, there is frustration, anger, accusations. Perhaps. Be open to contrition.




On THIS general topic (Scripture, canonical), there are issues that are troubling, especially to modern American Evangelicals. I think their Sunday School teachers (and perhaps even pastors) promote a myth. I've certainly read/heard a lot of American Evangelicals convey this, in one way or another. The MYTH is that God sent out this mass email in 33 AD with a list of all the Books that are Scripture, and that all on that list are equally/fully canonical... and all other writings are false and to be ignored. Thus, all Christians had John Calvin's Bible until some heretical churches in the 16th Century added some others to try to support heresies. It's a myth. None of that is true.

There are some laity in the Catholic Church that also hold to a myth they were told by lay teachers. I was taught this in my Catholic years.... I've heard this in various froms from many Catholics (including family and friends). The myth that THE all ruling, all powerful, authoritative Catholic Church declared what is and is not Scripture around 400 AD.... but some horrible, disobedient, rebellious "Christians" paid no attention to this and added a bunch of other books (which fortunately don't matter much so who cares)....The problem is (according to this myth) is people who don't respect Christ or His Church or His Vicar are rebellious, they reject the infallible, inerrant, all-powerful, divine rule of the Catholic Church been embraced outside of itself: Orthodox and Protestants have th e wrong Bible because they do not docilicly submit to The Catholic Church, and its bishops in submission to the Pope, the Vicar of Christ... they reject that the Catholic Church IS the Mouth of God Himself and thus are confused and divergent and in disagreement. Everyone would have the SAME Bible if it weren't that non-Catholics disrespect Christ and His Church. That too is a myth.

In reality, it seems it's a bit..... messy. And we are NOT united on this - either on the exact content OR on the canonicity of such. BUT (and here's what I find stunning), the difference is amazingly irrelevant. The reason no one "fought" over these various collections of deuterocanonical books is that none cared much about them. They were seldom used... they neither confirmed or denied any debated doctrines or practices. Lots of good info here (and we can discover in THOUSANDS of books and writings), lots of good inspiration (as again we can find in THOUSANDS of books and writings) but precious little of any consequence. I suppose the same could be said for some of Calvin's "66" too but certainly so for the deuterocanonical or apolcryha books. We can find no debate for over 1000 years on this because there was nothing of consequence to debate. There was nothing to debate.... they were seldom used (and never canonically). UNTIL the Reformation... when those pesky Protestants revealed here too that they did NOT docilicly submit to the singular RCC and its bishops in align with the Pope (of course, nor did any EOC - but they had all already been Excommunicated). Problems was, the RCC could not show IT had ever done anything on this (although 3 diocese did) that. So it did so at its meeting at Trent (retroactively). It had everything to do with POWER, nothing to do with any doctrine, teaching or practice. MY experience is that the RCC ignored them as much now as ever. The consensus over Calvin's "66" is amazing and universal. Less so over another 7-12 or so, less so for another dozen or so (not counting NT dueterocanonical/apocrypha never mentioned by Nathan). But Nathan is wrong: There has never been some formal DECLARATION on this for all Christianity.....there has never been ONE collection for all Christianity... and there's never been some declaration that all books in a tome with "BIBLE" on the cover are EQUALLY canonical in function (indeed, it seems to me, most Chritians don't think so even now).





.

 

[NathanH83]

NATHAN,


My motivation? Truth.

When people post wild, false things..... Lies.... I think correction is good; I think truth matters.

I have no idea what your motivation is for ALL those countless (wild) assumptions.... ALL that guessing..... why you are SO passionate about all Christianity officially declaring some set of books you won't identify be The inerrant, fully/equally canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God... not sure what Dogma you think is found that that ALL CHRISTIANITY must embrace or denounce as heresy. Many of us have asked you, many times but you've always ignored the question. Well doesn't matter. Whatever your enormous passion and purpose, what you post is typically wrong. And I hold that truth matters. Why this incredibly passionate fight for the RCC's unique set of deuterocanonical books?





Truth.

When bold, wild STATEMENTS and CLAIMS are made - that clearly are false - I think truth should be declared. Perhaps this is very radical and strange to you.




As I posted (but I sincerely doubt you typically read what others post)

....IF you had posted, "Most Christians have larger biblical tomes than Calvinists and American Evangelicals today" then everyone here would have said "AMEN" and that would be it.

.... IF you had posted, "There are many different Bibles in Christianity, and a lot of them contain various collections of books often regarded as deuterocanical or apocrypha (although no two denominations agree on which set and rarely is this official)." Then everyone here would have agreed with that.

... IF you had posted, "I have read some of the books some embrace (perhaps as deuterocanonical or apocrypha) and have found much here to be, inspirational and transformational (and often helpful in understanding Scripture)." Everyone here would have said, "Awesome" and perhaps shared they've read and appreciated these books. too.

... IF you had posted, "Some denominations include readings from their unique collection of deuterocanonical/apocrypha) books in their Sunday Lectionary... these include all the Eastern Orthodox Churches, the Roman Catholic Church, Anglicans and some Lutherans. Some Lutherans formally study these" Again, once again, you'd be correct. No one here would dispute that, several of us would confirm your point as very true.

... IF you had posted, "What Christians have (and still) regard as "Scripture" is a matter of Tradition, an informal and unofficial growing consensus - never absolute or universal but profound nonetheless - more solid around some, less so others, still others often seen as deuterocanonical or apocrypha." Again, true... and no debate. You could add that after the Reformation, some DENOMINATIONS have been official, formal declarations of the list of Scripture FOR ITSELF ALONE (nothing ecumenical, nothing regarding Christianity), you'd be right about that too.

... IF you had posted, "I'm really mad at my pastor and my denomination for not mentioning books beyond John Calvin's list, even insisting that I'm forbidden to read them, my pastor really ticks me off!" Okay. I doubt any here would identify with your anger.... some of us would mention that our pastors and churches encourage us to read them, even do studies on them.



The above is true. But you said none of those things. Here's what you've been claiming and guessing and assuming...


... ALL CHRISTIANITY, ALL CHRISTIANS have accepted the identical corpus of books as Scripture and in their Bibles forever. Wrong. This has never been true. It's a lie (sorry to be so blunt). And your implication that they've all accepted a single corpus as EQUALLY and FULLY canonical is also baseless. We STILL can't confirm that's true.

.... CHRISTIANITY declared (on a date, at a place) EXACTLY the corpus of books to be regarded as Scripture, as fully/equally canonical. And all Christians (then and now) must submit to this grand Ecumenical Council. No such meeting ever happened, it's a lie. No such declaration was ever made by the Ruling Body of all Christianity. NEVER were books but IN (and thus it's laughable to keep insisting someone/something took "them" OUT).

... PROTESTANTISM ripped out some of the books that CHRISTIANJTY put in. Wrong. It's a lie. Protestantism has never done anything; it cannot, it has no governing body for all the thousands of Protestant denominations and hundreds of millions of Protestants. Anglicanism and Luther put MORE books in their tomes than the modern RCC. You may have a beef with John Calvin but Calvin is not PROTESTANTISM, you may have a beef with your pastor, but he/she is not PROTESTANTISM. True.... some Protestants regard deuterocanonical books as deuterocanonical and some Protestants can't name any of them (or half of the books in their Bible) but they are not PROTESTANTISM and not all PROTESTANTS.

... The Bible itself mentions books you regard as Scripture and fully canonical. It's a lie. Reality: VERY few books are mentioned in the Bible and none of those are among the "them" you won't identify. Fact.

.... A book that contains accurate history MUST be The inerrant, fully/equally canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God. Nope.

... If any book mentions an event, and the Bible mentions that event, those books that mentioned the event are ergo among The inerrant, fully/equally canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God. Nope. That's just incredibly silly.

... if something is found within the covers of a book with "BIBLE" written on the cover, therefore all that has been authoritatively declared by CHRIISTIANITY to be The inerrant, fully/equally canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God, all that and only that. Nope. Wrong.

... The Council of Nicea discussed the correct collection of Scripture and stated the exact list of what is Scripture, declaring all on that specific list as equally canonical." A lie. While it's POSSIBLE the participants discussed if the Earth is flat and officially. formally declared that, we have ZERO evidence of that (exactly the same evidence we have for that council declaring the RCC's List as the correct one for fully/equally canonical Scripture). Sometimes, I read your posts and just shake my head in amazement.

I doubt you've read more than a dozen words here.... or considered even those. But thank you. Your falsehoods have caused me to do some study and to learn and I'm thankful for that. It's been a waste of time in regards to you but not others. I'm so thankful too for Origen here, a man with the patience of a saint, who has been most informational and helpful, not to you (of course, I doubt you read or consider anything) but to me. You will go on. And on and on and on and on and on. Like a broken record. In post after post, thread after thread, with your assumptions and guessing and falsehoods... and eventually folks here will just put you on their ignore list but where there is falsehood, there can be truth in response. And truth is good.





.

I didn’t read any of that huge book that you just wrote there. Please first tell me if you agree if the Apocryphal books (or at least some of them) should be included in the Bible. I need to know what your stance is on that before I can understand any points you’re trying to make.

Once you tell me, then I might go back and read that huge book you just wrote.