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

[Lamb]

I don't accept the apocrypha as Bible scripture, because there are ungodly things shown for godliness. Such as God promoting lying to further ends.

Oh wow, which one is that in?

 

[Origen]

Apocrypha books aren't allowed to be read in church.

True.

The only reason they created a 2nd canon was because the 1rst canon includes books that preceded the second canon, otherwise it could have been reversed, but they are both canon, Jews in Alexandria had a longer list of books, the Samaritan Jews only held the five books of Moses.. Palestinian Jews included books from both so they became the rule, however their text is not so ancient, but this was Jerome's duty so be it.

Apocrypha to the according to Rufinus and included in the Church Encyclopedia are books forbidden to enter the churches. I've been reading the letters of the church fathers, one of which included a short history of the church and according to (forget his name) this has always been Christian tradition due to a sect of Christians who were deceived by false apostles who brought in false gospels into the church, and adhering to Paul's warning were anathema. These were the Gnostics, also philosophers were preaching heresies in the church.
So to systematically rid the church of false doctrines they listed the heretical books brought in as Apocrypha books, which included a lot of Apocalyptic literature as well.

This is why when Jerome declared some Alexandrian Jewish books as "Apocrypha" this made it appear as though they were written before hand to deceive.. Why would any Jews deceive fellow Jews before Christ?

Makes no sense.

Rufinus agrees, his list however is not his personal opinionated list but according to Jerome's work and the churches that honored the results albeit they never accepted the term apocrypha, just non canonical. He never states any other reason than this what the church regards as church scripture.

He goes to explain the difference between Canon, Ecclesiastical writings and Apocrypha.. the Ecclesiastical books include the protestant "Apocrypha" which he claims ARE okayed by the Church to be read IN the church but not used for doctrine!

The Apocrypha according to church tradition and Rufinus are books NOT to be read in church, these include gnostic writings, heretical doctrines and even books written by local bishops.

This was how they weeded out any threats of false teachings entering the church.

My question is, if protestants really considered them the 2nd canon as Apocrypha then why do they claim them to be GOOD for Christians to read if they are considered that it may lead to heresy?
Seems like this was never an issue until the PURGATORY debate with Luther. He knew the Catholic order of things and that's why he labeled it so, all one mans opinion, yes purgatory is a lie and I know that Josiah as attempted to persuade me that Luther did not do it in retaliation but I am not convinced.

Over and over in these writings of the church fathers I read

"For the Lord says *quotes apocrypha*"

"For Holy Scripture tells us *quotes apocrypha*"...

Its sickening that they all now seem like idiots in their writings.

Point is, Canon is not JUST a simple agreement, depending on whether its OT or NT its a rule of finding the consistency, the Jews however had no canon nor consistency, the latest books were still wet behind the ears, Samaritans and Pharisees hated each other, its chaos. and I agree with Rufinus that it was as if Jerome was under the inspiration of Barabbas for tossing out traditional scriptures and giving the church a new canon based on what the unbelieving Jews hold as Scripture and calling the other ecclesiastical scripture "apocrypha" which is a word used for heretical books namely the Gnostics and the Apocalyptics writings

Again the facts remain the same, and nothing in your post changes that. Rufinus and Jerome had a falling out. They were no longer friends. Nevertheless Rufinus canon list (dated to after their falling out) names the same books as those found in Jerome. Rufinus also goes on to make it clear that the apocrypha is not canonical. Since they were no longer friends there is no reason to think that Rufinus is following Jerome's on this matter. Your claims amount to nothing more than fallacious accusations.

 

[Origen]

Rufinus also list what books are NOT Apocrypha! Did you miss that part?

Irrelevant! Rufinus clearly tells us which books he believes are part of the canon and which are not. And the books of the apocrypha he excludes from his canon list.

Even he didn't agree with Jerome's use of that word to describe the non doctrinal but traditional scriptures used and read in the churches.

Nothing more than semantics. Rufinus clearly tells us which books he believes are part of the canon can which are not. And the books of the apocrypha he excludes from his canon list.

Apocrypha means not ecclesiastic scripture and forbidden from entering the church

Again nothing more than semantics. The point remains the same. Rufinus clearly tells us which books he believes are part of the canon can which are not. And the books of the apocrypha he excludes from his canon list.

 

[Origen]

Your whole Jewish Conspiracy Theory is not only ENTIRELY, COMPLETELY unsubstnatiated but silly, absurd, laughbable.

EXACTLLY!!!

 

[Origen]

What other spirit than that of the Jews would dare to tamper with the records of the church which have been handed down from the Apostles? It is they, my brother, you who were most dear to me before you were taken captive by the Jews, it is they who are hurrying you into this abyss of evil. It is their doing that those books of yours are put forth in which you brand your Christian brethren, not sparing even the martyrs, and heap up accusations speakable and unspeakable against Christians of every degree, and mar our peace, and cause a scandal to the church. It is they who cause you to pass sentence upon yourself and your own writings as upon words which you once spoke as a Christian. We all of us have become worthless in your eyes, while they and their evil acts are all your delight.

Yet we know for fact which books he believed were part of the canon and which books were not.

"Of the Old Testament, therefore, first of all there have been handed down five books of Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; then Joshua the son of Nun; the book of Judges together with Ruth; then four books of Kings, which the Hebrews reckon two; Paralipomenon, which is called the book of Days [Chronicles], and two books of Ezra, which the Hebrews reckon one, and Esther; of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel; moreover of the Twelve [minor] Prophets, one book; Job also and the Psalms of David, each one book. Solomon gave three books to the churches, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs. These comprise the books of the Old Testament."

Here is the list he gives above.
Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy
Joshua
Judges
Ruth
1-2 Samuel
1-2 Kings
1-2 Chronicles
1-2 Esdras
Esther
Job
Psalms
Proverbs
Ecclesiastes
Song of Solomon
Isaiah
Jeremiah
Lamentations
Epistle of Jeremiah
Ezekiel
Daniel
12 Minor Prophets

Rufinus rejected the apocrypha as part of the canon. No matter which term anyone uses these are the facts when it comes to Rufinus.

Rufinus to Jerome (his close life long friend)

FALSE! They were not life long friends and you know this. You must want people to believe this false information. Interesting!

On Origen he writes..
He proved that apostates and Jews had translated the writings which the Jews specially read: and, since it would frequently happen in the course of discussion that they falsely asserted that some things had been taken out and others put in in our copies of the Scriptures, Origen desired to show to our people what reading obtained among the Jews. He therefore wrote out each of their versions in separate pages or columns, and pointed out by means of certain specified marks at the head of each line what had been added or subtracted by them; and he merely put these marks of his in the work of others, not in his own; so that we might understand not what we ourselves but what the Jews believed to have been either removed or inserted.

Rufinus comments have nothing to with the books of the canon but translation.

 

[pinacled]

EXACTLLY!!!

There is nothing amusing about anti semitism

 

[pinacled]

Oh wow, which one is that in?

Judith!

The exceptional form of murder

 

[Josiah]

What other spirit than that of the Jews would dare to tamper

ANDREW,

You confirm, there is NOTHING at all, nothing whatsoever, to confirm Nathan's Jewish Conspiracy Theory. You confirm this.


There is nothing that confirms that some mysterious, unidentified "them" Jews ripped some books out of the collection of Scriptures that the Ruling Body of all JUDAISM authoritatively, officially put IN their Bible BECAUSE Christians were quoting from these unidentified 'them" books to show prophecy of Jesus fulfilled.


This weird conspiracy theory not only has NOTHING to support it but it's laughably absurd. IF some mysterious Jews wanted to rip out some books from their official Bible (sic!) BECAUSE Christians were quoting it, the first book they would have ripped out would have been ISAIAH, not Psalm 151 or The Prayer of Mannasseh or 1 Esdras. Come on, this is just silly.




.

 

[Andrew]

ANDREW,

You confirm, there is NOTHING at all, nothing whatsoever, to confirm Nathan's Jewish Conspiracy Theory. You confirm this.


There is nothing that confirms that some mysterious, unidentified "them" Jews ripped some books out of the collection of Scriptures that the Ruling Body of all JUDAISM authoritatively, officially put IN their Bible BECAUSE Christians were quoting from these unidentified 'them" books to show prophecy of Jesus fulfilled.


This weird conspiracy theory not only has NOTHING to support it but it's laughably absurd. IF some mysterious Jews wanted to rip out some books from their official Bible (sic!) BECAUSE Christians were quoting it, the first book they would have ripped out would have been ISAIAH, not Psalm 151 or The Prayer of Mannasseh or 1 Esdras. Come on, this is just silly.




.

I was quoting Rufinus

 

[pinacled]

I was quoting Rufinus

And rufinus is a nazi

 

[NathanH83]

And rufinus is a nazi

Pretty sure Nazis weren’t around in his day.

 

[NathanH83]

I don't accept the apocrypha as Bible scripture, because there are ungodly things shown for godliness. Such as God promoting lying to further ends.

Yea, that’s interesting.
Where does God promote lying in the Apocrypha?

 

[pinacled]

Pretty sure Nazis weren’t around in his day.

The inquisition of rufinus is a form of cultural genocide..
Nazis is a latin label

 

[Andrew]

The inquisition of rufinus is a form of cultural genocide..
Nazis is a latin label

A certain protestant reformer has said worse things than Rufinus about the Jews, in Revelation the Jews are given a new title "Synagogue of Satan" and that's the last mention of the word 'Jew' in Revelation.
Jesus called the unbelieving Jews "sons of their father the devil"

I wish no ill towards them, they are given a stumbling block set before them by the tradition of their fathers who rejected Christ.
Their Talmud is is their new testament, I cant even post the things it says concerning Mary and Jesus and gentiles.

 

[Albion]

Nazis is a latin label

How do you figure?

 

[NathanH83]

The same jews whom supposedly wrote the apocrypha bribed and conspired with rome.

And Paul appealed to Caesar. What of it?

Should we rip out the book of Acts because Paul claimed to be a Roman citizen?

 

[NathanH83]

Oh wow, which one is that in?

I think he might be talking about when the angel Raphael “lied” about being Tobit’s relative in order to conceal his true identity (even though he later revealed who he really is at the end of the story).

I guess all forms of lying are sinful, right? Like when my friends threw me a surprise party, and lied to me about the true reason I was heading to the house. Oh, they’re such sinners because they broke the 9th commandment.

Hebrews 13:2 says that some have entertained angels unaware.

Try to imagine a scenario where you entertain an angel unaware.

If you’re entertaining someone, aren’t you going to ask them their name? Where they’re from? Their back story? Especially if you’re an Israelite, and you’re entrusting your son’s welfare in his hands, wouldn’t you like to know if he is an Israelite too? And if so, if he’s a close relative?

How on Earth would an angel be able to conceal his identity? Just “hope” that the person entertaining him never asks?
Just cross your fingers?

 

[pinacled]

And Paul appealed to Caesar. What of it?

Should we rip out the book of Acts because Paul claimed to be a Roman citizen?

Ole sh'aul is a citizen of the Kingdom above roman authority.

His subordination to rome is a lesson in humility.

Strangely which rome claims he was killed.?

 

[pinacled]

Pretty sure Nazis weren’t around in his day.

Jewish persecution was evident in the tyrant rufinus in his letters to jerome whom sympathized with the "jews"

 

[NathanH83]

Judith!

The exceptional form of murder

Judith killed the enemy general.
You can’t think of any Biblical story where the hero killed an enemy?

Wasn’t there that one guy who killed a giant? David, was it? Kinda popular story in the Bible.