Ecclesiasticals VS Canonical

[NathanH83]

That's because the duty of the pastor is to share God's Word to feed the flock. They do that by reading the canonical books of the bible.

Yea, but Aladdin and The Matrix are not canonical books of the Bible.

Maccabees was at least believed by 3 local councils of the early church in the 300’s to be divine canonical scripture. Even those who said it’s not canonical still said it’s at least historically useful to understanding the Bible. Plus it’s integral to biblical history, since the Old Testament prophesies about it, and the New Testament references it.

I’m pretty sure God wants us to understand the prophecies in Daniel. That’s also involved in feeding the flock.

Obviously, Maccabees takes precedence over Aladdin.

Please don’t tell me that you are incapable of understanding this logic.

The Apocrypha has far more worth than Hollywood movies about fictional stories, especially the books like Maccabees that are KNOWN even by secular historians to be extremely historically accurate.

Does The Matrix and Shawshank Redemption really have more value when it comes to feeding the flock than a book of REAL Jewish history that records the events that fulfill prophecies in Daniel 8 and 11?

Really?

Good grief. Come on!

 

[NathanH83]

But many of the ante-nicene fathers used them in the churches and even refer to them as Gods word, and not just on occasion but very fluently, especially from the book of Wisdom.

Oh, the early church used the Apocryphal books in church?

Well, that’s proof that a scene from The Matrix is much more useful than books used by the early church.

 

[Origen]

Such extraordinary claims I am making,

I never said they were extraordinary claims. I was merely asking for proof. I cannot see why it is wrong to ask for evidence for a claim. If one does not have the proof, then it is best not to make a claim which cannot be supported with facts, evidence, proof.

Will you double check them?

Without a doubt

 

[NathanH83]

You have made the claim now where is the objective evidence that was the reason for all of them?

Have you done any research into the conversations between Jerome and Augustine?

 

[Josiah]

I'll have to read this post again later but I just wanted to note real quick that the Samaritans for example only accepted the Torah as divine Scripture, on the farthest side of the spectrum you have the EOC who accept the entire LXX as divine Scripture.. Yet in an earlier post you stated that God divinely appointed the Reformers to establish His final order of Scripture, did I get that right?

Andrew...


Nope. I never remotely said any such thing (indeed, I've repeatedly posted the opposite)

In fact, Luther specifically REJECTED the (constant) request to declare what is Scripture and what status each book has. His reaction: That's NOT something ANY church (denomination) or man has; God leads US not any one. And so this TOO is something he directed to an 8th Ecumenical Council which of course never happened (and almost certainly could not have). The Reformed movement DID formally embrace Calvin's view... and the Anglican Church DID declare what was common in England at the time (where many more books were in use than on the continent) but Lutheranism did not do this, the Lutheran Confessions are notably silent on the topic.

My point in post 26 is one you are confirming..... just because books are published, read, used, quoted and even called "Scripture" does NOT mean ERGO they are formally/officially declared to be (and accepted universally as) inerrant, fully/equally canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God. You are disagreeing with Nathan (because you are better informed)....


And friend, Origen has a very valid point: You and Nathan have constantly made HUGE, bold claims.... and used THOSE as the basis for your apologetic... but he's right, these big, bold claims are left entirely unsubstantiated (and frankly, they often seem absurd) and often seem more hyperbole and assumptions than points at all. Claiming Christianity did something... and then that some unknown person countered it is a bold claim and needs bold substantiation - not entirely baseless claims, radical hyperbole. "Connecting dots" that don't exist is not apologetics at all. You've spent too much time at Nathan's website, LOL.

I'm glad you read posts 24 and 26.... I sincerely hope you will consider it, thanks!


Blessings!


Josiah



.

 

[Origen]

Have you done any research into the conversations between Jerome and Augustine?

Yes I have reads the letters. Everyone knows Jerome preferred the Hebrew canon. Augustine accepted the Apocrypha. That is not news and Jerome is only one person.

You stated:

The ones that did not are the ones who favored the Hebrew over the Septuagint.

You said "the ones who favored the Hebrew over the Septuagint." Prove the following individuals favored the Hebrew text over the Septuagint.

Melito of Sardis, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius of Alexandria, Gregory of Nazianzus, Amphilochius of Iconium, Epiphanius of Salamis, Hilary of Poitiers, Rufinus of Aquileia

 

[Josiah]

Oh, the early church used the Apocryphal books in church?

Nathan,


It SEEMS that SOME Christians from 33-311 AD used books beyond Calvin's 66.... No one here has EVER denied that. And as you note, some Christians today use Disney movies, TV shows, song lyrics, newspaper articles, inspirational stories and MUCH, MUCH more. In sermons, in books, in theological discussions. You are right about that, too. Think about that.


Here's where you are completely baseless: That THEREFORE Christianity officially/formally declared some books (that you won't identify) to be inerrant, fully/equally canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God.... that 100% of Christians embraced this list of books (that you won't supply) and all Bibles had exactly the same books in them.... that some person ( you won't identify) gathered up all the Bibles in Western Europe sometime in the 16th Century and he ripped out a bunch of books (that you don't name) from all of them - and no one cared or noticed until you did (evidently quite recently)... and that people are forbidden to read these books (you won't identify) and publishing houses are forbidden to put them in books entitled "BIBLE" and thus Christians don't read them (the books you won't identify) because Christians don't read things that aren't between the covers of tomes with "BIBLE" written on the cover.


Brother......
+ Of course, Christians have used LOTS of stuff... and still do.... doesn't mean ERGO all of it is embraced by Christianity as fully canonical (or as canonical at all)
+ If your pastor forbids people in your parish from reading some books (you won't identify), that's HIM - not Christianity, not CH, not anyone here.... take your anger and rant to the appropriate person/institution.
+ You can read and use and quote ANYTHING you like..... Christianity has never declared otherwise (maybe your parish or pastor has, however)
+ MILLIONS of things are helpful in understanding Scripture. That reality does NOT mean that ERGO all of those MUST have been officially declared by the Ruling Body of All Christianity to be The inerrant, fully/equally canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God and must be legally required to be placed in all tomes entitle "BIBLE" and if they aren't there, some unknown dude ripped them out
+ I don't deny that modern American "Evangelicalism" (heavily influenced by Calvin) largely ignores Deuterocanonical material... but modern American Evangelism is a TINY minority of Christianity and very new.... IF you are discovering that MUCH of this movement is amiss, then join the club!!!!! But it is absurd to confuse this tiny, modern subset of American Christianity with all Christianity; absurd.

Read posts 24 and 26



- Josiah




.

 

[NathanH83]

Andrew...


Nope. I never remotely said any such thing (indeed, I've repeatedly posted the opposite)

In fact, Luther specifically REJECTED the (constant) request to declare what is Scripture and what status each book has. His reaction: That's NOT something ANY church (denomination) or man has; God leads US not any one. And so this TOO is something he directed to an 8th Ecumenical Council which of course never happened (and almost certainly could not have). The Reformed movement DID formally embrace Calvin's view... and the Anglican Church DID declare what was common in England at the time (where many more books were in use than on the continent) but Lutheranism did not do this, the Lutheran Confessions are notably silent on the topic.

My point in post 26 is one you are confirming..... just because books are published, read, used, quoted and even called "Scripture" does NOT mean ERGO they are formally/officially declared to be (and accepted universally as) inerrant, fully/equally canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God. You are disagreeing with Nathan (because you are better informed)....


And friend, Origen has a very valid point: You and Nathan have constantly made HUGE, bold claims.... and used THOSE as the basis for your apologetic... but he's right, these big, bold claims are left entirely unsubstantiated (and frankly, they often seem absurd) and often seem more hyperbole and assumptions than points at all. Claiming Christianity did something... and then that some unknown person countered it is a bold claim and needs bold substantiation - not entirely baseless claims, radical hyperbole. "Connecting dots" that don't exist is not apologetics at all. You've spent too much time at Nathan's website, LOL.

I'm glad you read posts 24 and 26.... I sincerely hope you will consider it, thanks!


Blessings!


Josiah



.

What position are you defending?

 

[NathanH83]

Yes I have reads the letters. Everyone knows Jerome preferred the Hebrew canon. Augustine accepted the Apocrypha. That is not news and Jerome is only one person.

You stated:

You said "the ones who favored the Hebrew over the Septuagint." Prove the following individuals where favored the Hebrew text over the Septuagint.

Melito of Sardis, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius of Alexandria, Gregory of Nazianzus, Amphilochius of Iconium, Epiphanius of Salamis, Hilary of Poitiers, Rufinus of Aquileia

Jerome favored the Hebrew over the Septuagint. He also favored removing the Apocrypha.

Augustine favored the Septuagint over the Hebrew (with a few exceptions). He favored including the Apocrypha.

The issue of the Septuagint and the issue of the Apocrypha go hand in hand.

I was listening to a debate between James White and Gary Michuta. James White said that the early church fathers who favored the removal of the Apocrypha were usually the ones more familiar with the Hebrew language, and more acquainted with the Jewish people.

When I heard him say that, I realized that he was right. Jerome went to Bethlehem, and was convinced by the Jews that these books should be removed. Melito of Sardis got his list from the Jews when he travelled to Palestine. Athanasius said that the books like Judith and Tobit are non-canonical. And where did Athanasius live? In Alexandria, the largest Jewish population in the world at that time. He was probably influenced by the Jews to say that those books are non-canonical, just like with Jerome.

So even though most church fathers of the early church were perfectly fine with having the Apocryphal books in the Bible, it was the church fathers who were heavily interacting with Jews who became convinced that those books should be removed. Jerome spent over 30 years learning Hebrew from the Jews in Bethlehem. Clearly he was very much influenced by them.

It fits with the pattern, that the Jews after the time of Christ removed things, which before time of Christ they accepted. Justin Martyr even accused the Jews of removing things from Ezra, Jeremiah, Psalms, etc.

 

[Lamb]

Please don’t tell me that you are incapable of understanding this logic.

The Apocrypha has far more worth than Hollywood movies about fictional stories, especially the books like Maccabees that are KNOWN even by secular historians to be extremely historically accurate.

Does The Matrix and Shawshank Redemption really have more value when it comes to feeding the flock than a book of REAL Jewish history that records the events that fulfill prophecies in Daniel 8 and 11?

Really?

Good grief. Come on!

No need to flame. I made it larger and bold in the quoted post above so that you could see that you're attacking my ability to comprehend something which is a flame. If you would like a serious conversation then I would be happy to respond, but I will not tolerate flaming from you.

 

[Origen]

Melito of Sardis got his list from the Jews when he travelled to Palestine.

Untrue! Melito never claims he got his list from Jews.

He states: "Accordingly when I went East and came to the place where these things were preached and done, I learned accurately the book of the Old Testament, and send them to you as written below." (EH 4.26.14)

Athanasius said that the books like Judith and Tobit are non-canonical. And where did Athanasius live? In Alexandria, the largest Jewish population in the world at that time.

He was Bishop of Alexandria the birth place of the LXX. He never claim he got his canon list from Jews or the Hebrew text. In fact there is no evidence he even knew Hebrew.

He was probably influenced by the Jews to say that those books are non-canonical

As always you have no evidence for your claim.

You simply make it up as you go along.

 

[NathanH83]

No need to flame. I made it larger and bold in the quoted post above so that you could see that you're attacking my ability to comprehend something which is a flame. If you would like a serious conversation then I would be happy to respond, but I will not tolerate flaming from you.

Sorry, but it was not my intention to insult you. I think you misunderstood my comment.

I’m not saying that you are incapable of understanding this logic.

I know for a FACT that you are plenty smart enough to understand the logic behind what I’m saying. That’s my point. I’m not saying you’re stupid. I’m saying you ARE intelligent enough to understand this. That was my intention behind that statement.

I’m not trying to say that you are INCAPABLE of understanding. I’m saying that you are UNWILLING to BE understanding on the point I’m making. And that’s what I don’t appreciate: the unwillingness.

Don’t you have any value whatsoever for the history in Maccabees? Why do our churches today make it seem like such a crime of a pastor preached from Maccabees from the pulpit to help the congregation understand Biblical prophecy?

We make it seem like this would be crime, but showing a clip from a rated “R” movie like The Matrix is OK?

Can’t you see how backwards this is?

It’s like somebody making it legal for kids to drink beer, but illegal for them to drink orange juice because “too much sugar”. We demonize something that is good and valuable, and then allow things that have very little value, and potentially dangerous.

Jesus took time out of his busy schedule to travel to Jerusalem during the Feast of Dedication. If John’s gospel mentions a holiday that originated from 1 Maccabees (a book of factual and accurate history) then clearly that has more legitimacy being quoted in church than a fictional, secular Hollywood movie (with cuss words and sex scenes that we edited out to make it clean to show in church).

What I was trying to communicate is the fact that your comment towards me just steamrolls right over this point that I was making. You didn’t even acknowledge the point I was making.

 

[NathanH83]

Untrue! Melito never claims he got his list from Jews.

He states: "Accordingly when I went East and came to the place where these things were preached and done, I learned accurately the book of the Old Testament, and send them to you as written below." (EH 4.26.14)


He was Bishop of Alexandria the birth place of the LXX. He never claim he got his canon list from Jews or the Hebrew text. In fact there is no evidence he even knew Hebrew.


As always you have no evidence for your claim.

You simply make it up as you go along.

Well, Jerome was definitely influenced by the Jews.

I doubt your statement on Melito. I remember hearing from James White that Melito travelled to Israel and got the list from them.

As for Athanasius, imagine someone living in New York and never rubbing shoulders with a Jew. I mean, give me a break. New York is the largest concentration of Jews in the world today. Alexandria was back then. Don’t tell me that Athanasius and his congregation had ZERO influence from people who they rubbed shoulders with everyday.

 

[Lamb]

Don’t you have any value whatsoever for the history in Maccabees? Why do our churches today make it seem like such a crime of a pastor preached from Maccabees from the pulpit to help the congregation understand Biblical prophecy?

Biblical prophecy? The main purpose of the preacher is to point to Jesus. When I started the thread asking how the Apocryphal books point to Jesus you admitted you didn't know.

 

[Origen]

Well, Jerome was definitely influenced by the Jews.

Which proves nothing. Your modus operandi is always the same. First, you resort to pure speculation and fantasy. Then comes step two, the association fallacy. It never fails.

I doubt your statement on Melito.

Eusebius does not agree.
Ecclesiastical History, Book 4, Chapter 26, Section 14

"Accordingly when I went East and came to the place where these things were preached and done, I learned accurately the book of the Old Testament, and send them to you as written below."

After giving the list Eusebius says "Such are the words of Melito."

I remember hearing from James White that Melito travelled to Israel and got the list from them.

White does no such thing. At timestamp 53:00 he states: "We do know that Melito of Sardis inquired of the church in Palestine concerning the Old Testament canon around A.D. 175."

As for Athanasius, imagine someone living in New York and never rubbing shoulders with a Jew. I mean, give me a break. New York is the largest concentration of Jews in the world today. Alexandria was back then. Don’t tell me that Athanasius and his congregation had ZERO influence from people who they rubbed shoulders with everyday.

And there is it again, your modus operandi (i.e. pure speculation coupled with the association fallacy). You prove over and over again that you have zero evidence for your claims. The fact is that is there no evidence Athanasius "favored the Hebrew over the Septuagint."

 

[NathanH83]

Untrue! Melito never claims he got his list from Jews.

He states: "Accordingly when I went East and came to the place where these things were preached and done, I learned accurately the book of the Old Testament, and send them to you as written below." (EH 4.26.14)


He was Bishop of Alexandria the birth place of the LXX. He never claim he got his canon list from Jews or the Hebrew text. In fact there is no evidence he even knew Hebrew.


As always you have no evidence for your claim.

You simply make it up as you go along.

Jewish by birth, Melito lived in an atmosphere where the type of Christianity practiced was largely oriented toward the Jewish form of the Christian faith.

Given the fact that Melito’s list omitted the book of Esther, and the fact that he actually had to travel to Palestine to get his list, that makes it highly suspect for Jewish tampering.

There wasn’t just unbelieving Jews, who completely rejected Christ, who had some false beliefs. There were also Judaizers, Ebionites, and all kinds of cults and sects that claimed to believe in Christ, but compromised with the lies that unbelieving Jews had made up.

Melito’s background, upbringing, and associations coupled with his omission of Esther sounds to me that his canon list is not above suspicion for Jewish tampering.

 

[NathanH83]

Biblical prophecy? The main purpose of the preacher is to point to Jesus. When I started the thread asking how the Apocryphal books point to Jesus you admitted you didn't know.

And what’s your point?

Daniel 9 clearly points to Christ. Undeniably. I KNOW that.

Daniel 8 and 11 point to other things like Hanukkah, and Christ took time out of his schedule to travel to Jerusalem during the Feast of Hanukkah. If Christ values it, then so should you and your congregation.

Good grief. By your logic, Daniel 9 is the only prophecy that any church leader should teach his congregation, and the prophecies in Daniel 8 and 11 should just fall by the wayside and be utterly ignored (Which for the most part is exactly what’s happening).

Why don’t you tell me how Esther points to Christ? Or how Job points to Christ?
These are all things in the Bible that Christians should study. We don’t RIP STUFF OUT just because it may not have a direct Messianic prophecy in it!

Again, you are unwilling to be understanding in this matter.

 

[Lamb]

And what’s your point?

Daniel 9 clearly points to Christ. Undeniably. I KNOW that.

Daniel 8 and 11 point to other things like Hanukkah, and Christ took time out of his schedule to travel to Jerusalem during the Feast of Hanukkah. If Christ values it, then so should you and your congregation.

Good grief. By your logic, Daniel 9 is the only prophecy that any church leader should teach his congregation, and the prophecies in Daniel 8 and 11 should just fall by the wayside and be utterly ignored (Which for the most part is exactly what’s happening).

Why don’t you tell me how Esther points to Christ? Or how Job points to Christ?
These are all things in the Bible that Christians should study. We don’t RIP STUFF OUT just because it may not have a direct Messianic prophecy in it!

Again, you are unwilling to be understanding in this matter.

You make a lot of false claims against me. Let's get back to HOW the apocryphal books don't point to Jesus as Savior because that's the real reason I don't read them a lot. Yes, I've read some of the books and it was part of a bible study I did at my previous church. It was an intense 2 year study going through the OT, NT and apocryphal books. We had tests, memorized verses and pictures and everything taught in the class was meant to point the way to Jesus as Savior. That's the entire point of the pastor's job. That's how souls are saved.

 

[Origen]

Jewish by birth, Melito lived in an atmosphere where the type of Christianity practiced was largely oriented toward the Jewish form of the Christian faith.

Given the fact that Melito’s list omitted the book of Esther, and the fact that he actually had to travel to Palestine to get his list, that makes it highly suspect for Jewish tampering.

There wasn’t just unbelieving Jews, who completely rejected Christ, who had some false beliefs. There were also Judaizers, Ebionites, and all kinds of cults and sects that claimed to believe in Christ, but compromised with the lies that unbelieving Jews had made up.

Melito’s background, upbringing, and associations coupled with his omission of Esther sounds to me that his canon list is not above suspicion for Jewish tampering.

First, provide a primary source where it states clearly that Melito was Jewish.

Second, still no objective evidence he "favored the Hebrew over the Septuagint."

Third, here we go again. Another example of pure speculation coupled with the association fallacy.

 

[Andrew]

"But since we have made mention of heretics as dead, but of ourselves as possessing the Divine Scripture for salvation; and since I fear lest, as Paul wrote to the Corinthians, some few of the simple should be beguiled from their simplicity and purity, by the subtlety of certain men, and should henceforth read other books — those called apocryphal— led astray by the similarity of their names with the true books; I beseech you to bear patiently, if I also write, by way of remembrance, of matters with which you are acquainted, influenced by the need and advantage of the Church"

"There are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being read; nor is there in any place a mention of apocryphal writings"

-----------


Athanasius, agreeing with Rufinus, agreeing with Origen, list two classes of tradition in the OT, one being "Canon" according to Jewish Canon (established post 33AD) for witnessing [Since Jews had settled a canon rejecting certain books, it would be superfluous to use the rejected books to witness unto them]

The second class is for NEW CONVERTS for instruction, the books listed are once again NOT apocryphal but the correct term as mentioned before by Rufinus is "Ecclesiastical".

Keep in mind that the bulk of these books are of Jewish origins, written by and reproduced by Jews BEFORE the term "Canon" was ever made use of regarding Scripture.

The (true) Apocrypha are heretical and forbidden to be read by Christians in the Church, again these are the false attributions to the Apostles which teach a different gospel (no gospel at all), from these books come the Gnostic teaching that Christ did not die on the cross but rather another man was hung on the cross instead, Muhammad unfamiliar with true Christianity adopted these heretical gospels into the Quran where you find a talking baby Jesus and a God who caused a delusion over the Jews to convince them that they killed Jesus when according to the Quran and the Gnostic teachings, he did NOT die.
THIS is what Paul warned about was so dangerous, NOT the so-called "Apocrypha" that Christians had in their Holy Bibles up until 1816 AD but these HERETICAL books/doctrines.

Jerome made the mistake of believing the unbelieving Jews to call the traditional Ecclesiastical books "Apocrypha" when this was never the case.

SCRIPTURE in the Church is DIVINE whether it's OT canon (according to the Jews) OR Ecclesiastical (books the Jews rejected as canonical post 33AD)

How do we know that the Ecclesiastical books were divine Scripture? Because the vast majority of early church fathers called them divine over and over again in their writings.