Ecclesiasticals VS Canonical

[NathanH83]

I am sorry but he is wrong concerning the date being B.C. Track down the sources and see for yourself.

When were the Jews captive in Babylon?

 

[Origen]

When were the Jews captive in Babylon?

Don't care.

 

[NathanH83]

I am sorry but he is wrong concerning the date being B.C. Track down the sources and see for yourself.

Can you please provide sources to back up your claim? I can’t find any.

 

[NathanH83]

I am sorry but he is wrong concerning the date being B.C. Track down the sources and see for yourself.

So, if the Talmud really is from the 6th century AD (which you’ve provided no evidence for) then why were the Jewish rabbinic authorities quoting from Sirach as scripture?

 

[Andrew]

You'll wait a long time because there is NOTHING from before the 4th Century either way. Are you dodging the point? That we just don't KNOW? You don't, I don't, no one does.

Now, IF I claimed that the LXX never contained anything more than the 39 books Jews recognize by our count since 90 AD, then you'd have a point that I'd need to substantiate that. But I'm not the one making an enormous plethora of remarkable claims about this, am I? You and Nathan are. It's absurd to even try to toss the ball into my court.... I have nothing to substantiate since I've not made any claims about this.







Nail on head.


I see that as the fundamental flaw in all these MANY threads and hundreds of posts from our brother, Nathan. It seems he appoints himself to "connect the dots" (with an overriding appreciation of his own knowledge and logic).... problem is, the "dots" are just wild speculation and pure guesses - they are phantoms, figments of his imagination. POSSIBLE (in some cases) but then it's possible that there are flying purple people living on Venus, too. It's just absurd to follow the rabbit hole threads when the fundamental premise is entirely unsubstantiated at best (and often just plain wrong). And of course, then there's the employment of circular reasoning and silly assumptions and still more guessing, speculating and the substitution of opinions with reality.



.

Well brother Nathan has some companions from the early church that must have also believed in flying purple people from Venus and enjoyed a good "connect the dots" activity, for a vast number of them specifically quote from the "Ecclesiastical" books as traditional Holy Scripture.

You see Protestants are the ones who suffer from grandeur delusion, they cannot fathom the idea of non-Canonical Ecclesiastical books being traditional inspired Holy Scripture alongside with the doctrinal Canon, that would have them rubbing elbows with the Catholics right? Wrong. Protestants created the margins and numbering system and included the Ecclesiasticals for pastoral quick referencing, and they weren't defined by the weight of their Bibles, they knew how to protest against the RCC without pulling out Luthers special section of "cool stories bro".

In 1816 AD, The Bible Society wanted to make some extra money off of Christians, kind of like how selling indulgences did back in the day, but they did it by revising the KJV and making it lighter, I guess paper was expensive back then.. oh and also they said it would help the Protestants from sliding back into Catholicism.

Fast forward and now Protestants can call the printing press divine in a way since it finally did away with the NON INSPIRED/NON CANONICAL books... Now back up a sec, that sounds like Heretical books don't it?
Indeed due to Jerome's big fail, the Ecclesiastical books became known as Apocrypha books, but the real Apocrypha books are TRULY NON INSPIRED/NON CANONICAL heretical books!

So now protestants believe due to a series of unfortunate events, that they are right and totally awesome, you are ALMOST completely right, except you have a very messed up understanding of Canonical Scripture in harmony with Ecclesiastical Scripture and the wrong idea of Apocrypha.

 

[NathanH83]

You'll wait a long time because there is NOTHING from before the 4th Century either way. Are you dodging the point? That we just don't KNOW? You don't, I don't, no one does.

Now, IF I claimed that the LXX never contained anything more than the 39 books Jews recognize by our count since 90 AD, then you'd have a point that I'd need to substantiate that. But I'm not the one making an enormous plethora of remarkable claims about this, am I? You and Nathan are. It's absurd to even try to toss the ball into my court.... I have nothing to substantiate since I've not made any claims about this.







Nail on head.


I see that as the fundamental flaw in all these MANY threads and hundreds of posts from our brother, Nathan. It seems he appoints himself to "connect the dots" (with an overriding appreciation of his own knowledge and logic).... problem is, the "dots" are just wild speculation and pure guesses - they are phantoms, figments of his imagination. POSSIBLE (in some cases) but then it's possible that there are flying purple people living on Venus, too. It's just absurd to follow the rabbit hole threads when the fundamental premise is entirely unsubstantiated at best (and often just plain wrong). And of course, then there's the employment of circular reasoning and silly assumptions and still more guessing, speculating and the substitution of opinions with reality.



.

So, what “dots” did I mistakenly connect?

1. Every copy of the Septuagint found, both Greek and Latin, contain at least some of these “apocrypha” books.

2. Many church leaders believed these books to be scripture, and said so in their church councils.

3. Many church fathers quoted them and called them scripture in their writings.

4. Many church fathers said that they didn’t trust the Hebrew that the Jews were using, and believed that the Jews had removed things from the Hebrew, which the Septuagint preserved.

5. Many of the church fathers said that the Septuagint is the only version of the Bible that the church approves of.

6. The “apocrypha” books were not authored by Christians, but rather authored by Jews who lived before the time of Christ.

7. Some of the “apocrypha” books are about REAL history that happened BEFORE the time of Christ.

8. Some of the “apocrypha” books, especially the ones most trusted for historical accuracy, are very historically useful and helpful for understanding prophecies in Daniel 8 and 11.

9. The Septuagint was translated by Jews in about 250 BC, and also USED by Greek speaking Jews for about 2 and 1/2 centuries before the time Christ showed up.

10. The Greek Septuagint eventually became rejected by the unbelieving Jews, while embraced by the believing Gentile churches


Now…..

Don’t you think that any reasonable and truthful person might at least suspect that maybe, just MAYBE, those books, at least SOME of them, might have been accepted as scripture BY the Jews BEFORE the time of Christ, and thus causing their acceptance by the Gentiles in the early Christian churches?

Is that really such an unreasonable thing to suspect?

Which point did I get wrong here?

 

[Josiah]

So, what “dots” did I mistakenly connect?

What I said is that they tend to be phantoms.... they are (at best) pure speculation and guesses and opinions but often just plain wrong. And whenever this is noted, whenever you are asked to provide substantiation for your "dots" you run like a rabbit, you dodge and hide or worse try to turn the tables or try to change the subject. It's obvious. It's revealing.

You appointing you to use what you call your "logic" to "connect" these speculations is... well... amazingly illogical and circular. And whenever this is examined again you run, dodge, evade or accuse OTHERS of not being logical.

maybe, just MAYBE, those books, at least SOME of them, might have been accepted as scripture BY the Jews BEFORE the time of Christ, and thus causing their acceptance by the Gentiles in the early Christian churches?

1. "MAYBE" Well, maybe there are flying purple people eaters living on Venus. But "maybe" does not equal fact. And of course, you seldom frame things as possibilities but as facts.

2. No one here has disputed that it is POSSIBLE (even perhaps LIKELY) that the Jews used a LOT of stuff... And of course, the word "scripture" just means something written, rarely was the word used to mean ONLY inerrant, fully/equally canonical, divinely inscripturated words of God.

Which point did I get wrong here?

There is ZERO evidence that the Ruling Body of Judaism offically declared a bunch of books (you won't identify) were/are the inerrant, fully/equally inscripturated words of God. The claim MIGHT be made for Jamnia but you evade that because it contradicts you.

There is ZERO evidence that the Ruling Body of all Christianity at some Ecumenical Council during the early church (33-311 AD) officially declared some books (you can't identify) were/are the inerrant, fully/equally canonical, divinely inscripturated words of God.

There is ZERO evidence that "all Chrtistians had the same Bible" during this period and until the Reformation, all the books accepted equally.

True - LOTS of books were and still are used by Christians. Quoted, used in sermons and theological treatises... sometimes included in Lectionaries and in collections of Scriptures (the word means "writing") but this has no relevance to the issue of whether they were/are all seen as inerrant, fully/equally canonical, divinely inscripturated words of God (a point Andrew has suddenly and lately realized).

There is perhaps credible reason to believe that in this period (indeed well beyond) there was no SINGLE and FIRM embrace by Christians on this topic. There was much debate... there were difference seem in various locals.... It's hard to find 2 or 3 "Fathers" in full agreement. Now, by the 5th Century (FIFTH!! NOT FIRST) there had come a TRADITION pretty solid around 24-27 NT books and about 39-50 OT books but this was TRADITION, not DECISION and not perfect or absolute. And this we can surmise MOSTLY by the lack of KNOWN debate and by materials that just SEEM to have fallen from common use. To this day, we find several DIFFERENT Bibles - RCC, Anglican, Calvin's, Greek Orthodox, Syrian Orthodox, Coptic, etc., etc., etc. Friend, there has NEVER been just one Bible. But you just dismiss that there was and is pretty solid TRADITION around 66 or so.

And you ENTIRELY avoid the issue of STATUS. To be considered "canonical" is to be considered authoritative, normative (it's what the word means) - not simply useful or informational or inspirational. And even within "canonical" there seems to have been different LEVELS of that... among the Jews (Books of Moses, then Prophets/History, then Wisdom, then perhaps some DEUTERO works). And we know there was a two-level canon for the NT until after the Reformation. Andrew has come to learn this but not you. Just noting "I can find 2 people who used First Maccabees" or "First Maccabees contains some useful history" has frankly zero relevance to the issue at hand or your remarkable false claims, your myth.



- Josiah



.

 

[Josiah]

Nathan,


Andrew and Origen have shown that there seems to have been quite a lot of FLUIDITY on this topic... different opinions, even among esteemed Christian leaders.

And what makes it all very difficult is that we KNOW very little about the Early Church (33-311 AD) and what was held universally and what status was given to various materials. Perhaps the most incorrect and misleading thing posted in all these threads about the "Deutercanonical" and "apocrypha" books is stress of what "ALL" Christians held. We don't even have a wild guess on how many Christians there were during this period! And NOTHING about what they all believed... In part because very little of what they wrote about the Christian faith has survived. We have a couple of dozen (note that's FAR from "ALL") who were esteemed and whose writings were quoted... but they are not in agreement. My study of the ECF taught me that this was a chaotic time, with much diversity and fluidity. We DO see some things very early (say in the Didache) such as infant baptism, real presence in the Eucharist but a lot of controversy. This seems to be a characteristic of the Early Church. Much of what we know about early Christian thinking is DEBATES among themselves, someone writing to refute what another is saying.


On THIS topic, that's true for the NT. My class stressed that very early, it SEEMS (by the lack of KNOWN debate) is that 20 books were accepted (well, AS FAR AS WE CAN KNOW FROM WHAT VERY LITTLE WE HAVE) : The 4 Gospels, Acts, Paul's 13 letters, 1 Peter, 1 John. Now, were some or all of these debated? Maybe.... we have no EVIDENCE of that. BUT there were others that WERE debated, where we have evidence of rejection (not by "unbelieving Jews" as Nathan insists) by esteemed Christian leaders: Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2-3 John, James, Jude, Revelation of John, Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache and the Gospel of Hebrews (and perhaps a few others). EVENTUALLY (from what little evidence exists) 7 of these 11 + ceased to be disputed (we have no clue why!!!!!) and the others simply were mentioned less and less (less and less is said of them). But it took three hundred years! And even after that, the Eastern Churches often didn't include Revelation in the Lectionary and these seven became known as "Antilegomena" (spoken against) and were considered LESS canonical than the 20. WHY these 27? No one knows...for one very simple reason: no one said. At least in any document that survived. A consensus of sorts..... but it took 400 years and we have no clue how or why this consensus formed (but I'll bet Nathan is wrong about unbelieving Jews). Note: there was NEVER any official ecumenical decision on this.... no Ecumenical Church Council, nothing official, nothing formal, nothing authoritative. A pretty solid consensus around 20.... a lesser one around another 7.... and this resulted in a "two-layer" canon - 20 higher ("homologomenia" - agreed upon), 7 lesser. This distinction was lost after the Reformation, for the past 500 years, Christianity has come to accept all 27 equally, a fairly new view.


It's even more true for the OT. For one very, very simple reason: We have NOTHING outside the OT itself for many centuries, no "Early Jewish Fathers", no writings about debates on this topic (or any other), NOTHING until shortly become the time of Christ (a few very esteemed rabbis arose but again, not until close to the time of Christ, and they didn't breach the topic of Scripture). WE JUST DON"T KNOW. Your bold, sweeping generalizations and claims are just entirely unsubstantiated.. your abundant hyperbole is entirely unwarrented. There are names of other books mentioned in the OT but were THEY ever considered Scripture? We don't know. Surely, the two tablets written by God were seen so.... but the rest is clouded in history. It is often thought that the "Books of Moses" were widely if not universally accepted (the Sadducees and Pharisees both insisted on this acceptance) but the Prophets/Histories and the Wisdom Literature is just unknown. Were various books read? Maybe. You mention the LXX but we have no idea WHAT books were included in the LXX.... we don't know which were regarded as inerrant, fully/equally ccanonical.... we don't even know which ones were included there (the oldest copy of this we have is from centuries AFTER Christ). We find some in the Dead Sea Scrolls (again late - near the time of Christ) but what was their status? Were they considered inerrant? Fully/equally canonical with the Ten Commandments or Books of Moses? We have no evidence, no voices - until nearly the time of Jesus. And what about things like Psalm 151 or 152 or 153? What about the books the Syrian and Coptic Orthodox have had in their OT for longer than the RCC canon has existed, far more than Trent's 7? What about those the Greek Orthodox Church has that the RCC does not? SOME of them were found in the LXX (I don't think any in the Dead Sea Scrolls but I'm not sure about that) but we actually find little use of these among JEWS.... and the Council of Jamnia in 90 AD doesn't mention any of these, perhaps suggesting that they were not accepted as fully canonical (at least at that point but more likely, never were). For JEWS, the status of these books seems to have been not great.... and they fell from use. A member of our community has supplied some significant material about this here: O.T. Canon Lists IMO, Nathan's point that Christ-hating Jews ripped them out because they so clearly spoke of Jesus is just... well.... beyond absurd. First of all, they RARELY do and secondly, why not rip out Isaiah and the Psalms - BY FAR the most quoted OT books by early Christians. No..... it ssems these books not mentioned at Jamnia were probably never fully accepted.... no Jew disputed Jamnia, no promenant Jew arose to defend Psalm 151 or any other. But what about Christians? Well..... it seems SOME had SOME embrace..... which ones? No two denominations agree on that.... and How so? There's lots of debate on that, too.



There is a Catholic MYTH that that singular, individual (and exclusive) denomination knew (directly from the Apostles) what Books are and are not Scripture.... the Apostles gave the RCC the list.... and eventually (perhaps in the 16th Century) that denomination finally told the rest of the world. This is pure myth. MUCH of the debate on all this was from men that church calls "Early Church Fathers" and there was no univeral statement on that until the Council of Florence in the 15th Century (and that not authoritative - thus the need to do so at Trent in the 16th Century). And if this was known from ancient times by all Christians (because the Apostles said so) then why does the RCC agree with NONE on this topic? Every other church on the planet disagrees with it on this. Indeed, the RCC has NEVER used a Bible that any other accepted... in fact, for over 1000 years its Bible did not agree with its current one in terms of content.

There is a Evangelical MYTH (specially in the USA) that essentially, God sent out this mass email in 33 AD to all Christians, telling them exactly what Books are and are not Scripture and that all these are equally canonical. So all Christians had the exact same set of books, embraced in exactly the same way (no debate, no controversy). UNTIL the Council of Trent when the Catholic Church added 7 books in order to support its wrong teachings according to Sola Scriptura. This too is pure myth. Now, Your myth is a truly strange variation on this: that this email included a bunch of books beyond Calvin's 66 (you just will not tell us WHICH books)... so 100% of Christians had the same set of books, embraced equally, no debate, no controversy, all identical Bibles embraced and used identically among ALL Christians (you just won't tell us what books) until the 16th Century when some unidentified person gathered up all the pew Bibles in Western Europe and ripped out these books (you won't identify). This is just PURE MYTH. Your "dots" are phantoms... myths... you won't substantiate them because you can't, they don't exist, your "dots" are myths. And your attempts to connect ghosts and myths using circular reasoning and a LOT of pure guesses is just silly.



- Josiah



.

 

[NathanH83]

Nathan,


Andrew and Origen have shown that there seems to have been quite a lot of FLUIDITY on this topic... different opinions, even among esteemed Christian leaders.

And what makes it all very difficult is that we KNOW very little about the Early Church (33-311 AD) and what was held universally and what status was given to various materials. Perhaps the most incorrect and misleading thing posted in all these threads about the "Deutercanonical" and "apocrypha" books is stress of what "ALL" Christians held. We don't even have a wild guess on how many Christians there were during this period! And NOTHING about what they all believed... In part because very little of what they wrote about the Christian faith has survived. We have a couple of dozen (note that's FAR from "ALL") who were esteemed and whose writings were quoted... but they are not in agreement. My study of the ECF taught me that this was a chaotic time, with much diversity and fluidity. We DO see some things very early (say in the Didache) such as infant baptism, real presence in the Eucharist but a lot of controversy. This seems to be a characteristic of the Early Church. Much of what we know about early Christian thinking is DEBATES among themselves, someone writing to refute what another is saying.


On THIS topic, that's true for the NT. My class stressed that very early, it SEEMS (by the lack of KNOWN debate) is that 20 books were accepted (well, AS FAR AS WE CAN KNOW FROM WHAT VERY LITTLE WE HAVE) : The 4 Gospels, Acts, Paul's 13 letters, 1 Peter, 1 John. Now, were some or all of these debated? Maybe.... we have no EVIDENCE of that. BUT there were others that WERE debated, where we have evidence of rejection (not by "unbelieving Jews" as Nathan insists) by esteemed Christian leaders: Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2-3 John, James, Jude, Revelation of John, Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache and the Gospel of Hebrews (and perhaps a few others). EVENTUALLY (from what little evidence exists) 7 of these 11 + ceased to be disputed (we have no clue why!!!!!) and the others simply were mentioned less and less (less and less is said of them). But it took three hundred years! And even after that, the Eastern Churches often didn't include Revelation in the Lectionary and these seven became known as "Antilegomena" (spoken against) and were considered LESS canonical than the 20. WHY these 27? No one knows...for one very simple reason: no one said. At least in any document that survived. A consensus of sorts..... but it took 400 years and we have no clue how or why this consensus formed (but I'll bet Nathan is wrong about unbelieving Jews). Note: there was NEVER any official ecumenical decision on this.... no Ecumenical Church Council, nothing official, nothing formal, nothing authoritative. A pretty solid consensus around 20.... a lesser one around another 7.... and this resulted in a "two-layer" canon - 20 higher ("homologomenia" - agreed upon), 7 lesser. This distinction was lost after the Reformation, for the past 500 years, Christianity has come to accept all 27 equally, a fairly new view.


It's even more true for the OT. For one very, very simple reason: We have NOTHING outside the OT itself for many centuries, no "Early Jewish Fathers", no writings about debates on this topic (or any other), NOTHING until shortly become the time of Christ (a few very esteemed rabbis arose but again, not until close to the time of Christ, and they didn't breach the topic of Scripture). WE JUST DON"T KNOW. Your bold, sweeping generalizations and claims are just entirely unsubstantiated.. your abundant hyperbole is entirely unwarrented. There are names of other books mentioned in the OT but were THEY ever considered Scripture? We don't know. Surely, the two tablets written by God were seen so.... but the rest is clouded in history. It is often thought that the "Books of Moses" were widely if not universally accepted (the Sadducees and Pharisees both insisted on this acceptance) but the Prophets/Histories and the Wisdom Literature is just unknown. Were various books read? Maybe. You mention the LXX but we have no idea WHAT books were included in the LXX.... we don't know which were regarded as inerrant, fully/equally ccanonical.... we don't even know which ones were included there (the oldest copy of this we have is from centuries AFTER Christ). We find some in the Dead Sea Scrolls (again late - near the time of Christ) but what was their status? Were they considered inerrant? Fully/equally canonical with the Ten Commandments or Books of Moses? We have no evidence, no voices - until nearly the time of Jesus. And what about things like Psalm 151 or 152 or 153? What about the books the Syrian and Coptic Orthodox have had in their OT for longer than the RCC canon has existed, far more than Trent's 7? What about those the Greek Orthodox Church has that the RCC does not? SOME of them were found in the LXX (I don't think any in the Dead Sea Scrolls but I'm not sure about that) but we actually find little use of these among JEWS.... and the Council of Jamnia in 90 AD doesn't mention any of these, perhaps suggesting that they were not accepted as fully canonical (at least at that point but more likely, never were). For JEWS, the status of these books seems to have been not great.... and they fell from use. A member of our community has supplied some significant material about this here: O.T. Canon Lists IMO, Nathan's point that Christ-hating Jews ripped them out because they so clearly spoke of Jesus is just... well.... beyond absurd. First of all, they RARELY do and secondly, why not rip out Isaiah and the Psalms - BY FAR the most quoted OT books by early Christians. No..... it ssems these books not mentioned at Jamnia were probably never fully accepted.... no Jew disputed Jamnia, no promenant Jew arose to defend Psalm 151 or any other. But what about Christians? Well..... it seems SOME had SOME embrace..... which ones? No two denominations agree on that.... and How so? There's lots of debate on that, too.



There is a Catholic MYTH that that singular, individual (and exclusive) denomination knew (directly from the Apostles) what Books are and are not Scripture.... the Apostles gave the RCC the list.... and eventually (perhaps in the 16th Century) that denomination finally told the rest of the world. This is pure myth. MUCH of the debate on all this was from men that church calls "Early Church Fathers" and there was no univeral statement on that until the Council of Florence in the 15th Century (and that not authoritative - thus the need to do so at Trent in the 16th Century). And if this was known from ancient times by all Christians (because the Apostles said so) then why does the RCC agree with NONE on this topic? Every other church on the planet disagrees with it on this. Indeed, the RCC has NEVER used a Bible that any other accepted... in fact, for over 1000 years its Bible did not agree with its current one in terms of content.

There is a Evangelical MYTH (specially in the USA) that essentially, God sent out this mass email in 33 AD to all Christians, telling them exactly what Books are and are not Scripture and that all these are equally canonical. So all Christians had the exact same set of books, embraced in exactly the same way (no debate, no controversy). UNTIL the Council of Trent when the Catholic Church added 7 books in order to support its wrong teachings according to Sola Scriptura. This too is pure myth. Now, Your myth is a truly strange variation on this: that this email included a bunch of books beyond Calvin's 66 (you just will not tell us WHICH books)... so 100% of Christians had the same set of books, embraced equally, no debate, no controversy, all identical Bibles embraced and used identically among ALL Christians (you just won't tell us what books) until the 16th Century when some unidentified person gathered up all the pew Bibles in Western Europe and ripped out these books (you won't identify). This is just PURE MYTH. Your "dots" are phantoms... myths... you won't substantiate them because you can't, they don't exist, your "dots" are myths. And your attempts to connect ghosts and myths using circular reasoning and a LOT of pure guesses is just silly.



- Josiah



.

You’ve repeated yourself like 5 or 6 times that I won’t identify which books were taken out.

But I have.

All you have to do is look at the apocryphal section of the King James Bible when it was first printed in 1611. Those are the books that were taken out.

Why do I know that?

Because the Protestant Bibles of the 1500’s and 1600’s included that section with those books.

The King James Bible
Geneva Bible
Mathews Bible
Coverdale Bible.
Luther’s Bible
Webster’s Bible.
Bishop’s Bible
The Great Bible

Look at the contents of these old Protestant translations. They include the books in the section called Apocrypha.

Now, look at any new Translation.

NIV
NKJV
ESV
NASB

Get any of these Bibles from a book store today. Notice how they don’t have the books that EVERY Bible from the Protestant Reformation had: the books called Apocrypha.

THOSE are the books that were taken out.

How do I know?

Because these old Protestant translations had them. EVERY BIBLE FROM THE PROTESTANT REFORMATION HAD THEM!

But every Protestant Bible today is missing them.

So…..yea. They were taken out. Because they used to be there. Now they’re not there.

They were removed.

Look at the table of contents of the 1611 KJV. Those books were removed.

See? I’ve identified those books now.

So you can stop repeating yourself
And repeating yourself
And repeating yourself
And repeating yourself…

 

[Josiah]

a vast number of them specifically quote from the "Ecclesiastical" books as traditional Holy Scripture.

Friend....

1. List for us (by name) exactly who "them" are. And date them (so we know they are from 33-311 AD).

2. Then quote (verbatim) from "them" who state that the books you still have not identifed are - specifically - inerrant, fully/equally canonical, divinely-inscripturted words of God (equal to say the Books of Moses or Letters of Paul). Do not waste your time quoting one or two quoting from a book (or at least you THEORIZE they are) or even calling such (by specific name) "Scripture" or simply suggesting they should be in the lectionary - because none of those have a thing to do with whether they are canonical.

3. If you can prove that 50% PLUS of the many of "them" Christians specifically, verbatim state that all the books you won't identify are such, you've made a point. Otherwise....

You see Protestants are the ones who suffer from grandeur delusion

What Protestants?

Delusions are never good - REGARDLESS of who perpetuates them. To day some "them" have a greater delusion than others is to condemn "them" both (the "them" never identified, the delusion never identified).

And friend, it is very hard to have a discussion about "them" and "they" when neither are clearly identified. And when "all" seems to be perhaps 0.00002% of the group. And when the OPINION of one man is given as historic proof.

I think the MYTH we sometimes hear from SOME Catholics ... and the MYTH we sometimes hear from SOME modern American "Evangelicals" (and Nathan's twist on that) are both MYTHS. That one MYTH is more credible than other does't make it on bit less MYTH.

And I note.... every time Origen or anyone else here asks for identifations of the "them" - we never get it. When we are asked for substantiation, we never get it - just evasion, deflections, repetitions of the same claim, "the Shell Game" or attempts to turn the table. And when something is noted as a FALSEHOOD, clearly documented as such, it's just evaded and ignored. Pretty good signs of myth.

In 1816 AD, The Bible Society wanted to make some extra money off of Christians, kind of like how selling indulgences did back in the day, but they did it by revising the KJV and making it lighter, I guess paper was expensive back then.. oh and also they said it would help the Protestants from sliding back into Catholicism.

Fast forward and now Protestants can call the printing press divine in a way since it finally did away with the NON INSPIRED/NON CANONICAL books... Now back up a sec, that sounds like Heretical books don't it?
Indeed due to Jerome's big fail, the Ecclesiastical books became known as Apocrypha books, but the real Apocrypha books are TRULY NON INSPIRED/NON CANONICAL heretical books!

So now protestants believe due to a series of unfortunate events, that they are right and totally awesome, you are ALMOST completely right, except you have a very messed up understanding of Canonical Scripture in harmony with Ecclesiastical Scripture and the wrong idea of Apocrypha.

I wish you would READ what you posted here.... it's typical on this subject. ALL just pure claims - all without identifying anything or anyone, very sweeping. With absolutely NOTHING WHATSOEVER to support a word of it. And not being in response to anything anyone has pasted to you or Nathan.




.

 

[Josiah]

Look at the table of contents of the 1611 KJV.

Those books (beyond the 66) are a UNIQUE set..... you cannot find a SINGLE BIBLE in 1611 years with exactly the same 'set" of DEUTEROcanonical books as what is mentioned in the 39 Articles and thus found in the 1611 KJV. So, you are embracing ONE UNIQUE (never otherwise accepted) set.... and thus NOT the 3 regional meetings of the RCC that you've mentioned... not ANY set prior to 1611... not the Council of Florence, not the Council of Trent. And note, this EXCLUDES some books which some Orthodox Churches HAVE in their tomes.

You are defending a set ONLY found in one denomination....
ONLY established by the 39 Articles of the Church of England (NOWHERE ELSE)
ONLY since those articles in 1563 (NOT before)


So, your fight is for all to accept the official proclaimation of ONE single denomination in 1563 (and ever before)?

Those books were removed.

Nope. NEVER has Article 6 been deleted or changed. Give to me the declaration of the Anglican Communion that removed Article 6 (I'm interested because I don't think there is a single Episcopalian or Anglican Bishop who knows about that).

Some PUBLISHING HOUSES don't include all 81 books (or editions to books) that the 39 Articles of the Anglican Church (and the first KJV) embrace. But that has ZERO relevance to they being removed. You can buy a tome today without ANY OT books in it at all (I have one). I have a tome with ONLY the NT and Psalms in it. And you can find tomes where the publishing house has added notations, maps, cross references, articles, etc. - that does NOT mean that anything has been added as canonical material, just stuff has been added or subtracted from the tome.

And what about, say, Psalm 151? It's in the earliest known editions of the LXX. It's IN Eastern Orthodox Bibles (and has been for a LOT longer than the 39 Artlicles has) but it's not listed in the 39 Articles that you claim is the universal, ancient Bible.

And again, you totally ignore the issue of STATUS. Article 6 of the 39 Articles of the Church of England (that you now claim is the Bible of Christianity) from 1563 specifically lists all beyond 66 as THE APOCRYPHA and goes on to say they are NOT canonical.... NOT canonical does not mean thus canonical, you make a fundamental (and absurd) error there. No one disputes a lot of books (MORE than the 81 of the 39 Articles) are used, the dispute is whether all the books listed in Article 6 were ALWAYS seen as canonical because Article 6 of the 39 Articles of the Church of England (AN NOT OTHER CHURCH) in 1563 (AND NEVER BEFORE) stated are NOT canonical.



So, let it be known now.... the books you are claiming have been in all Bibles for all time, fully accepted by all Christians and as fully canonical... is the UNIQUE Bible established in 1563 by ONE single, individual denomination (the Church of England in Article 6 of its 39 Articles) and is a Bible NONE have EVER agreed with, just that one denomination, with 81 books or editions of books with 66 of them said to be canonical and the rest NOT canonical.
The RCC is wrong and always has been.
Every Eastern Orthodox Church is wrong.
Calvin is wrong.
Luther is wrong.
The LXX is wrong.
Every church father is wrong.
Everyone before 1563 is wrong.
ONLY Article 6 of the 39 Articles of the Anglican Church is right!
But it's wrong too because it says all but 66 are NOT canonical.
And you are wrong that anyone changed Article 6. NOTHING has been deleted from it. Not in the over 450 years that this new, UNIQUE set has been established by ONE single denomination.


You just keep making your case weaker and weaker.


.

 

[NathanH83]

Those books (beyond the 66) are a UNIQUE set..... you cannot find a SINGLE BIBLE in 1611 years with exactly the same 'set" of DEUTEROcanonical books as what is mentioned in the 39 Articles and thus found in the 1611 KJV. So, you are embracing ONE UNIQUE (never otherwise accepted) set.... and thus NOT the 3 regional meetings of the RCC that you've mentioned... not ANY set prior to 1611... not the Council of Florence, not the Council of Trent. And note, this EXCLUDES some books which some Orthodox Churches HAVE in their tomes.

You are defending a set ONLY found in one denomination....
ONLY established by the 39 Articles of the Church of England (NOWHERE ELSE)
ONLY since those articles in the 16th Century (NOT before)




Nope. NEVER has

It’s not just the King James. It’s also the Geneva, Bishop’s, Coverdale, and all the other Bibles from the Protestant Reformation. They all included that Apocryphal section with the same books.
It’s not just the King James, and it’s not just one denomination.

How many Christians in early America were using the King James or the Geneva? A bunch. Were they all one denomination? No. There were Anglicans, Presbyterians, Baptists, Episcopal, and many others. They were not all the same denomination.

 

[Josiah]

It’s not just the King James. It’s also the Geneva

1. Factually wrong. The Geneva Bible has one fewer books in it than Article 6 and the Anglican Bible, fewer than the 1611 KJV.

2. You continue to miss the point. In both UNIQUE tomes, the UNIQUE set of DEUTERO books are specifically noted to be DEUTEROcanonical - they are NOT canonical which means they are not canonical, not that they ARE equal to or part of the rest. They are DEUTERO (submissive to) and are not to be used canonically. They are EXTRAS put in there NOT for theology or practice but for inspiration and information, just as your tome might include maps or a footnotes or articles. NEITHER Bible claimed that some Ruling Body of All Judaism or the Ruling Body of All Christianity had proclaimed to be the inerrant, fully/equally canonical, divinely inscripturated words of God. And NO claim that the LXX was identical or that all Christians used THESE and ONLY THESE writings or that all ECF proclaimed THEFSE and ONLY THESE books were canonical.

How many Christians in early America were using the King James or the Geneva? A bunch.

And this proves WHAT about the LXX? Every one of the ECF? The Ruling Body of Judaism? The Ruling Body of all Christianity?

A BUNCH of Christians in the world were NOT using tomes with the same books as the KJV or the different Geneva Bible..... Millions of Christians used the Greek Orthodox Bible, Luther's Bible and probably most the Catholic Bible. And all these were DIFFERENT. And NONE of these can be shown to be identical to one all Christians used before 311 AD. But I'm not sure these proves anything about your claims.... that it proves anything about anything. Seem to me this is your familiar ploy of "The Shall Game" It's grown really tiring.




.

 

[Andrew]

Read the title!^^^^^^

 

[NathanH83]

1. Factually wrong. The Geneva Bible has one fewer books in it than Article 6 and the Anglican Bible, fewer than the 1611 KJV.

2. You continue to miss the point. In both UNIQUE tomes, the UNIQUE set of DEUTERO books are specifically noted to be DEUTEROcanonical - they are NOT canonical which means they are not canonical, not that they ARE equal to or part of the rest. They are DEUTERO (submissive to) and are not to be used canonically. They are EXTRAS put in there NOT for theology or practice but for inspiration and information, just as your tome might include maps or a footnotes or articles. NEITHER Bible claimed that some Ruling Body of All Judaism or the Ruling Body of All Christianity had proclaimed to be the inerrant, fully/equally canonical, divinely inscripturated words of God. And NO claim that the LXX was identical or that all Christians used THESE and ONLY THESE writings or that all ECF proclaimed THEFSE and ONLY THESE books were canonical.






And this proves WHAT about the LXX? Every one of the ECF? The Ruling Body of Judaism? The Ruling Body of all Christianity?

A BUNCH of Christians in the world were NOT using tomes with the same books as the KJV or the different Geneva Bible..... Millions of Christians used the Greek Orthodox Bible, Luther's Bible and probably most the Catholic Bible. And all these were DIFFERENT. And NONE of these can be shown to be identical to one all Christians used before 311 AD. But I'm not sure these proves anything about your claims.... that it proves anything about anything. Seem to me this is your familiar ploy of "The Shall Game" It's grown really tiring.




.

What fewer books does the Geneva Bible not have that be King James does?

You’re talking about insignificant, minor details. The same basic set of books is the same.

What? Is the Prayer of Manasseh missing or some small, insignificant thing like that?

 

[Josiah]

What fewer books does the Geneva Bible not have that be King James does?

I note AGAIN how you just ignore virtually everything posted to you....

I suggest you explore these things before you make claims..... The Prayer of Manasseh is not in the Geneva Bible. It's in the KJV. A book is MISSING from one that is in the other. They are NOT the same collection as your claim. Not that it matters.

Your point is irrelevant, even if two UNIQUE Bible tomes - both ENGLISH - both from around the same time - had the same books. It does not prove that all Christians have the SAME Bible, and always have had. Nor does the point BOTH Bibles stress - these are NOT canonical prove that therefore they were stated to be canonical. Both are including them as good to read - nothing more. NOT stating ANYTHING about the LXX or ECF or some Ruling Body of all Judaism or Christianity, NOT stating anything about "all Christians" or how it must be legally required for all tomes with "BIBLE" on the cover to include them. BOTH (unique) tomes embrace 66 books as canon... and simply include others as helpful. I agree, this is not unique.... t this day, the GREAT majority of Christians hold that there are books beyond the 66 of the canon that are helpful - good to read, informational, inspirational, helpful.... okay to include in the Lectionary an to use as texts for sermons, but NOT CANON. "Scripture" only in the sense that everything with words is so, but NOT in the sense of being inerrant, fully/equally canonical, divinely-inscripturated rule/canon/norm for faith and practice. Your tome likely includes MAPS because they are helpful NOT because the LXX included them or all the Church Fathers noted them or some Ruling Body of all Christianity declared them to be fully canonical.

Your unique, curious twist on a MYTH sometimes perpetuated by ill-informed, modern, American "Evangelicals" is just a myth. Which is why you offer nothing to substantiate it - you can't, it's not true.



.

 

[Andrew]

I note AGAIN how you just ignore virtually everything posted to you....

I suggest you explore these things before you make claims..... The Prayer of Manasseh is not in the Geneva Bible. It's in the KJV. A book is MISSING from one that is in the other. They are NOT the same collection as your claim. Not that it matters.

Your point is irrelevant, even if two UNIQUE Bible tomes - both ENGLISH - both from around the same time - had the same books. It does not prove that all Christians have the SAME Bible, and always have had. Nor does the point BOTH Bibles stress - these are NOT canonical prove that therefore they were stated to be canonical. Both are including them as good to read - nothing more. NOT stating ANYTHING about the LXX or ECF or some Ruling Body of all Judaism or Christianity, NOT stating anything about "all Christians" or how it must be legally required for all tomes with "BIBLE" on the cover to include them. BOTH (unique) tomes embrace 66 books as canon... and simply include others as helpful. I agree, this is not unique.... t this day, the GREAT majority of Christians hold that there are books beyond the 66 of the canon that are helpful - good to read, informational, inspirational, helpful.... okay to include in the Lectionary an to use as texts for sermons, but NOT CANON. "Scripture" only in the sense that everything with words is so, but NOT in the sense of being inerrant, fully/equally canonical, divinely-inscripturated rule/canon/norm for faith and practice. Your tome likely includes MAPS because they are helpful NOT because the LXX included them or all the Church Fathers noted them or some Ruling Body of all Christianity declared them to be fully canonical.

Your unique, curious twist on a MYTH sometimes perpetuated by ill-informed, modern, American "Evangelicals" is just a myth. Which is why you offer nothing to substantiate it - you can't, it's not true.



.

The LXX didn't contain maps, I believe the protestants put them in the bibles because the Church banned those who were putting star charts and books supposedly written by saints, but kept the ecclesiastical scriptures in alongside canonical scriptures, both classes contained divine Scripture

 

[Josiah]

The LXX didn't contain maps, I believe the protestants put them there

Of course, you're (purposely) evading the point. And maps are in some Catholic Bibles too, as in some tomes used by American Evangelicals, LOL


.

 

[Andrew]

Of course, you're (purposely) evading the point. And maps are in some Catholic Bibles too, as in some tomes used by American Evangelicals, LOL


.

Actually all Christian bibles are catholic, some include maps and some don't, some include 2 classes of scripture and some rip 1 class of scripture out, this doesn't disprove my point

 

[NathanH83]

I note AGAIN how you just ignore virtually everything posted to you....

I suggest you explore these things before you make claims..... The Prayer of Manasseh is not in the Geneva Bible. It's in the KJV. A book is MISSING from one that is in the other. They are NOT the same collection as your claim. Not that it matters.

Your point is irrelevant, even if two UNIQUE Bible tomes - both ENGLISH - both from around the same time - had the same books. It does not prove that all Christians have the SAME Bible, and always have had. Nor does the point BOTH Bibles stress - these are NOT canonical prove that therefore they were stated to be canonical. Both are including them as good to read - nothing more. NOT stating ANYTHING about the LXX or ECF or some Ruling Body of all Judaism or Christianity, NOT stating anything about "all Christians" or how it must be legally required for all tomes with "BIBLE" on the cover to include them. BOTH (unique) tomes embrace 66 books as canon... and simply include others as helpful. I agree, this is not unique.... t this day, the GREAT majority of Christians hold that there are books beyond the 66 of the canon that are helpful - good to read, informational, inspirational, helpful.... okay to include in the Lectionary an to use as texts for sermons, but NOT CANON. "Scripture" only in the sense that everything with words is so, but NOT in the sense of being inerrant, fully/equally canonical, divinely-inscripturated rule/canon/norm for faith and practice. Your tome likely includes MAPS because they are helpful NOT because the LXX included them or all the Church Fathers noted them or some Ruling Body of all Christianity declared them to be fully canonical.

Your unique, curious twist on a MYTH sometimes perpetuated by ill-informed, modern, American "Evangelicals" is just a myth. Which is why you offer nothing to substantiate it - you can't, it's not true.



.

The prayer of Manasseh is a tiny little detail. It’s barely even a chapter, let alone a book. The same basic set of books in the KJV apocrypha are in the Geneva Bible. All the Protestant Bible had those books in that section. Modern Bibles are missing them. Thus, they were taken out.

You’re focusing on a tiny little insignificant detail. You’re like the one who strains out a gnat and swallows a camel, or the one who can’t see the forest because the trees keep getting in the way.

Obviously every Protestant Bible in the 1500’s and 1600’s contained these books in the Apocryphal section. But modern translations are missing them. Thus they’ve been taken out.

But you’re going to say that they have not been taken out just because you can’t get past a tiny little, one-chapter long Prayer of Manasseh?

Wow. Can’t see the forest because the trees are in the way, eh?