Why do you think that Paul’s direct disciple said that Judith is Sacred Scripture?

[Origen]

The disciples never quote Esther.

Which proves nothing in the case of Judith and therefore is inconsequential.

You have a very low view of the scriptures.

Not of the Scriptures, but of your blatantly false claims, fanciful speculation, and wild sweeping generalizations I most certainly do.

 

[NathanH83]

Which proves nothing in the case of Judith and therefore is inconsequential.



Not of the Scriptures, but of your blatantly false claims, fanciful speculation, and wild sweeping generalizations I most certainly do.

You have no respect for the book of Judith

 

[Origen]

You have no respect for the book of Judith

I have no respect for blatantly false claims, fanciful speculation, and wild sweeping generalizations.

 

[NathanH83]

I have no respect for blatantly false claims, fanciful speculation, and wild sweeping generalizations.

The fact that you’re even arguing about this with me is insulting my intelligence, and also insulting the intelligence of everyone reading this.

FIRST, Clement starts off by saying that he’s going to recall to their memory some examples from sacred scripture.

THEN he talks about Moses, Judith, and Esther.

THEN he says that he has all that much more pleasure in recalling to their memory the examples of these forbears mentioned above, because he knows he’s dealing with people who are deeply versed in the writings that contain God’s revelatory education.

Anyone normal person with average intelligence can clearly see that Clement accepted the Book of Judith as scripture, along with the entire church of Corinth.

But if you want to continue to insist that we believe your wacky interpretation that Clement did NOT accept Judith as scripture, well, then go ahead and think that.

But you’re not going to convince the rest of us. Anyone with a working brain and the ability to read can clearly infer from Clement’s letter that he accepted Judith as scripture.

 

[Origen]

The fact that you’re even arguing about this with me is insulting my intelligence, and also insulting the intelligence of everyone reading this.

I have no respect for blatantly false claims, fanciful speculation, and wild sweeping generalizations. If that upsets you I don't really care.

FIRST, Clement starts off by saying that he’s going to recall to their memory some examples from sacred scripture.

No where does 1st Clement call Judith scripture.

THEN he talks about Moses

There is no doubt 1st Clement clearly links the sacred scriptures to Moses by direct quotes.

"For ye know, and know well, the sacred scriptures, dearly beloved, and ye have searched into the oracles of God. We write these things therefore to put you in remembrance. When Moses went up into the mountain and had spent forty days and forty nights in fasting and humiliation, God said unto him; Moses, Moses, come down , quickly hence, for My people whom thou leadest forth from the land of Egypt have wrought iniquity: they have transgressed quickly out of the way which thou didst command unto them: they have made for themselves molten images. And the Lord said unto him; I have spoken unto thee once and twice, saying, I have seen this people, and behold it is stiff-necked. Let Me destroy them utterly, and I will blot out their name from under heaven, and I will make of thee a nation great and wonderful and numerous more than this. And Moses said; Nay, not so, Lord Forgive this people their sin, or blot me also out of the book of the living. Oh mighty love! Oh unsurpassable perfection! The servant is bold with his Master; he asketh forgiveness for the multitude, or he demandeth that himself also be blotted out with them."

Judith

Clement does not refer to Judith as scripture.

Anyone normal person with average intelligence can clearly see that Clement accepted the Book of Judith as scripture, along with the entire church of Corinth.

No doubt everyone will believe you now that you have resorted to insults.

But if you want to continue to insist that we believe your wacky interpretation that Clement did NOT accept Judith as scripture, well, then go ahead and think that.

The facts are the facts and no where does Clement refer to Judith as scripture.

But you’re not going to convince the rest of us.

Much like all your blatantly false claims you have no evidence.

Anyone with a working brain and the ability to read can clearly infer from Clement’s letter that he accepted Judith as scripture.

Wow, nice job, more insults. Everything you do, including the insults, is a textbook example of confirmation bias.

I'm not the least bit worried at all. I have checked the scholarly sources and found no support for your claim.

St. Clement of Rome and St. Ignatius of Antioch. (1946). The Epistle of St. Clement of Rome and St. Ignatius. (J. Quasten & J. C. Plumpe, Eds., J. A. Kleist, Trans.) (1st ed.) New York; Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press.

Glimm, F. X., Marique, J. M.-F., & Walsh, G. G. (Trans.). (1947). The Apostolic Fathers. (Vol. 1.) Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press.

Brannan, R. (Trans.). (2012). The Apostolic Fathers in English. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.

Clement of Rome. (1885). The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (Vol. 1) Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company.

The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations. (M. Holmes, Ed., Baker Academic; 3rd edition 2007)

1 Clement. The Apostolic Fathers. (J. B. Lightfoot Ed., 2nd Ed., Vols. 1 and 2, Macmillan 1890, Reprint Hedrickson 1989).

Clement I, P., Ignatius, S., Bishop of Antioch, Polycarp, S., Bishop of Smyrna, & Lake, K. (1912–1913). The Aposolic Fathers. (K. Lake, Ed.) (Vol. 1,) Cambridge MA; London: Harvard University Press.

1st Clement, The Aposolic Fathers. (2003) (B. Ehrman, Ed.) (Vol. 1) Cambridge MA; London: Harvard University Press.

 

[NathanH83]

I have no respect for blatantly false claims, fanciful speculation, and wild sweeping generalizations. If that upsets you I don't really care.


No where does 1st Clement call Judith scripture.


There is no doubt 1st Clement clearly links the sacred scriptures to Moses by direct quotes.

"For ye know, and know well, the sacred scriptures, dearly beloved, and ye have searched into the oracles of God. We write these things therefore to put you in remembrance. When Moses went up into the mountain and had spent forty days and forty nights in fasting and humiliation, God said unto him; Moses, Moses, come down , quickly hence, for My people whom thou leadest forth from the land of Egypt have wrought iniquity: they have transgressed quickly out of the way which thou didst command unto them: they have made for themselves molten images. And the Lord said unto him; I have spoken unto thee once and twice, saying, I have seen this people, and behold it is stiff-necked. Let Me destroy them utterly, and I will blot out their name from under heaven, and I will make of thee a nation great and wonderful and numerous more than this. And Moses said; Nay, not so, Lord Forgive this people their sin, or blot me also out of the book of the living. Oh mighty love! Oh unsurpassable perfection! The servant is bold with his Master; he asketh forgiveness for the multitude, or he demandeth that himself also be blotted out with them."


Clement does not refer to Judith as scripture.


No doubt everyone will believe you now that you have resorted to insults.


The facts are the facts and no where does Clement refer to Judith as scripture.


Much like all your blatantly false claims you have no evidence.


Wow, nice job, more insults. Everything you do, including the insults, is a textbook example of confirmation bias.

The only person being insulting is you. You insult followers of Christ for believing the early church.

 

[Origen]

The only person being insulting is you. You insult followers of Christ for believing the early church.

Very sad. You just can't stop yourself.

 

[NathanH83]

I have no respect for blatantly false claims, fanciful speculation, and wild sweeping generalizations. If that upsets you I don't really care.


No where does 1st Clement call Judith scripture.


There is no doubt 1st Clement clearly links the sacred scriptures to Moses by direct quotes.

"For ye know, and know well, the sacred scriptures, dearly beloved, and ye have searched into the oracles of God. We write these things therefore to put you in remembrance. When Moses went up into the mountain and had spent forty days and forty nights in fasting and humiliation, God said unto him; Moses, Moses, come down , quickly hence, for My people whom thou leadest forth from the land of Egypt have wrought iniquity: they have transgressed quickly out of the way which thou didst command unto them: they have made for themselves molten images. And the Lord said unto him; I have spoken unto thee once and twice, saying, I have seen this people, and behold it is stiff-necked. Let Me destroy them utterly, and I will blot out their name from under heaven, and I will make of thee a nation great and wonderful and numerous more than this. And Moses said; Nay, not so, Lord Forgive this people their sin, or blot me also out of the book of the living. Oh mighty love! Oh unsurpassable perfection! The servant is bold with his Master; he asketh forgiveness for the multitude, or he demandeth that himself also be blotted out with them."


Clement does not refer to Judith as scripture.


No doubt everyone will believe you now that you have resorted to insults.


The facts are the facts and no where does Clement refer to Judith as scripture.


Much like all your blatantly false claims you have no evidence.


Wow, nice job, more insults. Everything you do, including the insults, is a textbook example of confirmation bias.

I'm not the least bit worried at all. I have checked the scholarly sources and found no support for your claim.

St. Clement of Rome and St. Ignatius of Antioch. (1946). The Epistle of St. Clement of Rome and St. Ignatius. (J. Quasten & J. C. Plumpe, Eds., J. A. Kleist, Trans.) (1st ed.) New York; Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press.

Glimm, F. X., Marique, J. M.-F., & Walsh, G. G. (Trans.). (1947). The Apostolic Fathers. (Vol. 1.) Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press.

Brannan, R. (Trans.). (2012). The Apostolic Fathers in English. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.

Clement of Rome. (1885). The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson, & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (Vol. 1) Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company.

The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations. (M. Holmes, Ed., Baker Academic; 3rd edition 2007)

1 Clement. The Apostolic Fathers. (J. B. Lightfoot Ed., 2nd Ed., Vols. 1 and 2, Macmillan 1890, Reprint Hedrickson 1989).

Clement I, P., Ignatius, S., Bishop of Antioch, Polycarp, S., Bishop of Smyrna, & Lake, K. (1912–1913). The Aposolic Fathers. (K. Lake, Ed.) (Vol. 1,) Cambridge MA; London: Harvard University Press.

1st Clement, The Aposolic Fathers. (2003) (B. Ehrman, Ed.) (Vol. 1) Cambridge MA; London: Harvard University Press.

Keep convincing yourself of that.
I’m pretty sure every single Catholic and Orthodox Christian will see straight through your ridiculous logic.

For that matter, any Protestant who just reads Clement’s letter will see that he accepted Judith. Shoot, it was a Protestant, David Bercot, who even brought this to my attention in the first place.

But I suppose you think David Bercot can’t read and understand for himself either. I mean, he’s a lawyer and passed the Bar. His profession is to read documents and interpret the law correctly.

But I’m sure you think you’re more capable of reading documents and interpreting them correctly. Because you’re just so much smarter than everyone else.

 

[Josiah]

You insult followers of Christ for believing the early church.

FACT: The Early Church never declared that the books listed in Article 6 of the 1563 Thirty Nine Articles of the Church of England (the exact set of books you insist must legally be required to be in every book with the word "BIBLE" on the cover) IS the list of "Sacred Scripture." HELLO - the Early Church NEVER, read N.E.V.E.R., it never stated what is and is not "Sacred Scripture." The list you stated is the exact set of books all publishing houses MUST put in every tome of the Bible comes from the singular Church of England... in 1563... and all of 66 of those it stated are NOT canonical.

There were INDIVIDUALS - maybe a dozen or so of the hundreds of thousands of Christians who lived from 33-311 AD - INDIVIDUALS who thought that the Didache was Scripture... that the Shepherd of Hermas was Scripture... that the Epistle of Barnabas was Scripture... but you don't give a RIP, not a RIP about what INDIVIDUALS in the Early Church thought on this matter only that YOU think on this matter, you and your 1611 edition of the King James Bible of the singular Church of England of 1611.

You are WRONG: The Ruling Body of All Christianity did NOT officially/formally declare that the books contained in th3 1611 edition of the KJB are the inerant, canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God. It didn't do that in 33 AD. It didn't do that in 1517. It didn't do that in 1563. There is no Ruling Body of all Christianity. There has been no formal/offical declaration in this regard.

You are WRONG: You are NOT forbidden to read books other than the 66 books that Calvin accepted as Scripture in the 16th Century. There is no such law forbidding you from reading Judith or 4 Maccabees or Psalm 151 or the Cat in the Hat. If you want to read those, YOU CAN. If you want ot buy those books, YOU CAN. If you find those useful and good, GREAT!

You are WRONG: There is no "Protestant Bible" declared by some all-authoritative Protestant Ruling Body that all publishing houses are required to print and market. There is no Ruling Body of Protestantism. Never has been. Still isn't. It couldn't declare the Protestant Bible because it doesn't exist. And Luther's Bible has 74 books in it. The Anglican Bible has 81 books in it, and Lutheranism and Anglicanism are roughly HALF of Protestantism.

You are WRONG: Publishing houses are FREE in every country known to me to market WHATEVER Bibles they want containing WHATEVER material they want to market. If you want a tome that contains NOTHING BUT the 81 books of Article 6 of the 39 Articles of the Anglican Chruch you CAN. In Leatherbound, hard bound, or paper back editions. You can have it overnight with free delivery. They are not forbidden, they are not disallowed. You CHOSE to not buy one. It's YOUR fault, not ours, not Christianity's, not Protestantism.

You are WRONG: No one went into every Christian parish... took all the Bibles out of the pews... ripped out the 15 of the 81 books of the Bible of the Church of England.... then put the mutilated Bibles back in the pews. No one ever did that. YOU simply CHOSE to buy a tome without those books... which is your right... you could have chose to buy an edition WITH those books but you didn't. It's that simple.




.

 

[NathanH83]

FACT: The Early Church never declared that the books listed in Article 6 of the 1563 Thirty Nine Articles of the Church of England (the exact set of books you insist must legally be required to be in every book with the word "BIBLE" on the cover) IS the list of "Sacred Scripture." HELLO - the Early Church NEVER, read N.E.V.E.R., it never stated what is and is not "Sacred Scripture." The list you stated is the exact set of books all publishing houses MUST put in every tome of the Bible comes from the singular Church of England... in 1563... and all of 66 of those it stated are NOT canonical.

There were INDIVIDUALS - maybe a dozen or so of the hundreds of thousands of Christians who lived from 33-311 AD - INDIVIDUALS who thought that the Didache was Scripture... that the Shepherd of Hermas was Scripture... that the Epistle of Barnabas was Scripture... but you don't give a RIP, not a RIP about what INDIVIDUALS in the Early Church thought on this matter only that YOU think on this matter, you and your 1611 edition of the King James Bible of the singular Church of England of 1611.

You are WRONG: The Ruling Body of All Christianity did NOT officially/formally declare that the books contained in th3 1611 edition of the KJB are the inerant, canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God. It didn't do that in 33 AD. It didn't do that in 1517. It didn't do that in 1563. There is no Ruling Body of all Christianity. There has been no formal/offical declaration in this regard.

You are WRONG: You are NOT forbidden to read books other than the 66 books that Calvin accepted as Scripture in the 16th Century. There is no such law forbidding you from reading Judith or 4 Maccabees or Psalm 151 or the Cat in the Hat. If you want to read those, YOU CAN. If you want ot buy those books, YOU CAN. If you find those useful and good, GREAT!

You are WRONG: There is no "Protestant Bible" declared by some all-authoritative Protestant Ruling Body that all publishing houses are required to print and market. There is no Ruling Body of Protestantism. Never has been. Still isn't. It couldn't declare the Protestant Bible because it doesn't exist. And Luther's Bible has 74 books in it. The Anglican Bible has 81 books in it, and Lutheranism and Anglicanism are roughly HALF of Protestantism.

You are WRONG: Publishing houses are FREE in every country known to me to market WHATEVER Bibles they want containing WHATEVER material they want to market. If you want a tome that contains NOTHING BUT the 81 books of Article 6 of the 39 Articles of the Anglican Chruch you CAN. In Leatherbound, hard bound, or paper back editions. You can have it overnight with free delivery. They are not forbidden, they are not disallowed. You CHOSE to not buy one. It's YOUR fault, not ours, not Christianity's, not Protestantism.

You are WRONG: No one went into every Christian parish... took all the Bibles out of the pews... ripped out the 15 of the 81 books of the Bible of the Church of England.... then put the mutilated Bibles back in the pews. No one ever did that. YOU simply CHOSE to buy a tome without those books... which is your right... you could have chose to buy an edition WITH those books but you didn't. It's that simple.




.

So, the Assemblies of God would allow one of their pastors to preach from Maccabees or Judith or Tobit during their Sunday sermon? And that pastor wouldn’t get reprimanded for that?

 

[Josiah]

So, the Assemblies of God would allow one of their pastors to preach from Maccabees or Judith or Tobit during their Sunday sermon? And that pastor wouldn’t get reprimanded for that?

1. The Assemblies of God is not Christianity... it's not Protestantism... it's not the Early Church. It's ONE quite modern denomination. One of tens of thousands. Don't you know that?

2. I don't know but I doubt that an Assembly of God preacher is legally forbidden to use materials beyond the 66 books that John Calvin accepted in the 16th Century... that he is forbidden to read anything else or use anything else or consider anything else as informational and helpful. In fact, I would not be shocked if he used in his sermons snippets from TV shows and/or movies... maybe quoted song lyrics or something from a newspaper or magazine... maybe some illustration he found on the internet.

3. If your problem is with the Assembly of God, then why have you never mentioned that singular, new denomination before? Why all the stress on the EARLY CHURCH (the Assembly of God didn't exist then)? 3 or 4 men who lived from 33-311 AD? All Christianity? 3 little obscure non-authoritative meetings of the RCC that don't agree with you on what books should be in tomes with BIBLE written on the cover? Why the arguments HERE (this is not an official website of the singular, new Assembly of God denomination)?

4. It MAY be that the official publishing house of the new singular Assembly of God denomination does not market a Bible that contains all the books (and ONLY the books) listed in Article 6 of the 39 Articles of the Church of England. Not so shocking. The Assembly of God is not the Church of England. BUT you are wrong that you cannot buy a tome that has all 81 books you think MUST be in a tome labeled "BIBLE". You can. You just chose not to do so.


FACT: The Early Church never declared that the books listed in Article 6 of the 1563 Thirty Nine Articles of the Church of England (the exact set of books you insist must legally be required to be in every book with the word "BIBLE" on the cover) IS the list of "Sacred Scripture." HELLO - the Early Church NEVER, read N.E.V.E.R., it never stated what is and is not "Sacred Scripture." The list you stated is the exact set of books all publishing houses MUST put in every tome of the Bible comes from the singular Church of England... in 1563... and all of 66 of those it stated are NOT canonical.

There were INDIVIDUALS - maybe a dozen or so of the hundreds of thousands of Christians who lived from 33-311 AD - INDIVIDUALS who expressed their own opinions on what is and is not Scripture.... some who thought that the Didache was Scripture... that the Shepherd of Hermas was Scripture... that the Epistle of Barnabas was Scripture... but you don't give a RIP, not a RIP about what INDIVIDUALS in the Early Church thought on this matter, you only care what YOU think on this matter, you and your 1611 edition of the King James Bible of the singular Church of England of 1611.

You are WRONG: The Ruling Body of All Christianity did NOT officially/formally declare that the books contained in th3 1611 edition of the KJB are the inerant, canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God. It didn't do that in 33 AD. It didn't do that in 1517. It didn't do that in 1563. There is no Ruling Body of all Christianity. There has been no formal/offical declaration in this regard.

You are WRONG: You are NOT forbidden to read books other than the 66 books that Calvin accepted as Scripture in the 16th Century. There is no such law forbidding you from reading Judith or 4 Maccabees or Psalm 151 or the Cat in the Hat. If you want to read those, YOU CAN. If you want ot buy those books, YOU CAN. If you find those useful and good, GREAT!

You are WRONG: There is no "Protestant Bible" declared by some all-authoritative Protestant Ruling Body that all publishing houses are required to print and market. There is no Ruling Body of Protestantism. Never has been. Still isn't. It couldn't declare the Protestant Bible because it doesn't exist. And Luther's Bible has 74 books in it. The Anglican Bible has 81 books in it, and Lutheranism and Anglicanism are roughly HALF of Protestantism.

You are WRONG: Publishing houses are FREE in every country known to me to market WHATEVER Bibles they want containing WHATEVER material they want to market. If you want a tome that contains NOTHING BUT the 81 books of Article 6 of the 39 Articles of the Anglican Church you CAN. In Leatherbound, hard bound, or paper back editions. You can have it overnight with free delivery. They are not forbidden, they are not disallowed. You CHOSE to not buy one. It's YOUR fault, not ours, not Christianity's, not Protestantism.

You are WRONG: No one went into every Christian parish... took all the Bibles out of the pews... ripped out the 15 of the 81 books of the Bible of the Church of England.... then put the mutilated Bibles back in the pews. No one ever did that. YOU simply CHOSE to buy a tome without those books... which is your right... you could have chose to buy an edition WITH those books but you didn't. It's that simple.

You are WRONG: Not everything contained within the covers of a book with the word "BIBLE" appearing on the cover is THUS officially/formally declared to be the inerrant, fully canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God by the Ruling Body of All Christianity during the Early Church. A lot of the time, stuff is put in there by publishing houses because customers think it's helpful and want it, If you don't think it's helpful, publishing houses offer tomes without such.



.

 

[NathanH83]

1. The Assemblies of God is not Christianity... it's not Protestantism... it's not the Early Church. It's ONE quite modern denomination. One of tens of thousands. Don't you know that?

2. I don't know but I doubt that an Assembly of God preacher is legally forbidden to use materials beyond the 66 books that John Calvin accepted in the 16th Century... that he is forbidden to read anything else or use anything else or consider anything else as informational and helpful. In fact, I would not be shocked if he used in his sermons snippets from TV shows and/or movies... maybe quoted song lyrics or something from a newspaper or magazine... maybe some illustration he found on the internet.

3. If your problem is with the Assembly of God, then why have you never mentioned that singular, new denomination before? Why all the stress on the EARLY CHURCH (the Assembly of God didn't exist then)? 3 or 4 men who lived from 33-311 AD? All Christianity? 3 little obscure non-authoritative meetings of the RCC that don't agree with you on what books should be in tomes with BIBLE written on the cover? Why the arguments HERE (this is not an official website of the singular, new Assembly of God denomination)?

4. It MAY be that the official publishing house of the new singular Assembly of God denomination does not market a Bible that contains all the books (and ONLY the books) listed in Article 6 of the 39 Articles of the Church of England. Not so shocking. The Assembly of God is not the Church of England. BUT you are wrong that you cannot buy a tome that has all 81 books you think MUST be in a tome labeled "BIBLE". You can. You just chose not to do so.


FACT: The Early Church never declared that the books listed in Article 6 of the 1563 Thirty Nine Articles of the Church of England (the exact set of books you insist must legally be required to be in every book with the word "BIBLE" on the cover) IS the list of "Sacred Scripture." HELLO - the Early Church NEVER, read N.E.V.E.R., it never stated what is and is not "Sacred Scripture." The list you stated is the exact set of books all publishing houses MUST put in every tome of the Bible comes from the singular Church of England... in 1563... and all of 66 of those it stated are NOT canonical.

There were INDIVIDUALS - maybe a dozen or so of the hundreds of thousands of Christians who lived from 33-311 AD - INDIVIDUALS who expressed their own opinions on what is and is not Scripture.... some who thought that the Didache was Scripture... that the Shepherd of Hermas was Scripture... that the Epistle of Barnabas was Scripture... but you don't give a RIP, not a RIP about what INDIVIDUALS in the Early Church thought on this matter, you only care what YOU think on this matter, you and your 1611 edition of the King James Bible of the singular Church of England of 1611.

You are WRONG: The Ruling Body of All Christianity did NOT officially/formally declare that the books contained in th3 1611 edition of the KJB are the inerant, canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God. It didn't do that in 33 AD. It didn't do that in 1517. It didn't do that in 1563. There is no Ruling Body of all Christianity. There has been no formal/offical declaration in this regard.

You are WRONG: You are NOT forbidden to read books other than the 66 books that Calvin accepted as Scripture in the 16th Century. There is no such law forbidding you from reading Judith or 4 Maccabees or Psalm 151 or the Cat in the Hat. If you want to read those, YOU CAN. If you want ot buy those books, YOU CAN. If you find those useful and good, GREAT!

You are WRONG: There is no "Protestant Bible" declared by some all-authoritative Protestant Ruling Body that all publishing houses are required to print and market. There is no Ruling Body of Protestantism. Never has been. Still isn't. It couldn't declare the Protestant Bible because it doesn't exist. And Luther's Bible has 74 books in it. The Anglican Bible has 81 books in it, and Lutheranism and Anglicanism are roughly HALF of Protestantism.

You are WRONG: Publishing houses are FREE in every country known to me to market WHATEVER Bibles they want containing WHATEVER material they want to market. If you want a tome that contains NOTHING BUT the 81 books of Article 6 of the 39 Articles of the Anglican Church you CAN. In Leatherbound, hard bound, or paper back editions. You can have it overnight with free delivery. They are not forbidden, they are not disallowed. You CHOSE to not buy one. It's YOUR fault, not ours, not Christianity's, not Protestantism.

You are WRONG: No one went into every Christian parish... took all the Bibles out of the pews... ripped out the 15 of the 81 books of the Bible of the Church of England.... then put the mutilated Bibles back in the pews. No one ever did that. YOU simply CHOSE to buy a tome without those books... which is your right... you could have chose to buy an edition WITH those books but you didn't. It's that simple.

You are WRONG: Not everything contained within the covers of a book with the word "BIBLE" appearing on the cover is THUS officially/formally declared to be the inerrant, fully canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God by the Ruling Body of All Christianity during the Early Church. A lot of the time, stuff is put in there by publishing houses because customers think it's helpful and want it, If you don't think it's helpful, publishing houses offer tomes without such.



.

Oh my gosh, you talk too much. I literally asked 1 question.

Anyway…

I myself, being a part of the Assemblies of God for many years, I’m pretty sure that if a pastor so much as MENTIONED Judith in a Sunday sermon the way that Clement did in his letter, the leadership if the Assemblies would have something very negative to say to that about it. They might even reprimand him and tell him not to do that again.

I agree with you that the Assemblies of God is just 1 denomination within Protestantism, and does not represent Christianity as a whole (Thank God!). But the Assemblies IS one part of Christianity, and a very influential part, especially in my city and in my state.

I find it very upsetting that these works, these “apocryphal” books, that were endorsed by the very first Christians, have now been blacklisted by ministries today…. ministries which I think do very good work of reaching lost souls for Christ.

I’m not against the Assemblies of God. I’m in favor of them. I LOVE them. What they’ve done downtown in my city is wonderful. Their outreaches are wonderful.

I just think it’s sad that so many in the church I grew up in and spent so much time in has all these good, well-meaning Christians who really do love the Lord, but they have a very negative attitude against the “apocryphal” books, and most refuse to read them.

That’s really sad, because it creates a hindrance for them to be able to understand certain prophecies in Daniel and other things in the New Testament. Plus the story of Judith is a wonderful story, and Clement even said we can learn from Judith’s godly example.

 

[Origen]

Keep convincing yourself of that.
I’m pretty sure every single Catholic and Orthodox Christian will see straight through your ridiculous logic.

For that matter, any Protestant who just reads Clement’s letter will see that he accepted Judith. Shoot, it was a Protestant, David Bercot, who even brought this to my attention in the first place.

But I suppose you think David Bercot can’t read and understand for himself either. I mean, he’s a lawyer and passed the Bar. His profession is to read documents and interpret the law correctly.

But I’m sure you think you’re more capable of reading documents and interpreting them correctly. Because you’re just so much smarter than everyone else.

I have no respect for blatantly false claims, fanciful speculation, and wild sweeping generalizations. If that upsets you I don't really care.

 

[NathanH83]

I have no respect for blatantly false claims, fanciful speculation, and wild sweeping generalizations. If that upsets you I don't really care.

Your opinion. Nothing more.

 

[Origen]

Your opinion. Nothing more.

Oh really. Let's see if there is nothing more.

You claimed in post 1 "Clement was directly discipled by Paul himself." That claim is blatantly false.

Now don't embarrass yourself by citing Philippians 4:3 again. Paul no where in that verse refers to Clement as "his direct disciple." In fact Paul doesn't even use the word μαθητής (i.e. disciple) in that verse.

So EXACTLY WHERE did Paul called Clement his disciple???

 

[Josiah]

I myself, being a part of the Assemblies of God for many years, I’m pretty sure that if a pastor so much as MENTIONED Judith in a Sunday sermon the way that Clement did in his letter, the leadership if the Assemblies would have something very negative to say to that about it.

Perhaps. But then your "problem" is with the Assemblies of God. Not Christianity. Not Protestantism. Not anyone here.

And while you might be right, I rather doubt that the Assemblies of God legally forbids you to buy a tome containing exactly the books mentioned in Article Six of the 1563 Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England (and NOTHING else).... and I doubt that the leadership of that singular rather new denomination ever entered all the churches of Christianity, took all the pew Bibles, and ripped out 15 books before replacing them in the pews. I just doubt it.

Maybe you need to change denominations.

I agree with you that the Assemblies of God is just 1 denomination within Protestantism, and does not represent Christianity as a whole (Thank God!).

Then what you personally have experienced in one parish of one rather new denomination doesn't justify all the sweeping statements you've made about "Christianity" "All Christians" "Every Church Father".... And since this is not a website of the Assemblies of God... and I'm not even sure any other participants in your countless numbers of threads on this are AofG members or clergy...and I think this is the first time you've mentioned your issue with that one rather new denomination. Maybe you need to change to the Church of England since it is their unique Bible that you think should be the mandated Bible for all 2.2 billion Christians (well, for every Christian since 33 AD)

And I note that your amazing claims never mentioned that one fairly nee denomination that represents such a tiny percentage of all Christians today (not to mention since 33 AD).



I'm recalling your claims...

FACT: The Early Church never declared that the books listed in Article 6 of the 1563 Thirty Nine Articles of the Church of England (the exact set of books you insist must legally be required to be in every book with the word "BIBLE" on the cover) IS the list of "Sacred Scripture." HELLO - the Early Church NEVER, read N.E.V.E.R., it never stated what is and is not "Sacred Scripture." The list you stated is the exact set of books all publishing houses MUST put in every tome of the Bible comes from the singular Church of England... in 1563... and all of 66 of those it stated are NOT canonical.

There were INDIVIDUALS - maybe a dozen or so of the hundreds of thousands of Christians who lived from 33-311 AD - INDIVIDUALS who expressed their own opinions on what is and is not Scripture.... some who thought that the Didache was Scripture... that the Shepherd of Hermas was Scripture... that the Epistle of Barnabas was Scripture... but you don't give a RIP, not a RIP about what INDIVIDUALS in the Early Church thought on this matter, you only care what YOU think on this matter, you and your 1611 edition of the King James Bible of the singular Church of England of 1611.

You are WRONG: The Ruling Body of All Christianity did NOT officially/formally declare that the books contained in the 1611 edition of the KJV are the inerant, canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God. It didn't do that in 33 AD. It didn't do that in 1517. It didn't do that in 1563. There is no Ruling Body of all Christianity. There has been no formal/offical declaration in this regard.

You are WRONG: You are NOT forbidden to read books other than the 66 books that Calvin accepted as Scripture in the 16th Century. There is no such law forbidding you from reading Judith or 4 Maccabees or Psalm 151 or the Cat in the Hat. If you want to read those, YOU CAN. If you want ot buy those books, YOU CAN. If you find those useful and good, GREAT!

You are WRONG: There is no "Protestant Bible" declared by some all-authoritative Protestant Ruling Body that all publishing houses are required to print and market. There is no Ruling Body of Protestantism. Never has been. Still isn't. It couldn't declare the Protestant Bible because it doesn't exist. And Luther's Bible has 74 books in it. The Anglican Bible has 81 books in it, and Lutheranism and Anglicanism are roughly HALF of Protestantism.

You are WRONG: Publishing houses are FREE in every country known to me to market WHATEVER Bibles they want containing WHATEVER material they want to market. If you want a tome that contains NOTHING BUT the 81 books of Article 6 of the 39 Articles of the Anglican Church you CAN. In Leatherbound, hard bound, or paper back editions. You can have it overnight with free delivery. They are not forbidden, they are not disallowed. You CHOSE to not buy one. It's YOUR fault, not ours, not Christianity's, not Protestantism.

You are WRONG: No one went into every Christian parish... took all the Bibles out of the pews... ripped out the 15 of the 81 books of the Bible of the Church of England.... then put the mutilated Bibles back in the pews. No one ever did that. YOU simply CHOSE to buy a tome without those books... which is your right... you could have chose to buy an edition WITH those books but you didn't. It's that simple.

You are WRONG: Not everything contained within the covers of a book with the word "BIBLE" appearing on the cover is THUS officially/formally declared to be the inerrant, fully canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God by the Ruling Body of All Christianity during the Early Church. A lot of the time, stuff is put in there by publishing houses because customers think it's helpful and want it, If you don't think it's helpful, publishing houses offer tomes without such.



.

 

[Josiah]

Nathan.....


It might have made an ENORMOUS difference IF in all these threads you've started on this and the hundreds and hundreds of posts you've uploaded IF you had said, "Most Christians have books beyond the 66 that they read, use and find helpful that sadly are ignored these days at least in the Assemblies of God" well, my brother, you would have found most here would have shouted "AMEN!" And I would have noted Luther included 8 of them in his translation (and sometimes Lutherans study these - as I have in our Sunday Pastor's Class) and include some in their Sunday Lectionary. And our Anglican friends would have noted their denomination officially embraces 15 extra deuterocanonical books and they are in their Sunday Lectionaries. And of course our Catholic and Orthodox posters would note the same. And we would have joined you in saying American Evangelicals would benefit if they discovered these books - and used them, even if as deuterocanonically. And you could have noted your little part of American Evangelicalism - the Assembies of God - is one of those American Evangelical groups that should stop ignoring these deutero books (you might even have mentioned one or two especially helpful to you) - and most here (most of all me) would have said AMEN! Indeed, there's LOTS I think American Evangelicalism needs to change.

But we got countless threads.... hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of posts.... INCREDIBLE baseless, unsubstantiated or just plain wrong.... with claims about Church Fathers, Christianity, Christians ... SO many big sweeping claims that were AMAZINGLY incredible and unsubstantiated and often just plain WRONG - and you never cared if you were wrong... or even what others posted. Consider the title you gave to THIS thread! IF you had said, "In MY little, new denomination within American Evangelicalism, the members seem unaware of deuterocanonical books and I think this is unfortunate" then most here would have said, "AMEN, brother" We might even have shared some positive experiences there. But you went on and on and on and on .... in rant after rant after rant.... that never mentioned the Assemblies of God or American Evangelicalism.... rants entirely founded on falsehoods and totally unsubstantiated claims and pure speculations on your part.... with a lot of circular reasoning and personal accusations.




.

 

[NathanH83]

FALSE.


1. There is NO evidence that the Clement mentioned by Paul in Philippians is the same person who wrote 1 Clement.
.

I’m confused. What do you mean when you say there is NO evidence?

Eusebius of Caesarea was a 4th century church historian. He had access to many documents that we don’t have today. Eusebius is often called the “greatest of church historians” by such scholars as William Graham Scroggie.

Eusebius plainly says in his excellent work “Ecclesiastical History” that the Clement mentioned in Philippians 4:3 is the same one as the Clement who became bishop of Rome.

I don’t understand how there’s “NO evidence” when it was understood by a very well respected church historian of the 300’s that this Clement of Rome is the same one as mentioned in Philipians.

Why can’t that be counted as evidence?

 

[Josiah]

Eusebius plainly says that the Clement mentioned in Philippians 4:3 is the same one as the Clement who became bishop of Rome.

Yup. Never said otherwise. Indeed, I specifically stated that we have one individual person who shared his opinion that they were the same person.... and offered NOTHING to substantiate or boast that claim. And of course, that one lived LONG after Clement of Rome died and had no way to personally know this. True, it's theoretically possible he had good data on this that we don't have (even perhaps evidence), but IF he did, he didn't share it so that evidence doesn't exist. One person sharing his/her opinion is not evidence; you might not know that (which could explain a lot).

You made a bold claim that you have no evidence for. IF you had said "Clement of Rome was a contemporary of Paul and so it's theoretically possible that "Clement" in Philippians refers to St. Clement of Rome, although "Clement" was a very popular male name and we have no evidence of this" then I'd agree. But that's not what you posted, is it? IF you had posted, "One esteemed man who lived long after St. Clement of Rome believed that he was the same "Clement" mentioned by Paul in the book of Philippians but shared nothing to support that belief" well.... no problem there either, but that's not what you posted, is it? Read what you posted, read the title you gave to the thread.... did you offer any substantiation for it? Nope. But (as I noted long before you did) your OPINION is not original - just unsubstantiated.


See posts 56 and 57.




.

 

[Andrew]

Yup. Never said otherwise. Indeed, I specifically stated that we have one individual person who shared his opinion that they were the same person.... and offered NOTHING to substantiate or boast that claim. And of course, that one lived LONG after Clement of Rome died and had no way to personally know this. True, it's theoretically possible he had good data on this that we don't have (even perhaps evidence), but IF he did, he didn't share it so that evidence doesn't exist. One person sharing his/her opinion is not evidence; you might not know that (which could explain a lot).

You made a bold claim that you have no evidence for. IF you had said "Clement of Rome was a contemporary of Paul and so it's theoretically possible that "Clement" in Philippians refers to St. Clement of Rome, although "Clement" was a very popular male name and we have no evidence of this" then I'd agree. But that's not what you posted, is it? IF you had posted, "One esteemed man who lived long after St. Clement of Rome believed that he was the same "Clement" mentioned by Paul in the book of Philippians but shared nothing to support that belief" well.... no problem there either, but that's not what you posted, is it? Read what you posted, read the title you gave to the thread.... did you offer any substantiation for it? Nope. But (as I noted long before you did) your OPINION is not original - just unsubstantiated.


See posts 56 and 57.




.

So we should liken the ECF to a small insignificant amount of random free thinking Christians with youtube channels, no matter how many there are they simply wish to itch the ears of their audience by making stuff up off the top of their heads to sound legit but lacking evidence to their claims..

But Jerome's okay he's like Fauci, but Origen we can dismiss right?

“The Jews don’t use Tobit, but the churches use Tobit.”
-Origen