A P O C R Y P H A : Included in every Holy Bible from the 4th century AD to the 19th Century AD

[Josiah]

It's very simple. The books labeled by Jerome as "Apocrypha"
The same books that were included in the original KJV 1611 that are no longer included.

Why Jerome? Why is his list THE definitive, authoritative, declaration of all Christianity?

No, the books Jerome included is NOT the same as the books the Church of England included (and thus the 1611 KJV).

Sometimes you say it's all the books in the LXX (but you won't list them).... sometimes it's the books mentioned by the singular, individual RCC at Florence or Trent... sometimes you say it's the books included in the KJV of 1611... sometimes you suggest it's the books Calvin included or Luther included... but you seem to miss a couple of critical points: NONE OF THESE LISTS ARE THE SAME. Which is why I keep asking WHICH books? And also, just because they are in some way included does not mean ergo they are declared to be equal in every sense. As I noted, roughly HALF of the content of my Bible tome is not regarded by anyone to be inerrant, fully canonical, divinely inscripturated words of God equal to everything else. You keep evading this point... Luther is quoted as declaring the Prayer of Manessah to be EQUAL to all the others, fully canonical, inerrant, divinely inspired when what he actually said is that it is NOT so. What he said is that his list (which is NOT the same as Jerome's, NOT the same as the KJV, NOT the same as the Greek Orthodox Church, NOT the same as the Coptic Orthodox Church, NOT the same as the KJV) contains some books that are only "good and useful to read." He said the same of several other books.


And you seem to stress that this "they" must be in every tome sold with the word "BIBLE" on it. But you've never substantiated that, or why other books and materials cannot be included... why a tome I have which only contains the NT should be illegal?

And you seem to stress that if a book is reference by some mysterious group, it THUS must be printed in a tome sold that has BIBLE on the cover. But I've given MANY such books (even named specifically in the Bible itself) and you don't give a rip about them. So, being used by some group doesn't mean anything to you... so why is it so meaningful to you?

"They" include important lessons of moral obedience such as good will toward all men, charity and thanksgivings rather than pressing on the legal issues of Judaism and tribalism.

NO ONE known to me insists that the books one person included in his translation (but not necessarily as canonical) doesn't contain useful and good stuff. I could say the very same thing about at least 100 books that I've read (and I'm sure is true for millions of books that I have not read). But here's where we seem to disagree: I don't think that necessarily makes all of them inerrant, canonical or divinely-inscripturated, or that there should be some legal requirement that all books sold with "BIBLE" on the cover MUST include all those books between its covers. Yes - I hold it's good to have those books available (they should not be legally banned) but I don't agree with you they MUST ALL be in any book sold with the word "BIBLE" on the cover. And brother, EVERY BOOK Jerome translated is freely available to anyone who wants it. EVERY Christian is allowed to access it. EVERY preacher is allowed to use it. They are all on the internet. In pretty much every language. For free.

Your claim that Christianity put "them" in is just false. Which is why you can't quote any Ruling Body of all Christianity doing that. It's a false claim. And your claim that some mysterious, unidentified person when into churches and ripped out "these" from the pew Bibles is also a false claim. Your constant insistence about "put in" and "ripped out" are both simply baseless. And I think you've proven that.

Now, I fully agree that SOME books beyond the "66" were once used by Christians more often than today; this especially true for Protestants. Yup. But this does not mean they RIPPED OUT a bunch of books you can't identify, RIPPED out books that Christianity had declared to be equal to the rest, books Christianity declared are canonical, inerrant, divinely-inspired. It's just absurd, my brother. Nathan tried to imply that some unidentified person at his Assembly of God church discouraged him from reading from "them". And maybe (I have no reason to doubt such) ... but that does not prove that ERGO "they" were PUT IN the Bible by some official Ruling Body of Christianity and some unknown person RIPPED "THEM" OUT. It means this (and only this): Some person he didn't identify at his Assembly of God parish discouraged him from reading some book he didn't identify. Nothing more. Apples and oranges, I'm certain you agree.

Friend, if you want to read and use and quote Psalm 151, GO AHEAD! You are not forbidden. But if you insist that CHRISTIANITY put that in the Bible as equal to the rest, inerrant, canonical, divinely inscripturated (and this "someone" ripped it out), then you need to substantiate those claims.



See the rest of post 19



.

 

[Andrew]

Why Jerome? Why is his list THE definitive, authoritative, declaration of all Christianity?

No, the books Jerome included is NOT the same as the books the Church of England included (and thus the 1611 KJV).

Sometimes you say it's all the books in the LXX (but you won't list them).... sometimes it's the books mentioned by the singular, individual RCC at Florence or Trent... sometimes you say it's the books included in the KJV of 1611... sometimes you suggest it's the books Calvin included or Luther included... but you seem to miss a couple of critical points: NONE OF THESE LISTS ARE THE SAME. Which is why I keep asking WHICH books? And also, just because they are in some way included does not mean ergo they are declared to be equal in every sense. As I noted, roughly HALF of the content of my Bible tome is not regarded by anyone to be inerrant, fully canonical, divinely inscripturated words of God equal to everything else. You keep evading this point... Luther is quoted as declaring the Prayer of Manessah to be EQUAL to all the others, fully canonical, inerrant, divinely inspired when what he actually said is that it is NOT so. What he said is that his list (which is NOT the same as Jerome's, NOT the same as the KJV, NOT the same as the Greek Orthodox Church, NOT the same as the Coptic Orthodox Church, NOT the same as the KJV) contains some books that are only "good and useful to read." He said the same of several other books.


And you seem to stress that this "they" must be in every tome sold with the word "BIBLE" on it. But you've never substantiated that, or why other books and materials cannot be included... why a tome I have which only contains the NT should be illegal?

And you seem to stress that if a book is reference by some mysterious group, it THUS must be printed in a tome sold that has BIBLE on the cover. But I've given MANY such books (even named specifically in the Bible itself) and you don't give a rip about them. So, being used by some group doesn't mean anything to you... so why is it so meaningful to you?








NO ONE known to me insists that the books one person included in his translation (but not necessarily as canonical) doesn't contain useful and good stuff. I could say the very same thing about at least 100 books that I've read (and I'm sure is true for millions of books that I have not read). But here's where we seem to disagree: I don't think that necessarily makes all of them inerrant, canonical or divinely-inscripturated, or that there should be some legal requirement that all books sold with "BIBLE" on the cover MUST include all those books between its covers. Yes - I hold it's good to have those books available (they should not be legally banned) but I don't agree with you they MUST ALL be in any book sold with the word "BIBLE" on the cover. And brother, EVERY BOOK Jerome translated is freely available to anyone who wants it. EVERY Christian is allowed to access it. EVERY preacher is allowed to use it. They are all on the internet. In pretty much every language. For free.

Your claim that Christianity put "them" in is just false. Which is why you can't quote any Ruling Body of all Christianity doing that. It's a false claim. And your claim that some mysterious, unidentified person when into churches and ripped out "these" from the pew Bibles is also a false claim. Your constant insistence about "put in" and "ripped out" are both simply baseless. And I think you've proven that.

Now, I fully agree that SOME books beyond the "66" were once used by Christians more often than today; this especially true for Protestants. Yup. But this does not mean they RIPPED OUT a bunch of books you can't identify, RIPPED out books that Christianity had declared to be equal to the rest, books Christianity declared are canonical, inerrant, divinely-inspired. It's just absurd, my brother. Nathan tried to imply that some unidentified person at his Assembly of God church discouraged him from reading from "them". And maybe (I have no reason to doubt such) ... but that does not prove that ERGO "they" were PUT IN the Bible by some official Ruling Body of Christianity and some unknown person RIPPED "THEM" OUT. It means this (and only this): Some person he didn't identify at his Assembly of God parish discouraged him from reading some book he didn't identify. Nothing more. Apples and oranges, I'm certain you agree.

Friend, if you want to read and use and quote Psalm 151, GO AHEAD! You are not forbidden. But if you insist that CHRISTIANITY put that in the Bible as equal to the rest, inerrant, canonical, divinely inscripturated (and this "someone" ripped it out), then you need to substantiate those claims.



See the rest of post 19



.

Problem is, some books were parts of other books, so there is a lot of confusion of whether the 24 books of the Hebrew canon actually included the additions.

Tobit
Judith
1 and 2nd Esdras
Wisdom
Sirach
Baruch
Song of the Three Children
Story of Susanna
Bel and the Dragon
1 and 2 Maccabees
Prayer of Manassah (not really a book)

 

[Andrew]

@Josiah

Of course I can go ahead and read them just as centuries of Christians did.

Now aside of the issue of what establishes doctrine or not does not matter. What doctrine do we get out of any books outside the NT anyway?

This idea of doctrine = canon leaves us alone with just the Torah for the OT... what about the doing? Tobits family were devout God-fearing, obedient servants of the Lord, this makes for a good report, a testimony of true faith from your average Job (pun).

Tobias entertained one of the 7 Angels of the Lord and after offering the stranger a wage for his help (even though he was poor) the Angel kindly refused and even drove out a demon from their home and healed Tobits blindess.

The Angel told his family to worship God alone and give glory to God alone and to praise God alone.

To me, this story signifies the peak transition from the OT Law and Prophets to the fast approaching Messiah and the doer of the Word of God, Christ.

God prepared the world with the Greek Septuagint, I don't think he changed his mind in the 18th century to "unholy" some books from His Holy Bible.

 

[Josiah]

Problem is,

No. The "problem" you have is that the "bibles" you keep referencing are NOT THE SAME, they don't have the same content.

And there are MANY books that were used and quoted by some Jews (even specifically name in the Bible) that you don't accept, even though you suggest if some Jews quote or use a book, ergo it's canonical and must appear in all tomes with BIBLE on the cover. Your claim that if a book is used by someone(s) ergo it is canonical is simply baseless. And if it was likely written in Hebrew does not make it so either; that claim too is baseless.

And simply including a book in a biblical tome or translation does NOT prove that ERGO Christianity accept it as fully canonical, inerrant, divinely-inscriptured... indeed, it may just be seen as a book "useful" and "good to read". Your claim that if a book is contained in some tome, ergo it is canonical is simply baseless.

And your claim that some books were PUT IN the Bible - and then RIPPED OUT - also isn't true. There's zero evidence (which is why you can't present any). Your whole Christianity "put in" and then "ripped out" scenario of the canon is baseless.


The ONLY thing you've noted (for how long now) that is valid is this: Some Christians used some books that aren't so much used today. Yup. No one denies that. But the suggestion that you are forbidden to do so by Christianity is just baseless. Heck, use google! But all the books you mention (and a LOT more!) are all on the internet - in every language - for free. Not "ripped out." Not one person, not one pastor, not one denomination has been identified here as forbidding the reading of Psalm 151 or 4 Maccabees or the Letter of Jeremiah (or any other book for that matter). You may read them.... you may quote them... you may use them.... indeed yes Luther ENCOURAGED that....you may put them into any book you like. Any publishing house can. No one forbids this. But that's a whole other enchilada than suggested "they" are canonical (and always have been by Christianity). And friend, there are HUNDREDS of books that are useful.... HUNDREDS that are quoted by pastors and theologians. And about HALF of the stuff in my Bible is not on your list of stuff good to read BUT IT'S IN my tome.




.

 

[Albion]

Ah yes, an article about Martin Luther, a Catholic monk who believed for most of his life the doctrine of purgatory. Had he performed proper exegesis he would have discovered that those dogmatic doctrines were entirely unfounded, surprised he didn't point out the more obvious heresy that these dogmas totally bypass The Atonement through Jesus. It shouldn't take a scholar such as himself to figure out that the church took something from a book completely out of context.
It was not his studies of these books that changed his mind, but it was a debate over purgatory that provoked him to stick his post it notes on top of those books.

I still don't see where John and Luther wanted them omitted from the Holy Bible.

Put another way, Luther and all the other Reformers were the "last word" on this matter in your opinion until it was pointed out to you that they actually believed the opposite of what you thought.

The King James 1611 included them, the Geneva bible, ALL bibles included them for the majorty of Christendom..

..."included" them with the Bible books but not as part of the Bible, that is

 

[Andrew]

Put another way, Luther and all the other Reformers were the "last word" on this matter until it was pointed out to you that they actually believed the opposite of what you thought.

I'm just saying that he never ever ever ever ever had any issue with Maccabees until he blew a fews with the church and denounced his belief in purgatory (kudos!) and blamed it on poor old Judah for taking up a sin offering to commemorate his men as an innocent pious thought (bad Martin).

The Purgatory issue could have been refuted by simply pointing to the Cross and saying "Our Lord Christ Jesus took our punishment of death on the Cross and only by His work are we delivered unto everlasting life in paradise!"

I think I would have made a slightly better version of Martin Luther

 

[Josiah]

I'm just saying that he never ever ever ever ever had any issue with Maccabees until...

It is true that Luther "evolved" in some areas.... but I'm unaware that Luther EVER held that the very specific, unique set of books found within the covers of the 1611 KJV were canonical, inerrant, inscripturated words of God equal to the rest. Never. And I don't recall him EVER writing that Christianity declared Article 6 of the 39 Articles of the unique Church of England to be the canon but then someone (who can't be identified) "ripped them out."

I also know NOTHING from Luther about if a book was ever used or quoted by some Jews, ergo it is inerrant, fully canonical, inscripturated words of God that must legally appear in any book sold with BIBLE written on the cover.

I also know NOTHING from Luther about how Jerome spoke with authority of the Ruling Body of all Christianity and that his "list" is THE official list of what is and is not permitted to be in a biblical tome or what is canonical. Or Calvin. Or King Henry the VII. Or the Greek Orthodox Church. Or whoever may (or may not) have authorize any version of the LXX.

Luther considered THAT book to be helpful and good to read. And he certainly acknowledged that it was ancient and often regarded in esteem. But that has nothing to do with being canonical or inerrant or divinely inspired or mandated to appear in any biblical tome. It has nothing to do with a book being canonical if some Jew used it or if some tome included it.


Again, NO ONE HERE has argued that there are not useful books beyond the 66. The dispute as been all your many, constant claims about "their" status, all your claims about Christianity, about all Christians, about some Jews quoting something, about original language, etc., etc. You know, the issue of your (perpetual) claims. And things such as.... CLAIMING Luther said something when in fact he said pretty much the opposite.

I honestly have never been able to figure out the "bee in your bonet." Yup, USEFUL!!!! And yes, you can USE them (well, and ANY book you deem helpful). PERHAPS Nathan feels angry that someone he hasn't identified suggested he not use some book, okay, but that's HIS issue with THAT person. It doesn't substantiate ANY of the things he and you have been posting about (very often).




.

 

[Albion]

I'm just saying that he never ever ever ever ever had any issue with Maccabees until he blew a fews with the church and denounced his belief in purgatory (kudos!) and blamed it on poor old Judah for taking up a sin offering to commemorate his men as an innocent pious thought (bad Martin).

The Purgatory issue could have been refuted by simply pointing to the Cross and saying "Our Lord Christ Jesus took our punishment of death on the Cross and only by His work are we delivered unto everlasting life in paradise!"

I think I would have made a slightly better version of Martin Luther

Keep guessing.

 

[Andrew]

No. The "problem" you have is that the "bibles" you keep referencing are NOT THE SAME, they don't have the same content.

And there are MANY books that were used and quoted by some Jews (even specifically name in the Bible) that you don't accept, even though you suggest if some Jews quote or use a book, ergo it's canonical and must appear in all tomes with BIBLE on the cover. Your claim that if a book is used by someone(s) ergo it is canonical is simply baseless. And if it was likely written in Hebrew does not make it so either; that claim too is baseless.

And simply including a book in a biblical tome or translation does NOT prove that ERGO Christianity accept it as fully canonical, inerrant, divinely-inscriptured... indeed, it may just be seen as a book "useful" and "good to read". Your claim that if a book is contained in some tome, ergo it is canonical is simply baseless.

And your claim that some books were PUT IN the Bible - and then RIPPED OUT - also isn't true. There's zero evidence (which is why you can't present any). Your whole Christianity "put in" and then "ripped out" scenario of the canon is baseless.


The ONLY thing you've noted (for how long now) that is valid is this: Some Christians used some books that aren't so much used today. Yup. No one denies that. But the suggestion that you are forbidden to do so by Christianity is just baseless. Heck, use google! But all the books you mention (and a LOT more!) are all on the internet - in every language - for free. Not "ripped out." Not one person, not one pastor, not one denomination has been identified here as forbidding the reading of Psalm 151 or 4 Maccabees or the Letter of Jeremiah (or any other book for that matter). You may read them.... you may quote them... you may use them.... indeed yes Luther ENCOURAGED that....you may put them into any book you like. Any publishing house can. No one forbids this. But that's a whole other enchilada than suggested "they" are canonical (and always have been by Christianity). And friend, there are HUNDREDS of books that are useful.... HUNDREDS that are quoted by pastors and theologians. And about HALF of the stuff in my Bible is not on your list of stuff good to read BUT IT'S IN my tome.




.

Yeah well protestants and catholics alike were pretty darn upset when the British Bible Society and the American Bible Society started ripping out traditional books from The Holy Bible, I would bet my dollar bottom that Luther and Calvin would have started another Reformation Protest against the Bible Societies and their God complex (Pope of the Printing Press).

But now, I dunno, just seems ironic how modern Bible thumping protestants today attempt poorly to argue points to discredit the NT allusions and references to some of the books, points that were never raised in the history of Protestantism up until the last century or so when the early protestants professed boldly the martyred sons in Maccabees, the Angel that Tobias entertained unaware, or when Jesus quoted from Esdras word for word, early protestant preachers even wrote them in cross references in their Bibles when preaching a public sermon.

But now it's "they are probably referencing any other people who aren't in those books because they are only good to read because Luther said so and he is always right..
...except for when he criticized James, Hebrews, Revelation and Jude"
(okay that last line was in jest)

 

[Andrew]

It is true that Luther "evolved" in some areas.... but I'm unaware that Luther EVER held that the very specific, unique set of books found within the covers of the 1611 KJV were canonical, inerrant, inscripturated words of God equal to the rest. Never. And I don't recall him EVER writing that Christianity declared Article 6 of the 39 Articles of the unique Church of England to be the canon but then someone (who can't be identified) "ripped them out."

I also know NOTHING from Luther about if a book was ever used or quoted by some Jews, ergo it is inerrant, fully canonical, inscripturated words of God that must legally appear in any book sold with BIBLE written on the cover.

I also know NOTHING from Luther about how Jerome spoke with authority of the Ruling Body of all Christianity and that his "list" is THE official list of what is and is not permitted to be in a biblical tome or what is canonical. Or Calvin. Or King Henry the VII. Or the Greek Orthodox Church. Or whoever may (or may not) have authorize any version of the LXX.

Luther considered THAT book to be helpful and good to read. And he certainly acknowledged that it was ancient and often regarded in esteem. But that has nothing to do with being canonical or inerrant or divinely inspired or mandated to appear in any biblical tome. It has nothing to do with a book being canonical if some Jew used it or if some tome included it.


Again, NO ONE HERE has argued that there are not useful books beyond the 66. The dispute as been all your many, constant claims about "their" status, all your claims about Christianity, about all Christians, about some Jews quoting something, about original language, etc., etc. You know, the issue of your (perpetual) claims. And things such as.... CLAIMING Luther said something when in fact he said pretty much the opposite.

I honestly have never been able to figure out the "bee in your bonet." Yup, USEFUL!!!! And yes, you can USE them (well, and ANY book you deem helpful). PERHAPS Nathan feels angry that someone he hasn't identified suggested he not use some book, okay, but that's HIS issue with THAT person. It doesn't substantiate ANY of the things he and you have been posting about (very often).




.

Not just written by Jews.

Translated by Jews into Greek and hand written and distributed all across the hellenistic world and in the libraries and synagogues, adopted by the Christians, read in the churches, translated into Latin, included in the Bible, read by the majority of Christians to this day.

 

[MoreCoffee]

The books were included as devotional/historic material.

Catholic and Orthodox both use these books in their lectionary, both print them in their bibles, and many manuscripts from ancient times include them.

 

[Josiah]

Yeah well protestants and catholics alike were pretty darn upset

How many Protestants and Catholics? Could you show the percentage for each?

I have a tome that only has the NT in it. Just those 27 books in it. What percentage of Protestants and Catholics are "pretty darn upset" about some publishing house selling that?

Which denominations consider the British Bible Society and the American Bible Society to be two Ruling Bodies for all Christianity? Has the Catholic Church abandoned its embrace of the Authority of the Church? When did all Christianity declare each of these to be our Ruling Body that authoritatively decides issues such as what is and is not canon, inerrant, divinely-inscriptured words?

when the British Bible Society and the American Bible Society started ripping out traditional books from The Holy Bible

Someone forgot to tell the Bible Society that it had ripped out these books... disallowing the selling of such.

Holy Bible with the Apocryphal / Deuterocanonical Books [New Revised Standard Version (NSRV)]: American Bible Society: 9781585160396: Amazon.com: Books

Holy Bible with the Apocryphal / Deuterocanonical Books [New Revised Standard Version (NSRV)] [American Bible Society] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Holy Bible with the Apocryphal / Deuterocanonical Books [New Revised Standard Version (NSRV)]

www.amazon.com

And by the way, NO publishing company has rescended Article 6 of the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England, no company or society has even changed a word of it. It's UNIQUE set of books of just Anglicans is still the same as it has always been... nothing "ripped out." Now, Article 6 does not state, "And every publishing house and book store in the world is permitted to make or sell or own a tome with BIBLE on the cover it is contains fewer books than herein listed or any additional material lest God strike them dead and the Church of England excommunicate them and LOTS of Catholics get real mad at them." Nope. Doesn't say a THING about what societies and publishers and bookstores may or may not produce or read. Not a word.







.

 

[Albion]

Some of this is getting pretty tiresome, isn't it?

After all is said and done, the Apocrypha was never generally accepted by the Jews as divinely inspired material. That's one reason that the fourth century Christian councils didn't deem those books to be equal to the other 66 books.

The Apocrypha continued to be read, however. Then, in the fifteen hundreds, the Protestants rejected all of them AS NOT INSPIRED and the Roman Catholic Church followed suit by rejecting some but not all of the same books.

For awhile, certain publishers continued to put them under the same cover with the Bible and several Protestant communions did, and still do, read them in church, but not as Scripture and not to establish any doctrine. They are read "for example of life and instruction in manners" (per the wording of the Thirty-nine Articles).

 

[Andrew]

Some of this is getting pretty tiresome, isn't it?

After all is said and done, the Apocrypha was never generally accepted by the Jews as divinely inspired material. That's one reason that the fourth century Christian councils didn't deem those books to be equal to the other 66 books.

The Apocrypha continued to be read, however. Then, in the fifteen hundreds, the Protestants rejected all of them AS NOT INSPIRED and the Roman Catholic Church followed suit by rejecting some but not all of the same books.

For awhile, certain publishers continued to put them under the same cover with the Bible and several Protestant communions did, and still do, read them in church, but not as Scripture and not to establish any doctrine. They are read "for example of life and instruction in manners" (per the wording of the Thirty-nine Articles).

The Gospels were never accepted by the Jews as divinely inspired material either, their canon was settled after Jesus preached his ministry so who are they to tell Christians what books they should traditionally use when they reject their own Messiah.

Fact is, Jews DID accept it, they were Jewish writings after all, the Pharisees who started Rabbanic Judaism were the ones who instituted a canon to weed out the Christians from their synagogue while also replacing the Greek Septuagint with a proto-Masoretic version, excluding all hellenistic era copies and books.

 

[Albion]

The Gospels were never accepted by the Jews as divinely inspired material either,

Which has nothing to do with our discussion.

Fact is, Jews DID accept it, they were Jewish writings after all, the Pharisees who started Rabbanic Judaism were the ones who instituted a canon to weed out the Christians from their synagogue while also replacing the Greek Septuagint with a proto-Masoretic version, excluding all hellenistic era copies and books.

Once again, in the face of the facts you're offering us some speculation instead. But why??? Sure, some of the Jews did accept those writings, but others didn't, and this split is well known. That has been referred to several times here already.

 

[Andrew]

Which has nothing to do with our discussion.

Once again, in the face of the facts you're offering us some speculation instead. But why??? Sure, some of the Jews did accept those writings, but others didn't, and this split is well known. That has been referred to several times here already.

God made scripture available for the gentile nations and that's what the early Christians used, if the apostles wanted us to use Hebrew I'm sure they would have discerned it's canon list but there wasn't anyway.

Jerome was an open homosexual who had no business in the affairs of Church tradition by falsely labeling OT books that were once referred to as "Holy Scripture" and "God Breathed" by numerous Church Fathers, as Apocrypha; a label that no Rabbi had ever attributed to said books, nor was there a single mention before the time of Christ of "fabricated Hebrew Holy Text being spread throughout Hellenistic Judaism".

Jesus read Isaiah by the same source that the Septuagint got Isaiah from.
It's illogical to believe that the Jews had a Hebrew source far more superior than what Jesus used, the facts prove otherwise.

Regardless of the anti-Christian Jewish status of canon, the ecclesiasticals ("Apocrypha") scriptures belong in the Bible and serve a specific role in Church tradition.

Fin

 

[MoreCoffee]

I had a discussion with a group of Jehovah's witnesses on discord.
They were mostly young, later teens to 30s.

It was interesting to discuss the extent of the canon with them and hear their perspectives.
It is a question not often addressed in their literature.
Consequently their analysis and opinions were largely off the cuff.
Nevertheless they managed to grasp the issues and the consequences for their own faith.

Here, in this thread, folk ought to have a tradition of some kind to fall back on.
And if their faith is tightly tied to their tradition maybe movement on the matter ought not to be expected.

 

[NathanH83]

You have asked that question abut a thousand times before.

It's very simple.

The books labeled by Jerome as "Apocrypha"
The same books that were included in the original KJV 1611 that are no longer included.
The books that the Catholics call "deuterocanonical" because that's exactly what they are, a complimentary 2nd canon list used for edification, something all churches could benefit from.
"They" include important lessons of moral obedience such as good will toward all men, charity and thanksgivings rather than pressing on the legal issues of Judaism and tribalism.

It’s getting pretty redundant, isn’t it?
Ergo.

 

[NathanH83]

Which has nothing to do with our discussion.

Once again, in the face of the facts you're offering us some speculation instead. But why??? Sure, some of the Jews did accept those writings, but others didn't, and this split is well known. That has been referred to several times here already.

The author of Hebrews insinuated that the tortured men is biblical history. I’ve ALWAYS gotten the impression that the writer of Hebrews was saying that it’s in the Bible, even though for the longest time I didn’t know it was talking about Maccabees. It was quite a mystery to me until I read 2 Maccabees 7. Now it’s not a mystery. I get it now, with no thanks to the church. Too bad they didn’t tell me what it was talking about. Had to figure it out on my own. You don’t see a problem with that?

 

[Josiah]

The author of Hebrews insinuated

"Insinuated." Hum. YOU seem to believe that if YOU feel something isn't said, therefore it's a fact - right there for all to see. I wonder if you know the meaning of "insinuated?"

I’ve ALWAYS gotten the impression

"I've" "Impression." Hum. How far can someone distance themselves from reality?

Hebrews was saying that it’s in the Bible

Hum. Here you are beyond "insinuated" and "feeling" and into pure, baseless guessing.

I wonder if you know the meaning of "says?"

Perhaps you'll get further if you pay more attention to what IS rather than what is NOT (except in your imagination)?

even though for the longest time I didn’t know it was talking about Maccabees

That's because there's ZERO evidence that the author is talking about some books known to us by the monikers of First, Second, Third and Fourth Maccabees. He probably IS talking about an EVENT that one f those books also talks about (although that's not certain), but that's an EVENT, not a BOOK. Duh.

And even if the author said, "A book that will be known to some by the moniker of First Maccabees says...." that would be entirely, completely unrelated to that book therefore being in a tome everyone had with the word "BIBLE" on the cover. After all, the Bible itself - specifically and by name - mentions SEVERAL books that NO ONE has in their biblical tome and NO ONE considers to be canonical. But of course, Hebrews doesn't mention any book by any name - as canonical or not. He MAY be alluding to an EVENT, but never mentions a book. And just because a book mentions true things doesn't mean it's thus in the Bible. I have a book that talks about World War II but it's not in anyone's bible tome.

Think.

I get it now, with no thanks to the church.

What church?

Is it the responsibility of every one of the MILLIONS of parishes in the world to tell you EVERYTHING? What makes you certain YOUR individual, singular church KEPT ignorant about the event the author might be referring to?

Did you specifically ASK your pastor if the author of Hebrews was insinuating that some book unknown to you was in his tome that had "BIBLE" on the cover? Did you ask him/her if Hebrews was referring to some EVENT or to some BOOK?

If YOU FEEL your individual church purposely keeps you ignorant, perhaps you need to attend a different church.

Too bad they didn’t tell me what it was talking about. Had to figure it out on my own. You don’t see a problem with that?

Again, what makes you certain some mysterious "they" purposely kept you ignorant about the event the author of Hebrews might be referring to?

Why aren't you posting all these constant rants to those "THEY" instead of to "the church?" Seems to me your "problem" is not with the church or Christianity or Christians but some unidentified "they" that you (for some mysterious reason) FEEL kept you ignorant about some event that Hebrews might be referring to.... or perhaps because If YOU FEEL this mysterious "they" purposely kept you ignorant about books and materials that might be helpful in understanding history. Take that up with those "THEY" (whoever they are).


I looked it up in my tome. Hebrews 11:35. Right there in the notes... not hidden from me.... not purposely kept from me... right there in black and white it says "This may be referring to an event recorded in 2 Maccabees 6:18-7:42 where Eleazar, his six brothers and his mother refuse to partake in pagan sacrifices." Now, it doesn't say "And this proves that the author of Hebrews was reading a book entitled "THE BIBLE" and 2 Maccabees was in that tome and thus was declared by Judaism to be canonical and so must also we must accept it and have it in our tomes today (as it is in Luther's translation)." Nope, doesn't state that. But it's NOT purposely keeping everyone ignorant as to the reality that he MAY be referring to an event and we can read about that in 2 Maccabees. My church does not purposely keep people ignorant as you feel yours does. Maybe you need to leave your church.




.