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

[Albion]

"Luther’s most-famous quotation about the Apocrypha comes from his preface to the Apocrypha in his German translation of the Bible: 'These books are not held equal to the Scriptures, but are useful and good to read.' ”

(from Shepherd of the Hills — Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod)

Now, any one of us could deliberately misrepresent that to say that if these books were "in the Bible" that this means they were "part of" the Bible. Or that if he left these books where he found them, they must, ergo, be Scripture in his view.

Yet that's obviously not correct, as we have Luther's own words in front of us to read.

 

[Andrew]

"Luther’s most-famous quotation about the Apocrypha comes from his preface to the Apocrypha in his German translation of the Bible: 'These books are not held equal to the Scriptures, but are useful and good to read.' ”

(from Shepherd of the Hills — Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod)

Now, any one of us could deliberately misrepresent that to say that if these books were "in the Bible" that this means they were "part of" the Bible. Or that if he left these books where he found them, they must, ergo, be Scripture in his view.

Yet that's obviously not correct, as we have Luther's own words in front of us to read.

Luther was known to flip flop, his opinion was only a opinion

 

[Albion]

Luther was known to flip flop, his opinion was only a opinion

So what? It's not as though you've made your case without mentioning Luther!

In fact, you've repeatedly said that Luther did X or believed X. So, it's time that the issue of the Apocrypha properly being considered inspired writings...or not...stands on its own.

 

[Andrew]

So what? It's not as though you've made your case without mentioning Luther!

In fact, you've repeatedly said that Luther did X or believed X. So, it's time that the issue of the Apocrypha properly being considered inspired writings...or not...stands on its own.

Right! Regardless of Luther's opinions of the inspiration of the so called "Apocrypha" (known as "Ecclesiasticals" by the early church) the point was that even he, the founder of all of Protestantism, Luther, could not and would not ever condone the removal of these books from the Bible.
As a former Catholic he must have been aware that they have always been part of church tradition, to be recieved by new converts to the faith but not for doctrinal use.

 

[Albion]

Right! Regardless of Luther's opinions of the inspiration of the so called "Apocrypha" (known as "Ecclesiasticals" by the early church) the point was that even he, the founder of all of Protestantism, Luther, could not and would not ever condone the removal of these books from the Bible.

First, if these books were divinely inspired, they couldn't be removed, yet they were.

Second, we have Luther's own testimony saying that they aren't equal to Scripture. How many more ways do we need Luther to say that the Apocrypha is not part of the Bible before being willing to accept it?

 

[Albion]

As a former Catholic he must have been aware that they have always been part of church tradition, to be recieved by new converts to the faith but not for doctrinal use.

The Catholic Church DOES base doctrine on the Apocrypha, however.

 

[MoreCoffee]

prior to Trent

In the Bull of Union with the Copts it iswritten:

It [the Church] professes that one and the same God is the author of the old and the new Testament — that is, the law and the prophets, and the gospel — since the saints of both testaments spoke under the inspiration of the same Spirit. It accepts and venerates their books, whose titles are as follows.

Five books of Moses, namely Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, Esdras, Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Job, Psalms of David, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, namely Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; two books of the Maccabees; the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; fourteen letters of Paul, to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, two to the Thessalonians, to the Colossians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two letters of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude; Acts of the Apostles; Apocalypse of John.

Hence it anathematises the madness of the Manichees who posited two first principles, one of visible things, the other of invisible things, and said that one was the God of the new Testament, the other of the old Testament.

 

[MoreCoffee]

if these books were divinely inspired, they couldn't be removed

Marcion of Sinope (ca. 110-160 AD) rejected the whole Hebrew Bible and other Christian books that were eventually incorporated into the canonical New Testament.

 

[Andrew]

The Catholic Church DOES base doctrine on the Apocrypha, however.

Not exactly, most sacraments and doctrines are based on multiple passages throughout the bible not just one. Maccabees does not endorse prayers for the dead, it does not encourage it, it never states that praying for the dead is beneficial or necessary, it's not even mentioned as a practice, the author of Maccabees made it clear that it was a pious and holy thought for a god fearing man to commemorate his dead in hopes that they may obtain a better ressurection for they anticipated the arrival of The Prophet who would shortly come to redeem men from their sin and ressurect the dead... besides, IF the doctrine was solely based on this OT era book, then great is their error to bypass Jesus's Atoning Sacrafice and revert back to the OT sin offerings for atonement!

The Catechism uses the NT for doctrine, if it's in the OT they may use it for an example but rarely does the Church use the OT for doctrine. If you know of an RCC doctrine based on the OT please share.

 

[Andrew]

First, if these books were divinely inspired, they couldn't be removed, yet they were.

First, they were removed by protestant Bible Societies in the 19th century who controlled the manufacturing and distribution of all printed Bibles through the printing press.

Second, Luther held just as much doubt with the Epistle of James which he dubbed "the Epistle of Straw", he also found highly questionable the books of Hebrews, Jude and Revelation.

 

[Albion]

Marcion of Sinope (ca. 110-160 AD) rejected the whole Hebrew Bible and other Christian books that were eventually incorporated into the canonical New Testament.

Did Andrew use him as some kind of 'proof' for his thesis? If so, I missed it.

 

[Albion]

Not exactly,...

Yes. Exactly.

First, they were removed by protestant Bible Societies in the 19th century who controlled the manufacturing and distribution of all printed Bibles through the printing press.

Do we have to go through this again--explaining that your intentionally misleading use of words does not determine the answer to the question we're dealing with?

You have had it explained to you again and again that "removed by protestant Bible Societies" is correct only to the extent that continuing to print the Apocrypha along with the Bible books in the same publication--which was ended--does not mean that the books had been considered to be Bible books themselves, equal to all of the 66 prior to that change of policy.

And on top of that, you aren't even referring to any denomination anyway, although you made sure to include the word "protestant" in your comment as though this incidental development made by printers amounted to a theological change of doctrine on the part of some churches.

Second, Luther held just as much doubt with the Epistle of James which he dubbed "the Epistle of Straw", he also found highly questionable the books of Hebrews, Jude and Revelation.

He did not. You are once again in error.

Every reputable theologian knows that the various books of the Bible are not identical when it comes to the impact or complexity, etc. of each one's message. That has nothing to do with any decisions to remove books from the Bible.

For example, go ahead and tell us how often you refer to the third Epistle of John, which is a Bible book by universal agreement, and then tell us, by comparison, how powerful Paul's Epistle to the Romans is. Many people never read Third John at all and never hear a sermon preached on it, but Romans has been at the center of some of Christendom's most important doctrinal discussions. Yet they are both "in the Bible," both inspired, and both the Word of God.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Did Andrew use

No.
Factual information: "Marcion of Sinope rejected the whole Hebrew Bible and other Christian books that were eventually incorporated into the canonical New Testament."

correcting an incorrect conclusion:

if these books were divinely inspired, they couldn't be removed

 

[NathanH83]

"Luther’s most-famous quotation about the Apocrypha comes from his preface to the Apocrypha in his German translation of the Bible: 'These books are not held equal to the Scriptures, but are useful and good to read.' ”

(from Shepherd of the Hills — Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod)

Now, any one of us could deliberately misrepresent that to say that if these books were "in the Bible" that this means they were "part of" the Bible. Or that if he left these books where he found them, they must, ergo, be Scripture in his view.

Yet that's obviously not correct, as we have Luther's own words in front of us to read.

Germans don’t get to decide what belongs in the Bible. God decides.

Germany has a sad history of desposing of things that they deemed “non-essential”.

 

[NathanH83]

First, they were removed by protestant Bible Societies in the 19th century who controlled the manufacturing and distribution of all printed Bibles through the printing press.

Second, Luther held just as much doubt with the Epistle of James which he dubbed "the Epistle of Straw", he also found highly questionable the books of Hebrews, Jude and Revelation.

“Scripture Alone!
(Except the ones I took out)”
-Luther

 

[NathanH83]

Yes. Exactly.


Do we have to go through this again--explaining that your intentionally misleading use of words does not determine the answer to the question we're dealing with?

You have had it explained to you again and again that "removed by protestant Bible Societies" is correct only to the extent that continuing to print the Apocrypha along with the Bible books in the same publication--which was ended--does not mean that the books had been considered to be Bible books themselves, equal to all of the 66 prior to that change of policy.

And on top of that, you aren't even referring to any denomination anyway, although you made sure to include the word "protestant" in your comment as though this incidental development made by printers amounted to a theological change of doctrine on the part of some churches.


He did not. You are once again in error.

Every reputable theologian knows that the various books of the Bible are not identical when it comes to the impact or complexity, etc. of each one's message. That has nothing to do with any decisions to remove books from the Bible.

For example, go ahead and tell us how often you refer to the third Epistle of John, which is a Bible book by universal agreement, and then tell us, by comparison, how powerful Paul's Epistle to the Romans is. Many people never read Third John at all and never hear a sermon preached on it, but Romans has been at the center of some of Christendom's most important doctrinal discussions. Yet they are both "in the Bible," both inspired, and both the Word of God.

Jews removed things from scripture Way back in 90 AD. Christians have been arguing about it ever since. Simple as that. Protestants are just the first Christians to actually remove those books from the main body of text and place them in a separate section, and then a few hundred years later completely dump that section, and then pretend that the early church never had them in their Bibles to begin with.

Ha! Not true.

 

[Albion]

Factual information: "Marcion of Sinope rejected the whole Hebrew Bible and other Christian books that were eventually incorporated into the canonical New Testament."

correcting an incorrect conclusion:

I'm pretty sure you misunderstood the meaning of that sentence ("if these books were divinely inspired, they couldn't be removed").

 

[Albion]

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.

...the books that never were considered to be Holy Scripture by the church that both of you are referring to, that is.

 

[Andrew]

...the books that never were considered to be Holy Scripture by the church that both of you are referring to, that is.

I copied these quotes from a few church fathers ante-nicene era.. the rest are found here

Early Church Fathers on Apocrypha/ Deuterocanonical Books

The Early Church Fathers on various topics: This was a 3700 hour project which included going through 22896 pages of the 38 volume set call...

practicalapologetics.blogspot.com

Origen de Principiis book 2 ch 1.5 (185- 254ad)

But that we may believe on the authority of holy Scripture that such is the case, hear how in the book of Maccabees, where the mother of seven martyrs exhorts her son to endure torture, this truth is confirmed; for she says, "I ask of thee, my son, to look at the heaven and the earth, and at all things which are in them, and beholding these, to know that God made all these things when they did not exist

Cyprian of Carthage Letter 61.1 (200-270 ad)

Concerning which matters, since you have desired our advice, know that we do not depart from the traditions of the Gospel and of the apostles, but with constancy and firmness take counsel for our brethren and sisters, and maintain the discipline of the Church by all the ways of usefulness and safety, since the Lord speaks, saying…[Jer. 3:15] And again it is written; [Wisdom 3:11]; and in the Psalms also the Holy Spirit admonishes and instructs us, saying…[quotes Psalms 2:12 [LXX]]."

Cyprian of Carthage Letter 80.6 (200-270 ad)

“And again, where the sacred Scripture speaks of the tortures which consecrate God's martyrs, and sanctify them in the very trial of suffering:… [quotes Wisdom 3:4-8].”

Cyprian of Carthage Letter, 54.3 (200-270 ad)
“…Since Holy Scripture meets and warns us, saying…[quotes Hab. 2:5].And again…[quotes 1 Maccabees 2:62-63] And again: [quotes Psalm 38:35, 36].

Cyprian of Carthage On The Dress of Virgins, 1 (200-270 ad)

The Holy Spirit says in the Psalms…[quotes Psalm 2:12]. And again: [quotes Psalm 49:16-17]. And again we read: [quotes Wisdom 3:11] And from Solomon we have received the mandates of wisdom, warning us: [quotes Proverbs 3:11-12]."

Cyprian of Carthage On the Dress of Virgins, 10 (200-270 ad)

“since Holy Scripture says…[quotes Wisdom 5:8].

Cyprian of Carthage On Mortality, 9 (200-270 ad)

“Holy Scripture teaches and forewarns, saying…[quotes Sirach 2:1-5].”

Cyprian of Carthage Treatise 8 par 2 (200-270 ad)

The Holy Spirit speaks in the sacred Scriptures, and says, "By almsgiving and faith sins are purged." (Tobit 12:9)

Cyprian of Carthage Treatise 12 par 96 (200-270 ad)
In Solomon, in Ecclesiasticus: "Be not hasty in thy tongue, and in thy deeds useless and remiss." And Paul, in the first to the Corinthians: "The kingdom of God is not in word, but in power." Also to the Romans: "Not the hearers of the law are righteous before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified." (used 10 times in this treatise)


Eusebius of Caesarea Church History book 5 (295-340ad)

"Well did the Scripture speak, saying, that God is one, who has created and completed all things,'" etc. And he uses almost the precise words of the Wisdom of Solomon, saying: vision of God produces immortality, but immortality renders us near to God."

Athanasius Against the Heathen Part 1 ch 11.1 (296-373 ad)
But of these and such like inventions of idolatrous madness, Scripture taught us beforehand long ago, when it said , [quotes Wisdom 11:12].”

 

[Bluezone777]

One thing I find puzzling in all of these threads on this topic is this belief that God somehow needs our help in keeping His Word and preserving it throughout the ages. Men have tried to destroy this book and erase it off of the face of the Earth yet all have failed to do so. Attempts to censor and prevent people from reading it ended up driving people to it such as the case was with China during Mao's reign over the country where he banned the Bible and punished anyone for having a copy of the Bible or found reading it. I believe all the books that are actually God's Word will be preserved and kept together even if all of humanity attempts to destroy it or remove one of His books from it. If a book could be removed then it was never His Word to begin with. To believe Man could thwart the Will of God is to believe in a weak god who sits under the thumb of man which is a god I don't find anywhere in scripture outside of the false ones that have popped up throughout history and were spoken of in the old testament by those who encountered followers of said false gods.

The only thing a book that is not scripture means is that it wasn't written by God through the power of the Holy Spirit. It doesn't speak to how factual it is or how accurate it is or when it was written or where it was written so a book that contains only truth can still not be scripture if God had no hand in writing it. I believe if these books were actually His writing then they would have never have left the Bible in the first place as man would have no power to do so as God would not permit it to happen.

I believe that only prophets wrote the old testament and the apostles wrote the new as it is rather telling that no new books of the Bible were written after the death of the apostle John. Do you really think that's just a coincidence? A prophet was a person who God spoke to and spoke to the people of Israel through these people He chose to be His prophets. Signs were always given to the people of the day marking such people as true prophets so they could know that they were genuine. All of the Apocryphal books were written during the 400 years where God chose not to speak to his people hence why all of these books aren't in the canon as God kept silent until He spoke again through John the Baptist and later Jesus himself when he started his ministry.