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

[NathanH83]

I believe that you are correct. I think that nowadays Mennonites, for example, use a 66 book bible.

Most Mennonites today have a 66 book Bible. They eventually stopped using the Apocryphal books. Many of them don’t even know their own Anabaptist background.

 

[Albion]

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

The opinions of a few ante-Nicene fathers do not Christian doctrine make.

And as I noted in the previous post, you referred to the 1611 AV of the Bible that was produced by the Church of England which had already officially decreed that the Apocrypha was not Holy Scripture and not to be used to determine any doctrine.

 

[Andrew]

The opinions of a few ante-Nicene fathers do not Christian doctrine make.

And as I noted in the previous post, you referred to the 1611 AV of the Bible that was produced by the Church of England which had already officially decreed that the Apocrypha was not Holy Scripture and not to be used to determine any doctrine.

Do you know the reason why it is not used to determine any doctrine?

Early Christian apologists who wanted to witness to the Jews couldn't quote passages that point to Jesus from books that they (Jews) did not accept as part of the canon that had been recently established in Rabbanic Judaism, thus these books were to be read by new converts to the faith, this was explained by Rufinus and others when referring to them as Ecclesiasticals "For the Churches" that had been the tradition passed down from the Apostles to the bishops and so on..

Again, what doctrine has the Church ever determined from any of the OT canonical books?

 

[Albion]

Do you know the reason why it is not used to determine any doctrine?

Yes, but there are a number of different reasons. Included would be the fact that Jesus never quoted from or cited anything from that source as he did with other books; the Jewish authorities were divided as to the nature of these books which, after all, are claimed by advocates to be part of the Hebrew Old Testament; and the Apocrypha establishes no Christian doctrine while it does promote a number of false teachings.

Among the latter are the command to use magic (Tobit 6:5-7), the claim that giving money can forgive sin (Tobit 12:9), and that paying money is a way to get the sins of the dead forgiven (which figures into the Medieval Roman Catholic doctrine of Purgatory) (2 Maccabees 12:43-45).

​

 

[Andrew]

Yes, but there are a number of different reasons. Included would be the fact that Jesus never quoted from or cited anything from that source as he did with other books; the Jewish authorities were divided as to the nature of these books which, after all, are claimed by advocates to be part of the Hebrew Old Testament; and the Apocrypha establishes no Christian doctrine while it does promote a number of false teachings.

Among the latter are the command to use magic (Tobit 6:5-7), the claim that giving money can forgive sin (Tobit 12:9), and that paying money is a way to get the sins of the dead forgiven (which figures into the Medieval Roman Catholic doctrine of Purgatory) (2 Maccabees 12:43-45).

​

So because the angel Raphael healed a man with ointment after he had gone blind, and exercised a demon by means of having Tobias carry around smelly rotting fish (as to have him "entertain an Angel unaware")...
That makes him a magician?.... right.. magic can't cast out a demon, a demon can't cast out a demon. Jesus used spit and dirt to heal the blind, he exercised demons, was he a magician?

About almsgiving, yeah Jesus and the Apostles preach that as well, they agree with Tobit, almsgiving making all things clean unto you, whats so wrong with giving to the poor?
How hard is it btw, for a rich man to get into Heaven? Sure it wouldn't matter if Jesus never came to Earth, but He did, and Tobit was a faithful servent, these are what James calls "righteous" works, not legalistic works by the Law. ..But okay moving on.

Again, Maccabees made it clear that what Judah Maccabee did by attempting desperately to take up an offering to purchase sacrifical animals at the temple for sin offerings on behalf of his fallen me was HOPE based!! It did not say if this did them any good, it only says that it was a holy and pious THOUGHT for he was a STRONGE believer in the RESSURECTION and THE PROPHET who will REDEEM men of sin and deliever them from the graves.
Its not even that significant of a verse.. it just says it was very thoughtful of him to hope that his dead men, who had died in battle while wearing good luck charms, could possible, maybe, recieve Gods mercy.

 

[MoreCoffee]

So because the angel Raphael healed a man with ointment after he had gone blind, and exercised a demon by means of having Tobias carry around smelly rotting fish (as to have him "entertain an Angel unaware")...
That makes him a magician?.... right.. magic can't cast out a demon, a demon can't cast out a demon. Jesus used spit and dirt to heal the blind, he exercised demons, was he a magician?

Reasoning like that, if it is applied to the proverbs, psalms, Song of Songs, many of the prophets and especially Ezekiel, will exclude these works from the critic's canon.

 

[Andrew]

Reasoning like that, if it is applied to the proverbs, psalms, Song of Songs, many of the prophets and especially Ezekiel, will exclude these works from the critic's canon.

Could you elaborate? Critics canon?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Could you elaborate? Critics canon?

What I mean is that those who apply historical critical methods to scripture do not stop with what Protestants regard as apocrypha. They continue to cover every sacred book. Using their methods the critics can create a canon of books that meet their criteria. The divide Isaiah into three portions, each from a different author in a different century. They do something similar to the books of Moses, the psalms, Proverbs, numerous prophets and so on. They leave only a few books intact, some of Paul's letters, maybe Mark's gospel, possibly some old testament books. The rest are pseudepigrapha That is to say, spurious or pseudonymous writings.

 

[NathanH83]

The opinions of a few ante-Nicene fathers do not Christian doctrine make.

And as I noted in the previous post, you referred to the 1611 AV of the Bible that was produced by the Church of England which had already officially decreed that the Apocrypha was not Holy Scripture and not to be used to determine any doctrine.

It’s not just a few church fathers, it’s the majority. Including the ones who literally knew the disciples personally.

Yea, that matters. And yea, that’s significant.

 

[Andrew]

What I mean is that those who apply historical critical methods to scripture do not stop with what Protestants regard as apocrypha. They continue to cover every sacred book. Using their methods the critics can create a canon of books that meet their criteria. The divide Isaiah into three portions, each from a different author in a different century. They do something similar to the books of Moses, the psalms, Proverbs, numerous prophets and so on. They leave only a few books intact, some of Paul's letters, maybe Mark's gospel, possibly some old testament books. The rest are pseudepigrapha That is to say, spurious or pseudonymous writings.

As in the Apocalypse of Peter, Letter of Barnabas, Ascension of Isaiah, Assumption of Moses, Testaments of the 12 Patriarchs etc?

 

[Andrew]

It’s not just a few church fathers, it’s the majority. Including the ones who literally knew the disciples personally.

Yea, that matters. And yea, that’s significant.

Not to mention that the majority of Christians accept these Ecclesiastical books as Scripture

 

[Albion]

Not to mention that the majority of Christians accept these Ecclesiastical books as Scripture

-- only to the extent that they belong to the handful of churches which consider them to be part of the Old Testament.

Those people themselves have, in most cases, no familiarity with either the contents of the Apocryphal books or with the long-running controversy that surrounds the Apocrypha.

 

[MoreCoffee]

As in the Apocalypse of Peter, Letter of Barnabas, Ascension of Isaiah, Assumption of Moses, Testaments of the 12 Patriarchs etc?

Those too.

 

[Josiah]

It’s not just a few church fathers, it’s the majority. Including the ones who literally knew the disciples personally.

AGAIN,

You refuse to substantiate your claim. What you need to do is show that at least 51% of all Christians from 33 AD to whatever date you insist some authoritative, ruling body of Christianity "ripped out" some books from the Bible, that majority accepted those "ripped out" books to be inerrant, fully canonical, divinely inscripturated words of God and/or must appear in any tome from any publishing house and sold at any store.
Good luck.




.

 

[Albion]

What I mean is that those who apply historical critical methods to scripture do not stop with what Protestants regard as apocrypha. They continue to cover every sacred book. Using their methods the critics can create a canon of books that meet their criteria. The divide Isaiah into three portions, each from a different author in a different century. They do something similar to the books of Moses, the psalms, Proverbs, numerous prophets and so on. They leave only a few books intact, some of Paul's letters, maybe Mark's gospel, possibly some old testament books. The rest are pseudepigrapha That is to say, spurious or pseudonymous writings.

Which churches actually have done what you describe here? Or shall I say, "Do any?"

 

[Andrew]

AGAIN,

You refuse to substantiate your claim. What you need to do is show that at least 51% of all Christians from 33 AD to whatever date you insist some authoritative, ruling body of Christianity "ripped out" some books from the Bible, that majority accepted those "ripped out" books to be inerrant, fully canonical, divinely inscripturated words of God and/or must appear in any tome from any publishing house and sold at any store.
Good luck.




.

More than half of the KNOWN Christians quote them in their writings so...

 

[Albion]

Again, Maccabees made it clear that what Judah Maccabee did by attempting desperately to take up an offering to purchase sacrifical animals at the temple for sin offerings on behalf of his fallen me was HOPE based!!

That may be your personal "take" on the meaning of that passage, but the church that invented and still teaches Purgatory makes that passage one of its main proof texts for Purgatory.

For just one example, see the following in which Second Maccabees is referred to as the place to start when seeking to prove or disprove Purgatory.

Is Purgatory in the Bible?

Have you ever wondered where Catholics get that "Purgatory" idea from? Tim Staples, former Protestant turned Catholic apologist, gives a Biblical defense.

www.catholic.com

 

[Albion]

More than half of the KNOWN Christians quote them in their writings so...

LOL

I'd love to see you try to show that whopper to be true with any evidence.

 

[NathanH83]

Yes, but there are a number of different reasons. Included would be the fact that Jesus never quoted from or cited anything from that source as he did with other books; the Jewish authorities were divided as to the nature of these books which, after all, are claimed by advocates to be part of the Hebrew Old Testament; and the Apocrypha establishes no Christian doctrine while it does promote a number of false teachings.

Among the latter are the command to use magic (Tobit 6:5-7), the claim that giving money can forgive sin (Tobit 12:9), and that paying money is a way to get the sins of the dead forgiven (which figures into the Medieval Roman Catholic doctrine of Purgatory) (2 Maccabees 12:43-45).

​

There’s literally dozens of Old Testament books that were never quoted word-for-word by Jesus or anyone else in the New Testament. But even though they’re not quoted, they’re still referenced.

For example, the book of Ruth is never quoted by Jesus. But she’s mentioned in Jesus’ genealogy in Matthew 1.

Ruth is referenced, but not quoted.

In the same way, 1 Maccabees is never quoted by Jesus. But John 10:22 mentions Jesus being at the temple in Jerusalem during the Feast of Dedication (Chanukah = Hebrew for Dedication) which is the holiday that commemorates the events in Maccabees.

Maccabees is referenced, but not quoted.

Jesus never quoted the book of Judges. But 4 names of the judges are mentioned in Hebrews 11 (Gideon, Barak, Jephthah, Samson).

Judges is Referenced, but not quoted.

In the same way, 2 Maccabees is never quoted in the New Testament. But Hebrews 11:35 references the men that were tortured not accepting deliverance in 2 Maccabees 6 & 7.

2 Maccabees is referenced, but not quoted.

So the fact that they’re not quoted word-for-word, verbatim, is a rather moot point. Esther’s not even referenced, let alone quoted by Jesus or anyone in the New Testament.

Also, you claim Tobit endorses magic. Not true. But rather, Tobit just says to burn fish guts. That’s not magic/witchcraft/sorcery. There’s not a single shred of evidence that ANY witches anywhere burn fish guts for any reason whatsoever. But Leviticus chapter 4 tells the Levite priests to burn sheep guts. It’s a pleasing aroma unto the Lord.

So let me get this straight. Witches DON’T burn animal guts, while the holy people of God DO burn animal guts, but when Tobit says to burn animal guts…..it’s unbiblical and endorsing witchcraft?

That’s illogical.

If anything, Tobit is endorsing the same type of thing Leviticus is endorsing. Nothing magical about it.

I broiled a salmon in my oven (and It smelled SO good). That doesn’t make me a witch. Give me a break.

Besides, Tobias burned the fish guts so that the smell would DRIVE AWAY a demon. Acts 13 calls a sorcerer a “son of the devil”. A sorcerer (son of the devil) isn’t going to drive away demons because SATAN DOESN’T CAST OUT SATAN (didn’t Jesus say that?).

If you’re claiming Tobit endorses magic then you’re literally contradicting Jesus. Satan doesn’t cast out Satan.

Also, Tobit doesn’t say that money can forgive sin any more than 1 Peter 4:8, which says in the KJV:

”And above all things have fervent charity among yourselves: for charity shall cover the multitude of sins.”
-1 Peter 4:8 (KJV)

Noah Webster’s 1828 dictionary says:
CHARITY, noun
“Liberality to the poor, consisting in almsgiving or benefactions, or in gratuitous services to relieve them in distress.
Alms; whatever is bestowed gratuitously on the poor for their relief.”

So…charity is alms, and 1 Peter says charity covers sins. Hmmmm.

Oh, but Tobit is the one being heretical? Riiight…..
Nice double standard you got going there.

Also, why does Exodus talk about atonement money?

“The rich shall not give more and the poor shall not give less than half a shekel, when you give an offering to the Lord, to make atonement for yourselves. And you shall take the atonement money of the children of Israel, and shall appoint it for the service of the tabernacle of meeting, that it may be a memorial for the children of Israel before the Lord, to make atonement for yourselves.”
-Exodus 30:15-16 (NKJV)

Exodus is literally telling the Israelites to give money to make atonement for themselves, and yet you’re over here complaining about Tobit? Really? Talk about a double standard.

And Maccabees chapter 12 is NOT saying that Judas Maccabee paid silver coins to atone for the dead. Read it again:

”He then took up a collection among all his soldiers, amounting to two thousand silver drachmas, which he sent to Jerusalem to provide for an expiatory sacrifice. In doing this he acted in a very excellent and noble way, inasmuch as he had the resurrection in mind;”
-2 Maccabees 12:43(New American Bible)

Notice how it says that the silver coins are TO PROVIDE for the sacrifice.

NEWS FLASH:
Jewish Levite priests don’t sacrifice silver coins on the alter at the temple in Jerusalem. But they DO use silver coins to PURCHASE ANIMALS that they sacrifice on the altar.

And if the animals being sacrificed have not been paid for, then it’s a pretty meaningless sacrifice if you’re sacrificing something that COST YOU NOTHING, as David said to Araunah:

” ‘I will surely buy it from you for a price; nor will I offer burnt offerings to the Lord my God with that which costs me nothing.’ So David bought the threshing floor and the oxen for fifty shekels of silver. And David built there an altar to the Lord, and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings.”
-2 Samuel 24:24-25

Notice how David used silver coins to PURCHASE the animals, and then sacrificed the animals.

Judas Maccabee sent silver coins to Jerusalem so that the priests could PURCHASE the animals to be sacrificed.

And he didn’t do it because he believed in purgatory. He did it because he believed in the resurrection. Purgatory is the idea of a dead person’s soul being between Heaven and Hell. The resurrection is where a dead person is no longer dead because THEY’VE BEEN RESURRECTED. Those are like two completely different things.

And if you’re going to say that an animal sacrifice can’t atone for the sins of dead people who were disobedient in the past, well then explain how Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross atoned for the sins of dead people in the past. When Jesus ascended on high he led captivity captive, after having descending into the lower parts of the Earth and preaching the gospel to the spirits in prison who were disobedient in the days of Noah. So yes, a sacrifice in the present can atone for the sins of dead people in the past. Jesus proved that. Denying that is denying the gospel.

By the way, I’m Protestant. I’m not Catholic, never have been Catholic, have no plans of ever becoming Catholic. But I believe the Apocrypha belongs in the Bible. Why? Because the very first Christians accepted them, because they were in the original Jewish Bible.

 

[Josiah]

More than half of the KNOWN Christians quote them in their writings so...

What was stated is "the majority of Christians accept these Ecclesiastical books as Scripture." Now you've radically changed your claim - which remains entirely unsubstantiated.


But friend, here's your very flawed apologetic. QUOTING something does not show that ergo it was officially declared by some Ruling Body of Christianity that such book is the inerrant, fully canonical, divinely inscripturated words of God. LOTS of things were quoted, doesn't mean all were seen as canonical. I gave you SEVERAL books specifically referrenced BY NAME in the Bible ITSELF but you don't believe any of them were inerrant, fully canonical, divinely inscripturated. Some ECF quoted from Greek philiosophers (as did Paul in Acts), they quoted each other yet you don't accept your own argument, you don't insist those books therefore must be canonical. Friend, have you ever heard a pastor quote from some book, some movie, some song? Have you ever seen them show a video clip? Perhaps share a story from a book or news story or just a funny they found on the internet? Come on, come on.

Now, if you can find say 50 Early Church Fathers stating that the list of books in Article 6 of the Thirty Nine Articles of the Church of England (no less, no more) are inerrant, fully canonical, inscripturatered words of God then GOOD. Quote them. And we'll see that's the OPINION of 50 important men. Obviously, it won't prove that Christianity put them in - then later someone went into thousands of some Protestant churches and ripped some of them out.



But my esteemed friend, I STILL don't have a clue what your "beef" is. Unlike Nathan (whom it seems you echo), you don't consistently argue that ANY book (perhaps beyond the 66) is canonical or normative or inerrant or divinely-inscripturated, ONLY that some (the exact list in Article 6 of the Church of England's 39 Articles) were USED by some Christians - a point NONE here have challenged or disagreed with. So what's your beef? Explain this "bee in your bonnet" (as my mother would put it).

Now, Nathan just seems MAD that evidently his Assembly of God pastor intentionally kept him ignorant of these books so that he could not understand some verse in Hebrews. Okay. He's offered no substantiation for this but I have no reason to doubt the claim. But then his beef is with his pastor - not Protestantism, no Christianity, and with no one here. IMO, he is simply misapplying his anger, transferring it to innocent persons.

Friend, if you want to buy a KJV translation WITH all the books mentioned in Article 6 of the 39 Articles, you may. NO ONE is forbidding such. They are easily available. I've given you a link where you can purchase such online - in paperback or hardbound. Nathan can buy one too. There is no law anywhere (that you've referenced) that forbids or commands what publishing houses and book stores MUST have and MUST exclude from any tome with the word "BIBLE" on the cover. As I've explained, my "BIBLE" has 2780 pages in it, with over 300 things listed in the Table of Contents. The publishing company and book store violated no laws. What's your "beef" in this?

And if you want to read, use, quote from Psalm 151 or 152 or 153.... from the Epistle of Barnabas or the Didache or the Revelation of Peter or the First Epistle of Clement, YOU CAN. YOU MAY. Easy. No one is forbidding it. THE ISSUE IS CANONICITY - whether such is broadly accepted in Christianity (since no later than 200 AD) as FULLY CANONICAL (to be used to form and norm dogma), inerrant, inscripturated words of God. You MAY read them, use them, quote them - you are ENCOURAGED in some cases to do so!! Luther encouraged it. The Church of England ENCOURAGED it. I'm sorry if YOUR pastor does not but that's an issue with your pastor - not Christianity, not Protestantism, not me, not anyone here (Or anyone known to anyone here). True - a LOT of Christians have not and do not consider any beyond the 66 to be EQUAL to the 66 in every way but I know of none who insist that you are forbidden to know of them, can't read them, can't use them, can't quote from them.

You've been following Nathan around on this for a LONG TIME now. It seems to be your over-riding passion above all else. And I fail to understand why or even what. Nathan - YES, he's mad (just at the wrong persons). But YOU?



?




.