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

[Andrew]

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

Yeah, they got it wrong, or purposely took it out of context to make money by selling indulgences.

 

[Andrew]

LOL

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

The majority of the ante-nicene Church fathers that we have records of, quote these books more than the OT, they refer to them with regards that they are Holy, The Lord says, It is written in scripture.. etc..

Seek and ye shall find.. im not about to write a novel about it, its contained in library of their writings so you can start there.

 

[Albion]

Yeah, they got it wrong, or purposely took it out of context to make money by selling indulgences.

Adding the part about selling indulgences isn't inherent in the Maccabees passage, but this passage is still the main proof text used by the Roman Catholic Church for the existence of Purgatory itself.

 

[Josiah]

The majority of the ante-nicene Church fathers that we have records of, quote these books more than the OT,

I'd like to see the substantiation for this.... Thank you.

And the proof that to QUOTE (even often) from a book by say, 10 people PROVES that ergo Christianity or Judaism or both declared that the book is inerant, fully-canonical, divinely inscripturated words of God equal in every way to say the Pentetuch and Paul's letter to the Romans. After all, PAUL (more than a ante-nicene Church Father) quotes from Greek philosophers in Acts 17:26. And in several places in the OT, several books are specifically mentioned and used - BY NAME - but you don't accept any of them as anything.

And you seem to entirely discount a LOT of books quoted by ECF. The Didache, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas and more. Why is it true that quoting form a book makes it fully canonical, inerrant and inscripturated words of God that legally must appear in any tome with the word BIBLE on the cover, but ONLY if that book is listed in Article 6 if the 39 Articles of the Church of England? Clement of Alexandra Barnabas and Revelation of Peter as "Scripture" ... Origin puts Barnabas, Hermas. Didache and the Gospel of the Hebrews equal to 2 Peter, James and Jude. It seems to ME your rubric is not what was used or how they were considered by the ECF UNLESS Article 6 of the 39 Articles lists them but NOT as canonical, NOT as inerrant, NOT as verbally inspired, NOT as equal to the rest, NOT as required to appear in all tomes with the word BIBLE on the cover.




Again...

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?



?




.

 

[Albion]

The majority of the ante-nicene Church fathers that we have records of, quote these books more than the OT, they refer to them with regards that they are Holy, The Lord says, It is written in scripture.. etc..

That's not true either.

And what you wrote earlier was this:

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

and this:

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

and this:

the majority of Christians accept these Ecclesiastical books as Scripture.

All of that is baseless, even fantastic, but I asked you if you'd try to provide some evidence if what you wrote is what you believe. You have none.

Shall we just move to another topic now?

 

[Andrew]

That's not true either.

And what you wrote earlier was this:



and this:



and this:



All of that is baseless, even fantastic, but I asked you if you'd try to provide some evidence if what you wrote is what you believe. You have none.

Shall we just move to another topic now?

The first two points refer to the ante-nicene Church Fathers, Clement of Rome would have known Peter and Paul as he was the first appointed Bishop to the Church of Rome. The others are from the 2nd 3rd and 4th Century and they qoute the Apocrypha over 400 times, more often than the Hebrew OT.

Third point is true, the minority of Christianity are protestants, Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox Church have y'all beat and both accept them into their canon of Holy Scripture.

 

[Andrew]

I'd like to see the substantiation for this.... Thank you.

And the proof that to QUOTE (even often) from a book by say, 10 people PROVES that ergo Christianity or Judaism or both declared that the book is inerant, fully-canonical, divinely inscripturated words of God equal in every way to say the Pentetuch and Paul's letter to the Romans. After all, PAUL (more than a ante-nicene Church Father) quotes from Greek philosophers in Acts 17:26. And in several places in the OT, several books are specifically mentioned and used - BY NAME - but you don't accept any of them as anything.

And you seem to entirely discount a LOT of books quoted by ECF. The Didache, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas and more. Why is it true that quoting form a book makes it fully canonical, inerrant and inscripturated words of God that legally must appear in any tome with the word BIBLE on the cover, but ONLY if that book is listed in Article 6 if the 39 Articles of the Church of England? Clement of Alexandra Barnabas and Revelation of Peter as "Scripture" ... Origin puts Barnabas, Hermas. Didache and the Gospel of the Hebrews equal to 2 Peter, James and Jude. It seems to ME your rubric is not what was used or how they were considered by the ECF UNLESS Article 6 of the 39 Articles lists them but NOT as canonical, NOT as inerrant, NOT as verbally inspired, NOT as equal to the rest, NOT as required to appear in all tomes with the word BIBLE on the cover.




Again...

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?



?




.

We are discussing the OT "apocrypha", you always do this, you always bring up NT era apocrypha. The NT canon was settled by Christians and I have no problem at all with this list

 

[Josiah]

The first two points refer to the ante-nicene Church Fathers, Clement of Rome was apointed would have known Peter and Paul as he was the first appointed Bishop to the Church of Rome.

1. We have no evidence that Pope Clement (Clement of Rome) was known to either Peter or Paul. Yes, there was a man with the very common name of "Clement" known to Paul, but that is zero evidence that it's the SAME person with that very common name. IF I wrote that I knew Joe, would that prove that I know President Joe Biden? No. There was NO contemporary of either Clement who remotely suggested they were one and the same person, that entirely baseless and unsubstantiated claim comes from centuries later.

2. IF you could quote Pope Clement giving a list of books identical to those listed in Article 6 of the 39 Articles of the Church of England and stating (ex cathredra as the pope) that "these - and only these - books are the inerrant, fully canonical, inscripturated words of God and ONLY these and ALL of these must be published in any book with the word "BIBLE" on the cover" well, then, friend, you'd have ONE man (albeit, a pope according to Roman Catholics). It really doesn't make your point that "most ante-nicene Church Fathers" held to that, it would just prove that one man (not a Church Father) held to it - IF you could quote him stating that.



Again...

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?





.

 

[Albion]

The first two points refer to the ante-nicene Church Fathers, Clement of Rome would have known Peter and Paul as he was the first appointed Bishop to the Church of Rome. The others are from the 2nd 3rd and 4th Century and they qoute the Apocrypha over 400 times, more often than the Hebrew OT.

So,....having claimed that "It’s not just a few church fathers, it’s the majority" you are now defending that claim by arguing that, well, you know of ONE! (?), Clement??

Third point is true, the minority of Christianity are protestants, Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox Church have y'all beat and both accept them into their canon of Holy Scripture.

The point, as I explained before, is that the majority of Christians may be Catholics or Orthodox, but claiming as you did that they "accept" the Apocrypha as inspired is not believable unless by "accept" one means nothing more than "whatever my church says, it must be true.".

Most of them have little or no familiarity with these books, let alone affirm that what's in them is what they believe, and I am confident that if you were to ask your Catholic neighbors to simply name even one book of the Apocrypha from memory, they couldn't do it.

 

[Andrew]

1. We have no evidence that Pope Clement (Clement of Rome) was known to either Peter or Paul. Yes, there was a man with the very common name of "Clement" known to Paul, but that is zero evidence that it's the SAME person with that very common name.

2. IF you could quote Pope Clement giving a list of books identical to those listed in Article 6 of the 39 Articles of the Church of England and stating (ex cathredra as the pope) that "these - and only these - books are the inerrant, fully canonical, inscripturated words of God and ONLY these and ALL of these must be published in any book with the word "BIBLE" on the cover" well, then, friend, you'd have ONE man (albeit, a pope according to Roman Catholics). It really doesn't make your point that "most ante-nicene Church Fathers" held to that, it would just prove that one man (not a Church Father) held to it - IF you could quote him stating that.


See post #



.

I don't give a poot about the Church of England's articles, I trust what the early Christians were handed down from the apostles that they often quote from that ultimately ended up in the Holy Bible.

Jerome was comissioned to translate the Hebrew Text from Rabbanic Judaisms new tradition of canonicity of scripture, which btw, does not include the Gospels that were also written by Jews, Rabbanic Judaism is a rebellious religion established by the unbeliving Pharisees.

 

[Albion]

I don't give a poot about the Church of England's articles, I trust what the early Christians were handed down from the apostles that they often quote from that ultimately ended up in the Holy Bible.

Hey, we may be getting somewhere. First it was that a majority of the Fathers believed in the Apocrypha and said so. We've gradually gotten that down to Trust me; some Christians probably heard something from the Apostles and "often quote(d)" from it, and that made it into the Bible.

Good grief.

 

[Andrew]

So,....having claimed that "It’s not just a few church fathers, it’s the majority" you are now defending that claim by arguing that, well, you know of ONE! (?), Clement??

The point, as I explained before, is that the majority of Christians may be Catholics or Orthodox, but claiming as you did that they "accept" the Apocrypha as inspired is not believable unless by "accept" one means nothing more than "whatever my church says, it must be true.".

Most of them have little or no familiarity with these books, let alone affirm that what's in them is what they believe, and I am confident that if you were to ask your Catholic neighbors to simply name even one book of the Apocrypha from memory, they couldn't do it.

The first Bible I read was a Catholic Bible and became familiar with these books, I found them inspiring and edifying just as intended.
Catholics at least hold Luthers view that the books should be left in for that very reason, and to let it be up the pious reader to discern it's divinety as Holy scripture or not.

Protestant preachers were the ones who included the cross references that included these edifying books for their sermons.
It was the norm. But the Bible Societies put blinders on modern day protestants who seem very defensive and annoyed when anyone argues that they should still remain in our Bibles just as has been the tradition for centuries.

 

[Albion]

The first Bible I read was a Catholic Bible and became familiar with these books, I found them inspiring and edifying just as intended.

Right. This (the Apocrypha) is obviously a special interest of yours. You've written about it again and again on these forums, but that doesn't change anything so far as the typical Catholic is concerned.

 

[Andrew]

Hey, we may be getting somewhere. First it was that a majority of the Fathers believed in the Apocrypha and said so. We've gradually gotten that down to Trust me; some Christians probably heard something from the Apostles and "often quote(d)" from it, and that made it into the Bible.

Good grief.

The 1rst Century Christians read the Septuagint, so did Jesus and the Apostles, there was no Jewish canon, there was no masoretic, there were gentiles who couldn't read Hebrew and not too many Hebrews that could, God Almighty gave the gentile world the Scriptures to prepare his Church

 

[Andrew]

Right. This (the Apocrypha) is obviously a special interest of yours. You've written about it again and again on these forums, but that doesn't change anything so far as the typical Catholic is concerned.

That's fine, a lot of protestants reject Luthers Bible as well.

 

[Josiah]

I don't give a poot about the Church of England's articles,

Then why the insistence that the material that must be in every tome with the word BIBLE on the cover must be that contained in the 1611 King James Bible?

Why ignore the other books some ECF's used and quoted and even argued IS canonical? If what matters is if a writing was quoted by some unknown number of ECF, why do you ignore any not in Article 6 but always if it is? Why ignore all the books especially mentioned BY NAME in the OT but not in Article 6 of the Anglican 39 Articles?

I trust what the early Christians were handed down from the apostles that they often quote from that ultimately ended up in the Holy Bible.?

1. Which "Holy Bible?" The Coptic Bible? The Egyptian Bible? The Greek Orthodox Bible? Common Catholic Bibles of the Middle Ages? Luther's Bible? The Post-Trent Catholic Bible? Why just the Church of England Bible? None of them are the same.

2. Some ECF's accepted (in some way) several books that the Church of England did not. And in some cases, not books found in Article 6. Cyril of Jerusalem didn't accept the Revelation of John. Athanasius of Alexandra did accept the Didache and the Shepherd of Hermas. Origin puts the Epistle of Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, and the Gospel of the Hebrews EQUAL to Hebrews, James, Jude and 2 Peter. It seems obvious that what matters is NOT what any ECF did or believed or stated, but whether the book is listed in Article 6 of the Anglican 39 Articles as NOT canonical, NOT inerrant, NOT inspired of God and NOT required to be in any tome or book published or sold or read.

3. The Bible ITSELF references several books - specifically and by name - that aren't listed in Article 6 of the 39 Articles. You don't care, they aren't listed in Article 6. It seems to me that quoting from a book, referencing book, regarding a book doesn't matter to you... whether a book is or is not in some tome with BIBLE on the cover doesn't matter to you. That the contents match Article 6 of the Church of Englands 39 Articles does... that it's the same as the 1611 KJV.

Rabbanic Judaism is a rebellious religion established by the unbeliving Pharisees.

How does that prove that all Church Fathers and all Christians accepted the exact list of books listed in Article 6 of the Church of England's 39 Articles - all of those and only those - as inerrant, fully canonical, divinely inscripturated words of God and must be legally required to appear in any book published or sold with the word BIBLE on the cover? That Christianity put IN that exact list of books and then later someone RIPPED OUT those exact books?


Again...

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, not Christianity, and with no one here. IMO, he is simply misapplying his anger.

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?





.

 

[Andrew]

Then why the insistence that the material that must be in every tome with the word BIBLE on the cover must be that contained in the 1611 King James Bible?

Why ignore the other books some ECF's used and quoted and even argued IS canonical? If what matters is if a writing was quoted by some unknown number of ECF, why do you ignore any not in Article 6 but always if it is? Why ignore all the books especially mentioned BY NAME in the OT but not in Article 6 of the Anglican 39 Articles?





1. Which "Holy Bible?" The Coptic Bible? The Egyptian Bible? The Greek Orthodox Bible? Common Catholic Bibles of the Middle Ages? Luther's Bible? The Post-Trent Catholic Bible? Why just the Church of England Bible? None of them are the same.

2. Some ECF's accepted (in some way) several books that the Church of England did not. And in some cases, not books found in Article 6. Cyril of Jerusalem didn't accept the Revelation of John. Athanasius of Alexandra did accept the Didache and the Shepherd of Hermas. Origin puts the Epistle of Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, and the Gospel of the Hebrews EQUAL to Hebrews, James, Jude and 2 Peter. It seems obvious that what matters is NOT what any ECF did or believed or stated, but whether the book is listed in Article 6 of the Anglican 39 Articles as NOT canonical, NOT inerrant, NOT inspired of God and NOT required to be in any tome or book published or sold or read.






How does that prove that all Church Fathers and all Christians accepted the exact list of books listed in Article 6 of the Church of England's 39 Articles - all of those and only those - as inerrant, fully canonical, divinely inscripturated words of God and must be legally required to appear in any book published or sold with the word BIBLE on the cover? That Christianity put IN that exact list of books and then later someone RIPPED OUT those exact books?

The American Bible Society transgressed the Church tradition of Protestants and Catholics to include those books in the Bible, this is NOT necessarily a discussion on CANON.
Protestants rejected the "Apocrypha" as canon but never protested that be removed from their BIBLES! It was useful for the Church, for edification, they were ecclesiastical books of church antiquity and tradition.

Read how passionate Rufinus was toward the importance of these books being kept in its traditional state in the Bible without influence of "Barabbas" (his name for Jeromes Rabbi), he went off on Jerome about it in letters and made basically the same points Nathan and I make. He saw them as books that can bless newly converted Christians in ethics and morals, the Church that he went to valued these stories greatly and

 

[MoreCoffee]

Give me a good Catholic Edition bible any day,

 

[Josiah]

The American Bible Society

Is not Christianity. Is not "every Christian." Is not "all the ante-nicean fathers." Is not Protestantism. Is not even a single denomination.

And this "society" did NOT rip out anything, they were not legally mandated to do anything by any government or denomination. It CHOSE to PUBLISH and SELL a tome that didn't have all the books listed in Article 6 of the 39 Articles of the Church of England in it. Can you buy and read and use and quote from a tome with BIBLE written on the cover that HAS in it all the books listed in Article 6 and only those books? YES.

If one "bible society" published a book with only 66 books in it, that does NOT substantiate ANY of the claims you and Nathan have made.... it doesn't prove that Christianity put some unidentifed "THEM" into the Bible and then Protestantism ripped this same "them" out. It doesn't prove that if a book was written in Hebrew it's therefore canonical and inerrant and normative. It doesn't prove any of the Jewish or Assembly of God conspiracies . It doesn't prove that all Christians had the exact same Bible since some unstated year (or even that they all do now). It doesn't prove that if some unnamed person quoted from a book, ergo Christianity declared it to be fully canonical, inerrant, divinely inspired. It proves NOTHING except what I've stated to you (for what, a couple of YEARS?) that publishing houses and book stores are able to print and sell what they want - there are no mandates or prohibitions here. That's the only thing you've proven.

Protestants rejected the "Apocrypha" as canon but never protested that be removed from their BIBLES!

Well, most. But no one here disagrees with that.

But friend, how does that prove that Christianity or Judaism or Protestantism "RIPPED OUT" books from the Bible? That some unidentified Ruling Body forbids any book to be read or published? All those Jewish conspiracies you and Nathan have pointed to? That all Christians always accepted the specific books listed in the Anglican 39 Articles as canonical, inerrant, "equal" (a word often used) Scripture? How does it prove that the majority of ECF considered that exact list of books to be canonical and Scripture?


Now, SURE, there were INDIVIDUALS who liked and disliked these books....and publishing houses who chose to not include them. But how does that prove any of your claims?

Friend, ALL those (and DOZENS MORE) of books at times by somewhere were considered good to read but not canonical. And they ALL are available to read, to use, to quote. NO ONE is forbidden to do so. Is there some international law mandating that books labeled "BIBLE" must legally contain all of them? No. That forbids them? No.4,

You NOW seem to admit these were NEVER put "in" the Bible (except as NON-canonical, just USEFUL). Frankly, I give them more "credit" than you do, I regard them as DEUTEROcanonical. Nathan finally admitted this too - those synods he constantly pointed to never put anything in anything, they were not binding, not ecumenical, NOT "Christianity", NOT "every Christian" NOT "most Christians" NOT "all ante nicean fathers." Just 3 regional, non-binding synods of a denomination he (and you) reject.

Okay, so FINALLY, you withdraw your entire "PUT IN" point. Good, it was baseless. Now you seem to be pushing away from your "Ripped out" claim. Yes, a couple of Bible societies chose not to include them in tomes it sold - but neither of them is Christianity or all Christians or Protestantism. And NEITHER of these demanded that no one read, use or quote from those not-included books. You CAN and COULD buy a tome WITH Luther's apocrypha, with the Church of England's apocrypha, with the modern Post-Trent RCC's list, with the Greek Orthodox list, with the Coptic Orthodox list. You can even read, use and quote from Psalm 152, from the Didache, from the Revelation of Peter, from the Shepherd of Hermas, from First Clement, etc., etc., etc., etc. Your whole "PUT IN" and "RIPPED OUT" claim is... well....

IF.... IF.... you and your friend had written, "There are a number of books not included in the 66 always found in our Bibles today that many Christians used, read, quoted and found inspirational, books - but not canonical, inerrant or inspired " well, there would have been no debate here (well, maybe MoreCoffee, LOL) and all your posts on this subject would have been unnecessary (and not glaringly false or at least baseless). Even if you had ENCOURAGED us to read them, you would just be echoing Lutheranism and Anglicanism - together about half of Proestantism. Many of us would have agreed! And noted readings from some of them appear in many Anglican and Lutheran lectionaries. What FILLED countless threads of you and Nathan were the wild, false and baseless claims, the accusations, the conspiracy theories, the countless times you proved that you yourself reject your own apologetics on this.



Again...

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, not Christianity, and with no one here. IMO, he is simply misapplying his anger.

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?





.

 

[Andrew]

Is not Christianity. Is not "every Christian." Is not "all the ante-nicean fathers." Is not Protestantism.

And this "society" did NOT rip out anything, they were not legally mandated to do anything by any government or denomination. It CHOSE to PUBLISH and SELL a tome that didn't have all the books listed in Article 6 of the 39 Articles of the Church of England in it. Can you buy and read and use a tome with BIBLE written on the cover that HAS in it all the books listed in Article 6 and only those books? YES.

If one "bible society" published a book with only 66 books in it does NOT substantiate ANY of the claims you and Nathan have made.... doesn't prove that Christianity put some unidentifed "THEM" into the Bible and then Protestantism ripped this "them" out. It doesn't prove that if a book was written in Hebrew it's therefore canonical and inerrant and normative. It doesn't prove any of the Jewish or Assembly of God conspiracies . It doesn't prove that all Christians had the exact same Bible since some unstated year (or even that they all do now). It doesn't prove that if some unnamed ECF quoted from a book, ergo Christianity declared it to be fully canonical, inerrant, divinely inspired. It proves NOTHING except what I've stated to you (for what, a couple of YEARS?) that publishing houses and book stores are able to print and sell what they want - there are no mandates or prohibitions here. That's the only thing you've proven.





Well, most. But no one here disagrees with that.

But friend, how does that prove that Christianity or Judaism or Protestantism "RIPPED OUT" books from the Bible? That some unidentified Ruling Body forbids any book to be read or published? All those Jewish conspiracies you and Nathan have pointed to? That all Christians always accepted the specific books listed in the Anglican 39 Articles as canonical, inerrant, "equal" (a word often used) Scripture? How does it prove that the majority of ECF considered that exact list of books to be canonical and Scripture?


Now, SURE, there were INDIVIDUALS who liked and disliked these books....and publishing houses who chose to not include them. But how does that prove any of your claims?

Friend, ALL those (and DOZENS MORE) of books at times by somewhere were considered good to read but not canonical. And they ALL are available to read, to use, to quote. NO ONE is forbidden to do so. Is there some international law mandating that books labeled "BIBLE" must legally contain all of them? No. That forbids them? No.4,

You NOW seem to admit these were NEVER put "in" the Bible (except as NON-canonical, just USEFUL). Frankly, I give them more "credit" than you do, I regard them as DEUTEROcanonical. Nathan finally admitted this too - those synods he constantly pointed to never put anything in anything, they were not binding, not ecumenical, NOT "Christianity", NOT "every Christian" NOT "most Christians" NOT "all ante nicean fathers." Just 3 regional, non-binding synods of a denomination he (and you) reject.

Okay, so FINALLY, you withdraw your entire "PUT IN" point. Good, it was baseless. Now you seem to be pushing away from your "Ripped out" claim. Yes, a couple of Bible societies chose not to include them in tomes it sold - but neither of them is Christianity or all Christians or Protestantism. And NEITHER of these demanded that no one read, use or quote from those not-included books. You CAN and COULD buy a tome WITH Luther's apocrypha, with the Church of England's apocrypha, with the modern Post-Trent RCC's list, with the Greek Orthodox list, with the Coptic Orthodox list. You can even read, use and quote from Psalm 152, from the Didache, from the Revelation of Peter, from the Shepherd of Hermas, from First Clement, etc., etc., etc., etc. Your whole "PUT IN" and "RIPPED OUT" claim is... well....

IF.... IF.... you and your friend had written, "There are a number of books not included in the 66 always found in our Bibles today that many Christians used, read, quoted and found inspirational, books " well, there would have been no debate here and all your posts on this subject would have been unnecessary (and not glaringly false or at least baseless). Even if you had ENCOURED us to read them, you would just be echoing Lutheranism and Anglicanism - together about half of Proestantism. Many of us would have agreed! And noted readings from the appear in many Anglican and Lutheran lectionaries. What FILLED countless threads of you and Nathan were the wild, false and baseless claims, the accusations, the conspiracy theories, the countless times you proved that you yourself reject your own apologetics on this.



Again...

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, not Christianity, and with no one here. IMO, he is simply misapplying his anger.

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?





.

Who said I reject the deuterocanon?

I said I agree that what the early Christians read as Scripture was in fact Scripture, the term deuterocanonical was just different name for it since "canon" wasn't a word that was widely used until the Hebrew canon was created to weed out the Christians from the Synagogues, the NT acknowledged the formation of the Jews counter-messianic campaign to remove Hebrew Christians from the Synagogues.

The Greek Septuagint was handed by God to the gentile world in preparation for the church age soon to come as the arrival of the Messiah was drawing near.

Call them what you will, Apocrypha, Ecclesiasticals, Deuterocanon, eitherway they are divinely connected and serve an equal purpose.