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

[MoreCoffee]

Since ancient manuscripts tend to include the 73 books that are received as canonical by Catholics and since even the oldest nearly complete manuscript known to exist (codex Vaticanus from 325 AD) contains Judith, Tobit, Wisdom, Sirach, and Baruch with 1-4 Maccabees being absent along with some NT books, the case for deuterocanonical continuity is hard to dispute on the evidence that comes from existing ancient Christian manuscripts.

Protestants may like a 66 book bible and many Protestant denominations use a 66 book Bible. But Catholic Christians use a larger bible with a canon list of 73 books.

 

[Albion]

Since ancient manuscripts tend to include the 73 books that are received as canonical by Catholics and since even the oldest nearly complete manuscript known to exist (codex Vaticanus from 325 AD) contains Judith, Tobit, Wisdom, Sirach, and Baruch with 1-4 Maccabees being absent along with some NT books, the case for deuterocanonical continuity is hard to dispute on the evidence that comes from existing ancient Christian manuscripts.

Protestants may like a 66 book bible and many Protestant denominations use a 66 book Bible. But Catholic Christians use a larger bible with a canon list of 73 books.

If the case for "deuterocanonical continuity is hard to dispute," as you wrote here ^, you may be a candidate for converting to one of the Eastern Orthodox churches which uses a Bible with more books than the Roman Catholic Church recognizes or--better still--the Ethiopian Church, which counts even more than that in its version.

 

[Andrew]

Quote me saying anything is weird.





Whatever "they" of which you speak, "they" may be in some tome with the word "BIBLE" on the cover. There goes your argument that "they" don't. There goes your point that Protestants can't read them, that there's some conspiracy to keep Christians from having access to "them".






Whatever "they" of which you speak, no, there's a very obvious reason why you can't name the Ruling Body of Christianity that declared this mysterious corpus of "them" at a meeting you can't name at a place you can't name. Everyone realizes why you can't show that "they" were declared to be inerrant, fully canonical, divinely inspired - or even declared "them" to be anything whatsoever. The reason you can't identify this is that it never happened. At least not for Christianity. There are a FEW denominations that eventually did so for some books you may include in your mysterious "them" but none before the 15th Century and only for that single individual denomination and none that agrees with any other denomination on this. You've never even attempted to substantiate your "PUT IN" claim for this mysterious "them"







You keep making this claim... even NEVER with ANYTHING to show it's true... and we all know why: it's not true. Never has been true. You seem to need us to accept that from the 4th Century on, every tome with BIBLE on the cover contained the exact same material. This is false. That's NEVER been the case, still isn't. Check out the Coptic Bible, the Syrian Bible, the Greek Orthodox Bible.... check out Catholic Bibles that for over 1000 years often contained the Letter to the Leodiceans, Orthodox Bibles that often did not contain the Revelation of John. Check out Luther's translation, the unique Anglican Bible.... we all know, they are NOT THE SAME. Never have been. Still aren't.

And I think it's obvious why you work so hard to evade naming the exact list of "THEM." Because there is no one list. There is the Coptic list, Syrian list, various Orthodox lists, Luther's list, the Church of England list... and some Catholic tomes (such as in Germany) included the Prayer of Manassah but those in Italy and Spain typically did not. You sometimes blunder and mention the LXX (as if there's only one) but don't seem to care about 3 and 4 Maccabees, Psalm 151, etc. which is found in a few of the lists of "them" but not in others.

There never has been some Christian embrace of which books are "THEM." And there has never been some endorsement by Christianity of "them" as anything at all. You know this, I suspect, because after all this time, you would have given the reference. And quoted the resolution of the declaration. You know you can't - because it's simply not the case.

And again, there is no law - there has NEVER been any law - about what may and may not be placed between the covers of a book with BIBLE on the cover by printers, publishers and book sellers. It's NEVER been true. Anyone and anything can put whatever they want in there. My Bible is some 2800 pages long, the Table of Contents lists some 300 items. The cover has the word "BIBLE" on it. What law did the publishing company violate? How does this tome prove that Luther's Small Catechism ergo has been declared by Christianity to be inerrant, fully canonical, inscripturated words of God and the law mandates that it appear in every tome that has the word BIBLE on the cover????????







Perhaps because very few could read Hebrew. Pretty simple, huh?

Today, lots of Bibles are in English. English is the most common language for Bibles today. How how does that prove that Christianity adopted some mysterious books you call "them" as the inerrant, fully canonical, inscripturated words of God and passed an international law that every publishing house, printing company and book store MUST include "them" in the tome (those but no others) or else??????


And does that prove all your Jewish Conspiracy theories? That God inspired the LXX as the Gentile Bible? That Christianity adopted certain books (you won't name) as all fully canonical, inerrant, equal, inscripturated words of God at some meeting you can't identify so that all Christians had the same Bible until some soceity the the USA ripped out a bunch of them two hundred years ago so now Coptic Christians, Syrian Christians, Greek Christians, Catholic Christians and American Evangelicals 200 years ago all have DIFFERENT Bibles??????


Now, what about

Post # 108

Post # 116

Post # 119

Post # 122

Post # 141

Post # 163

Post # 171




.

Probably because Protestants, especially Lutherans, discourage Christians from reading the Apocrypha of Martin Luther's Bible more than encourage, just parroting Luther and saying "but they are good to read" is worthless, just the word "good" alone downplays them to a mere "okay" standard... The Secret Garden is good to read.. lukewarm uninspired books that aren't found in the default protestant Bible that anyone can buy at the local Super Markets and Grocery stores are going to be ignored by design.
As specifically outlined by the American Bible Society to keep Protestants from converting to Catholicism. This is not a conspiracy it is a fact.

I know of at least 12 early church fathers who quoted from 2 specific "good" books in practically all of their sermons, Luther was even obsessed with these two "good" books in his resolutions. Wisdom and Sirach

They are as good as the rest of Holy Scripture

Here are "them" that belong in the Holy Bible as it was enouraged by Martin that all Christians should read them.. I believe the "Walmart Bible" should be revised with the 1611 lists of books

 

[Josiah]

Probably because Protestants

So, I didn't say it.

Yet another claim ENTIRELY unsubstantiated.

especially Lutherans, discourage Christians from reading the Apocrypha of Martin Luther's Bible

... and once again, yet again, NOTHING whatsoever to substantiate your remarkable claim. Nothing.


Funny, because in my years as a Catholic, that denomination's UNIQUE set of books beyond "the 66" were never mentioned ... at all... and never once encouraged to read anything beyond the 66 (in fact, I can't remember being encouraged to read any Scripture). YES, there were very, very rare times when some reading from such was included in the Lectionary (as is sometimes the case in Lutheran churches) but no sermons, no studies, no nothing.

When I became a Lutheran, I was first exposed to Luther's 8 (one more than in the RCC). The Sunday Pastor's Class had a very detailed study of them - lasting about 6 months - using a curriculum from the Lutheran "Concordia Publishing House." But that was in a LUTHERAN Church. That same LUTHERAN publishing house has a special study book ENTIRELY and solely on Luther's additional 8, with detailed study notes to help us understand and appreciate these books and how they relate to OT and NT books, as well as history. And LUTHERANS even have an entire DAILY LECTIONARY for reading those 8 - it has readings for every day of the year. ENCOURAGING the reading... DAILY... all year long. Of course, you knew that. Or maybe you just don't care about what's actually the case?

the American Bible Society to keep Protestants from converting to Catholicism.

1 The American Bible Society is not Lutheran. What it does does not prove your claim that "Especially Lutherans discourage Christians from reading the Apocrypha."


2. This one, single, individual society started printing tomes with just the 66 in them TWO HUNDRED YEARS AGO. Other societies, printers and publishers still printed larger tomes.... as did Concordia Publishing House (the largest Lutheran one). And that singular society now prints just about any kind of tome anyone might purchase - including Catholic ones, Anglican ones, etc. If your "beef" is with something ONE soceity did.... TWO HUNDRED YEARS AGO... and not for long, I wonder why you aren't complaining the them but accusing Lutherans of "especially" doing this?

They are as good as the rest of Holy Scripture

... whatever the "they" are. That's your opinion... which you've not even tried to substantiate.... and it's shared only by the modern Catholic Church (although it's tome is not the same as the 1611 KJV so you disagree with the Catholic Church on WHICH are as good as the rest of Scripture - just as inerrant, just as canonical, just as verbally inspired.



Now, what about

Post # 108

Post # 116

Post # 119

Post # 122

Post # 141

Post # 163

Post # 171

Post # 200




.

 

[MoreCoffee]

The practice of printing bibles with 66 books rather than 73 (or more) books places a barrier in the way of reading the missing 7 books and the missing parts of 2 more (Esther and Daniel).

 

[Andrew]

So, I didn't say it.

Yet another claim ENTIRELY unsubstantiated.






... and once again, yet again, NOTHING whatsoever to substantiate your remarkable claim. Nothing.


Funny, because in my years as a Catholic, that denomination's UNIQUE set of books beyond "the 66" were never mentioned ... at all... and never once encouraged to read anything beyond the 66 (in fact, I can't remember being encouraged to read any Scripture). YES, there were very, very rare times when some reading from such was included in the Lectionary (as is sometimes the case in Lutheran churches) but no sermons, no studies, no nothing.

When I became a Lutheran, I was first exposed to Luther's 8 (one more than in the RCC). The Sunday Pastor's Class had a very detailed study of them - lasting about 6 months - using a curriculum from the Lutheran "Concordia Publishing House." But that was in a LUTHERAN Church. That same LUTHERAN publishing house has a special study book ENTIRELY and solely on Luther's additional 8, with detailed study notes to help us understand and appreciate these books and how they relate to OT and NT books, as well as history. And LUTHERANS even have an entire DAILY LECTIONARY for reading those 8 - it has readings for every day of the year. ENCOURAGING the reading... DAILY... all year long. Of course, you knew that. Or maybe you just don't care about what's actually the case?






1 The American Bible Society is not Lutheran. What it does does not prove your claim that "Especially Lutherans discourage Christians from reading the Apocrypha."


2. This one, single, individual society started printing tomes with just the 66 in them TWO HUNDRED YEARS AGO. Other societies, printers and publishers still printed larger tomes.... as did Concordia Publishing House (the largest Lutheran one). And that singular society now prints just about any kind of tome anyone might purchase - including Catholic ones, Anglican ones, etc. If your "beef" is with something ONE soceity did.... TWO HUNDRED YEARS AGO... and not for long, I wonder why you aren't complaining the them but accusing Lutherans of "especially" doing this?







... whatever the "they" are. That's your opinion... which you've not even tried to substantiate.... and it's shared only by the modern Catholic Church (although it's tome is not the same as the 1611 KJV so you disagree with the Catholic Church on WHICH are as good as the rest of Scripture - just as inerrant, just as canonical, just as verbally inspired.



Now, what about

Post # 108

Post # 116

Post # 119

Post # 122

Post # 141

Post # 163

Post # 171

Post # 200




.

Your opinions do not prove me wrong. I provided you over dozens of ante-nicene Church Fathers qouting from the deuterocanon as Holy and Sacred Inspired God breathed scripture without any hint of prejudice nor do they state that they are merely good to read, using them along side the accepted Hebrew scripture in their sermons for preaching Christian living.

I qouted Luther using the deuterocanon in this same manner.

I provided the lists of accept books of the Church passed down by the Apostles by several Christians who label the books outside of the canon of the Hebrews "Ecclesiasticals" used and read in the church for instruction and as examples of doctrine based faith, and that the those that weren't listed are heritical Apocrypha, proving that the church never read from them but of the "so-called Apocrypha" (to the protestants) they most certainly read in church which again were in their lists and quoting from them almost obsessively.

I've shown quotes by Rufinus who is certain that the Jews tricked his best friend Jerome. There are many others who go into more details who expose the changes they made.

My beef is the same beef they had, and sadly no books that were always in Christians Bibles were ever booted from the Bibles by any church authority or approval of sorts but by a greedy corporation of radical anti Catholic Bibles societies which is CONFIRMED.

Oh, but the opinions of "Josiah of Internet" disprove all of these facts I have cited by his inherent opinion over the early witnesses who testified of the these things... because the were wrong and Josiah of Internet is correct because he says so.

 

[Josiah]

Your opinions do not prove me wrong.

Your long, long, very long list of claims - NONE remotely substantiated - do not prove you right. Your long, long list of remarkable claims do not prove you right - especially since you've not even attempted to show they are right.

I provided you over dozens of ante-nicene Church Fathers qouting from the deuterocanon as Holy and Sacred Inspired God breathed scripture

No.

You have never proven that ANY ante-Nicene Father had some list of books that they regarded as EQUAL to the 66.... You've shown that a number you can count on one one hand USED some writing (something from a Church Father for example) but nothing that shows that such had been declared by Christianity (or even was widely buy wrongly thought to be) so regarded by most Christians. What you've shown is a FEW who USED some books. Just as today nearly every Christian teacher uses stuff beyond the 66.

I qouted Luther using the deuterocanon in this same manner.

No, you did not.

You referenced a strange YouTube in which the person CLAIMS Luther made some flip-flop and then proved he never did. Of course, Luther is not Christianity, Luther is not all Christians. But he USED some stuff (he often quoted from church fathers, church councils, church creeds, church canons... exactly as he said he'd do in those snippets), but it's beyond silly to claim that ERGO he regarded everything he ever used to be inerrant, fully canonical, inscripturated words of God EQUAL to the 66 as you claim (especially when he repeatedly, explicitly STATES they are not) or that he insisted on some international law that everything he used or quoted must be in every tome printed or sold with the word "BIBLE" appearing on the cover. To use is not to proclaim such is canonical. I'm sincerely stunned why this entirely alludes you.

I provided the lists of accept books of the Church passed down by the Apostles

You've given NOTHING from ANY Apostle....

You've given NOTHING from Christianity on this topic....

You've sometimes referenced the LXX.... sometimes Jerome...sometimes one Father or another or still another .. sometimes Florance or Trent... sometimes Luther... sometimes Article 6 of the Church of England's 39 Articles... never admitting they are all DIFFERENT!!! And generally, said NOTHING about being canonical or inerrant or inspired or equal. And taking great care to not mention the Greek Orthodox Church or Syrian Orthodox Church or Coptic Orthodox Church because as you know, they are all different too.

You can't provide ONE list of the "them" (just lots of DIFFERENT ones) and you can't show some consensus that ANY of those "them" are inerrant, fully canonical, divinely inscripturated words of God or equal to anything at all. Or even that even one Father so declared "them" to be.

heritical Apocroypha

You are the one SO passionate about us accepting some mysterious "them" books of the Apocrypha. Funny how you call "them" Apocrypha and yet insist they are canonical and there's some law that they must be in every tome with BIBLE on the cover, that "they" are "equal to all the Scriptures" and how there is some conspiracy from Jews and the American Bible Society (well, LONG ago) to keep Protestants ignorant by removing these books and making it impossible for Protestants to know about "them."

My beef is the same beef they had, and sadly no books that were always in Christians Bibles were ever booted from the Bibles by any church authority or approval of sorts but by a greedy corporation of radical anti Catholic Bibles societies which is CONFIRMED.

"They" were never put in ... which is why after all this years, all these threads, all these posts... YOU STILL have yet to note the date, the place where the Ruling Body of Christianity put IN some specific list of books you will not list and did so as inerrant, fully canonical, divinely inscripturated words of God. You've never substantiated this PUT IN by Christianity... and you've never documented this "RIPPED OUT" for whatever "them" are (and you wont' say) for one clear, obvious reason: It never happened.

Okay, you claim that ONE individual, singular society... some TWO HUNDRED YEARS AGO... sold a Bible that only had 66 books in it. Okay. And quickly began publishing books with more. OKAY. How does that prove that all Bibles of all Christians were the same until this society did this - EXACTLY the same stuff in this, none more, none less? How does it prove that ergo no Christian had access to any reading material beside those 66 books? How does it prove your Jewish Conspiracy theories, your claim that Christianity put "in" some list of books you can't numerate, that you and Nathan could not read them because some society did something 200 years ago?

And how does it prove your most recent claim that "Especially Lutherans discourage people from reading the Apocrypha?"




Now, what about

Post # 108

Post # 116

Post # 119

Post # 122

Post # 141

Post # 163

Post # 171

Post # 200

Post # 204


... all ignored and evaded. Very persistently.



.

 

[Andrew]

Your long, long, very long list of claims - NONE remotely substantiated - do not prove you right. Your long, long list of remarkable claims do not prove you right - especially since you've not even attempted to show they are right.







No.

You have never proven that ANY ante-Nicene Father had some list of books that they regarded as EQUAL to the 66.... You've shown that a number you can count on one one hand USED some writing (something from a Church Father for example) but nothing that shows that such had been declared by Christianity (or even was widely buy wrongly thought to be) so regarded by most Christians. What you've shown is a FEW who USED some books. Just as today nearly every Christian teacher uses stuff beyond the 66.




No, you did not.

You referenced a strange YouTube in which the person CLAIMS Luther made some flip-flop and then proved he never did. Of course, Luther is not Christianity, Luther is not all Christians. But he USED some stuff (he often quoted from church fathers, church councils, church creeds, church canons... exactly as he said he'd do in those snippets), but it's beyond silly to claim that ERGO he regarded everything he ever used to be inerrant, fully canonical, inscripturated words of God EQUAL to the 66 as you claim (especially when he repeatedly, explicitly STATES they are not) or that he insisted on some international law that everything he used or quoted must be in every tome printed or sold with the word "BIBLE" appearing on the cover. To use is not to proclaim such is canonical. I'm sincerely stunned why this entirely alludes you.





You've given NOTHING from ANY Apostle....

You've given NOTHING from Christianity on this topic....

You've sometimes referenced the LXX.... sometimes Jerome...sometimes one Father or another or still another .. sometimes Florance or Trent... sometimes Luther... sometimes Article 6 of the Church of England's 39 Articles... never admitting they are all DIFFERENT!!! And generally, said NOTHING about being canonical or inerrant or inspired or equal. And taking great care to not mention the Greek Orthodox Church or Syrian Orthodox Church or Coptic Orthodox Church because as you know, they are all different too.

You can't provide ONE list of the "them" (just lots of DIFFERENT ones) and you can't show some consensus that ANY of those "them" are inerrant, fully canonical, divinely inscripturated words of God or equal to anything at all.... only USED. You've used YouTubes... why aren't you insisting that ergo YouTubes have been officially declared by the Ruling Body of Christianity as inerrant, canonical, verbally inspired words of God equal to the 66 since YOU used them?






You are the one SO passionate about us accepting some mysterious "them" books of the Apocrypha. Funny how you call "them" Apocrypha and yet insist they are canonical and there's some law that they must be in every tome with BIBLE on the cover, that "they" are "equal to all the Scriptures" and how there is some conspiracy from Jews and the American Bible Society (well, LONG ago) to keep Protestants ignorant by removing these books and making it impossible for Protestants to know about "them."




"They" were never put in ... which is why after all this years, all these threads, all these posts... YOU STILL have yet to note the date, the place where the Ruling Body of Christianity put IN some specific list of books you will not list and did so as inerrant, fully canonical, divinely inscripturated words of God. You've never substantiated this PUT IN by Christianity... and you've never documented this "RIPPED OUT" for whatever "them" are (and you wont' say) for one clear, obvious reason: It never happened.

Okay, you claim that ONE individual, singular society... some TWO HUNDRED YEARS AGO... sold a Bible that only had 66 books in it. Okay. And quickly began publishing books with more. OKAY. How does that prove that all Bibles of all Christians were the same until this society did this - EXACTLY the same stuff in this, none more, none less? How does it prove that ergo no Christian had access to any reading material beside those 66 books? How does it prove your Jewish Conspiracy theories, your claim that Christianity put "in" some list of books you can't numerate, that you and Nathan could not read them because some society did something 200 years ago?

And how does it prove your most recent claim that "Especially Lutherans discourage people from reading the Apocrypha?"




Now, what about

Post # 108

Post # 116

Post # 119

Post # 122

Post # 141

Post # 163

Post # 171

Post # 200

Post # 204


... all ignored and evaded. Very persistently.



.

Wow, so much denial here.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Now, what about

Post # 108

Post # 116

Post # 119

Post # 122

Post # 141

Post # 163

Post # 171

Post # 200

Post # 204


... all ignored and evaded. Very persistently.

All repeated way too often.
Give it a rest, please.

 

[Andrew]

All repeated way too often.
Give it a rest, please.

I addressed all of those. He says I follow Nathan. No, I met him online and we both have our own reasons how we came to accept the so-called Apocrypha.

 

[MoreCoffee]

we both have our own reasons how we came to accept the so-called Apocrypha.

You both made a good choice. I'd say the right choice because there are no justified reasons for rejecting these inspired books that cannot also be applied to the 64 canonical books that Catholics and Protestants share - Esther and Daniel are not shared canon because Protestants do not receive the whole of either book as inspired scripture Protestants receive only a portion of Esther and a portion of Daniel as inspired scripture.

 

[Josiah]

I addressed all of those. He says I follow Nathan. No, I met him online and we both have our own reasons how we came to accept the so-called Apocrypha.

Come on, brother. It is obvious that you've ignored every one of those posts on this.... you've made a LONG, LONG chain of remarkable , and truly amazing claims and when asked to substantiate them - you just ignore and replace it with yet another big, remarkable, amazing claim.

Let's focus on just the last case: "Especially Lutherans discourage the reading of the apocrypha." That's the latest in a countless number of such claims you've made. I responded.... asked for your substantiation of this.... you entirely, completely ignored EVERYTHING I said and declined to give ANYTHING to support your claim that "especially Lutherans discouage the reading of the Apocrypha". You've done that with every claim you've made on this topic. Over and over and over.


Posts 204 and 207. All ignored. As always.



.

 

[Andrew]

Come on, brother. It is obvious that you've ignored every one of those posts on this.... you've made a LONG, LONG chain of remarkable , and truly amazing claims and when asked to substantiate them - you just ignore and replace it with yet another big, remarkable, amazing claim.

Let's focus on just the last case: "Especially Lutherans discourage the reading of the apocrypha." That's the latest in a countless number of such claims you've made. I responded.... asked for your substantiation of this.... you entirely, completely ignored EVERYTHING I said and declined to give ANYTHING to support your claim that "especially Lutherans discouage the reading of the Apocrypha". You've done that with every claim you've made on this topic. Over and over and over.


Posts 204 and 207. All ignored. As always.



.

Lutherans discourage them, you being a prime example, this subject was never about canon, but you make that your case to why we should break the Biblical tradition ever since the formation of the Christian Bible... You speak of canon and say the 66 canon is the Protestant canon. What Protestant Council declared this? You have no canon, only a pecuilar number of books that were authorized by the Bible Society market who prophet in exploiting Christians through capitalizing off the Holy Bible with no respect to the historic tradition of our Church. I know you won't accept that fact, but regardless, the fact that the Holy Bible, even in Luther's time, had always included more books that YOU proclaim were never Holy, implies that throught history, the Holy Bible was never 100% Holy.

You simply discourage the "Apocrypha" by not encouraging it in the slightest, you get incredibly defensive, you point out "inerrancy and inaccuracies", you compare them to secular historical books and modern inspirational books, you ask for an early Christian Canon when we have documents of churches quoting books that the churches allowed.. when I quote them you bark at me for not providing you with a petition type list of all the names of every Christian soul in the early centuries who accepted any single book as inherent scripture... at least that's how I hear it although you never stated exactly that.

The Christians used the Septuagint for scripture and if you don't believe that than either the Masoretic is lying or Jesus and the Apostles are misquoting the OT and not a single person in the entire New Testament ever questions them or corrects them.. but whatever, I leave you with the words of someone other than me or Nathan that you can add to your lists of stubborn conspiracy theorists....

....
Perhaps it was a greater piece of audacity to alter the books of the divine Scriptures which had been delivered to the Churches of Christ by the Apostles to be a complete record of their faith by making a new translation under the influence of the Jews. Which of these two things appears to you to be the less legitimate? As to the sayings of Origen, if we agree with them, we agree with them as the sayings of a man; if we disagree, we can easily disregard them as those of a mere man. But how are we to regard those translations of yours which you are now sending about everywhere, through our churches and monasteries, through all our cities and walled towns? are they to be treated as human or divine? And what are we to do when we are told that the books which bear the names of the Hebrew Prophets and lawgivers are to be had from you in a truer form than that which was approved by the Apostles? How, I ask, is this mistake to be set right, or rather, how is this crime to be expiated? We hold it a thing worthy of condemnation that a man should have put forth some strange opinions in the interpretation of the law of God; but to pervert the law itself and make it different from that which the Apostles handed down to us,—how many times over must this be pronounced worthy of condemnation? To the daring temerity of this act we may much more justly apply your words: “Which of all the wise and holy men who have gone before you has dared to put his hand to that work?” Which of them would have presumed thus to profane the book of God, and the sacred words of the Holy Spirit? Who but you would have laid hands upon the divine gift and the inheritance of the Apostles?
There has been from the first in the churches of God, and especially in that of Jerusalem, a plentiful supply of men who being born Jews have become Christians; and their perfect acquaintance with both languages and their sufficient knowledge of the law is shewn by their administration of the pontifical office. In all this abundance of learned men, has there been one who has dared to make havoc of the divine record handed down to the Churches by the Apostles and the deposit of the Holy Spirit? For what can we call it but havoc, when some parts of it are transformed, and this is called the correction of an error? For instance, the whole of the history of Susanna, which gave a lesson of chastity to the churches of God, has by him been cut out, thrown aside and dismissed. The hymn of the three children, which is regularly sung on festivals in the Church of God, he has wholly erased from the place where it stood. But why should I enumerate these cases one by one, when their number cannot be estimated? This, however, cannot be passed over. The seventy translators, each in their separate cells, produced a version couched in consonant and identical words, under the inspiration, as we cannot doubt, of the Holy Spirit; and this version must certainly be of more authority with us than a translation made by a single man under the inspiration of Barabbas. But, putting this aside, I beg you to listen, for example, to this as an instance of what we mean. Peter was for twenty-four years Bishop of the Church of Rome. We cannot doubt that, amongst other things necessary for the instruction of the church, he himself delivered to them the treasury of the sacred books, which, no doubt, had even then begun to be read under his presidency and teaching. What are we to say then? Did Peter the Apostle of Christ deceive the church and deliver to them books which were false and contained nothing of truth? Are we to believe that he knew that the Jews possessed what was true, and yet determined that the Christians should have what was false? But perhaps the answer will be made that Peter was illiterate, and that, though he knew that the books of the Jews were truer than those which existed in the church, yet he could not translate them into Latin because of his linguistic incapacity. What then! Was the tongue of fire given by the Holy Spirit from heaven of no avail to him? Did not the Apostles speak in all languages?"

 

[Josiah]

Lutherans discourage them

Your latest claim: (in a long, long, long catalog of claim)
"Especially Lutherans discourage the reading of the apocrypha."

Long post with NOTHING to confirm this as true. NOTHING.
Not the name of even one of the world's current 72,000,000 Lutherans stating that people shouldn't read the Apocrypha.
Not one quote from a book written by a Lutheran - even a former Lutheran.
No names. No quotes. NOTHING.

you being a prime example

Yet here I am... with 11,500 posts here at CH... and not one quote.
If I'm a "PRIME EXAMPLE" of "especially Lutherans discourage reading the Apocrypha" then where did I state that?
Can't quote me? Think about that.

the fact that the Holy Bible, even in Luther's time, had always included more books that YOU proclaim were never Holy, implies that throught history, the Holy Bible was never 100% Holy.

Quote me saying anything is not "Holy." Then quote me (as ONE Lutheran among 72,000,000) who especially discourages reading anything.

Quote me discouraging anyone from reading ANY book? Can't? Maybe because your latest claim is FALSE.

Can't? Think about that.

you point out "inerrancy and inaccuracies"

Quote me saying anything in anything is "inaccurate." Can't? Yet I'm the PRIME EXAMPLE of how the 72,000,000 Lutherans ESPECIALLY discourage reading the Apocrypha.

YOU have made countless claims.... ALL I'VE DONE is asked for the substantiation. What I've gotten is repetition of the claim again with NOTHING to show it's true or more often the stating of another baseless claim or as here, personal accusations with NOT ONE WORD to confirm it's true.

,you compare them to secular historical books and modern inspirational books

Quote me doing that.

What I said is that a book containing accurate history does not prove it's therefore inerrant, fully canonical, verbally inspired Scripture equal to all the rest. I didn't say ANY BOOK contains inaccurate history, I said just because it's accurate doesn't substantiate your claim.... it doesn't confirm any Jewish Conspiracies, it doesn't confirm ergo it's holy, it doesn't confirm ergo some Ruling Body of Christianity declared it to be fully canonical, it doesn't mean ergo all publishing houses must print it in all the books they sell with BIBLE on the cover....

, you ask for an early Christian Canon when we have documents of churches quoting books that the churches allowed

Quote me saying that no Christians ever used or quoted from books other than the 66.... Quote me.

I said that many Christians DID use and quote from MANY books - likely including all the "them" you are referring to (although you kept changing what books you're referring to). But YES - many Christians DID use and quote for 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabas and probably every book included in the 1611 of the KJV. I NEVER SAID OTHERWISE. Which is why you can't quote me saying what you falsely claim.

What I said is THAT point doesn't substantiate your claim that ERGO all Christians,Christianity regarded them as inerrant, fully canonical, verbally inspired.... "equal to the others"..... Scriptures. You might have tried to show that one did, maybe even three or four but you didn't even try, you just keep saying that the Early Church did this, Christianity did that, with huge bold remarkable claims and NOTHING to support it

AND I noted that USING is not EMBRACING as Scripture - equal to the rest or not. In this discussion, you've quoted from sources not mentioned at the Council or Rome... even YouTubes... confirming that Christians can (and you do) quote and use material NOT regarded as inerrant or canonical or divinely inspired or mandated to be in every tome a book store can sell that has BIBLE on the cover.


Waiting for the quote from me showing I stated, "Do NOT read any book that Andrew might possibily be talking about." Then you'd have ONE of the 72,000,000 Lutherans. But you can't. Think about that.

The Christians used the Septuagint for scripture and if you don't believe that than either the Masoretic is lying or Jesus and the Apostles are misquoting the OT and not a single person in the entire New Testament ever questions them or corrects them..

Quote me ever using the word Masoretic. For anything. Positively or negatively. Can't?

Quote me stating that early Greek Christians didn't use some form of the LXX. I in fact said that they DID.

What I said is that people who can't read koine Greek or ancient Hebrew reading a TRANSLATION does not prove that ergo God inspired that translation and that they accepted everything that might be in some LXX tome as Scripture equal to all the rest, inerrant, fully canonical, inscripturated words of God. You keep making these (I hate to be blunt) ABSURD, illogical, baseless LEAPS... with NOTHING to support it as true, just repeated and followed by even bigger, wild, unhistorical, illogical claims. Sorry. WHY you do this ON THIS TOPIC when we surely don't otherwise, I don't know. Sincerely, I'm very puzzled by that.



Waiting for the quote where I show that I ESPECIALLY, as "The prime example" prove that "Especially Lutherans discourage the reading of the Apocrypha."

Perhaps it was a greater piece of audacity to alter the books of the divine Scriptures which had been delivered to the Churches of Christ by the Apostles

Here's a prime example of what you do.... from your own hand... a verbatim quote. This is perhaps the most radical, absurd bit of circular reasoning I've ever seen, with NOTHING whatsoever to support ANY of it.

You don't show that anyone "ALTERED" anything. Indeed something has to EXIST before it can be ALTERED but you don't prove that either, it's an entirely unsubstantiated claim. Then you claim "it" (which you only claim existed) was delivered by the Apostles - but you don't show ANY Apostle delivering ANY book outside the 66, you just CLAIM they all did with NOTHING to show it, and this by the Churches of Christ yet not one word about any church, much less some grand overwhelming number. Empty, baseless, entirely unsubstantiated claims just assumed and then used to support another assumed unsubstantiated claim. Do you know what circular reasoning is? What I've TRIED to do is to get AT LEAST one claim substantiated.... maybe just one among the countless ones you use like this... and I've not succeeded. Just another claim (also unsubstantiated) and personal accusations like "You are THE PRIME EXAMPLE of Lutherans who especially discourage reading the Apocrypha" when you can't find me ever - ever - discouraging anyone from reading anything.




Look, the last of your claims (I LONG ago lost count of all of them you've made related to these mysteri ous books), is the I'm the PRIME EXAMPLE of how ESPECIALLY LUTHERANS discourage people from reading the Apocrypha.

This latest claim is just like the others: bold, pointed, and ENTIRELY unsubstantiated - a baseless claim attempting to support another equally baseless claim, with a superabundance of circular reasoning.

I've not said that ANY book or writing should not be read by anyone. What you said is, well, false. Or to be generous, a theory you have with zero substantiation. And rather than admit it, you put up a long post to show you have nothing. Nothing. For me or any other of the 72,000,000 Lutherans you accuse in your claim. THINK ABOUT THAT.

THIS is what I've done, with each of your claims in turn (lost track of all of them). Give the substantiation of that as true. Consistenly, you've evaded doing so. You either just repeat it again or substitute another baseless claim or issue a personal attack. And friend, it's ABSURD to support one entirely unsubstantiated claim with a bunch more just like it - all that does is multiply the error (and likely push you into radical circular reasoning). I've TRIED to help you - because I care about you - to no avail.

Albion, Lanman87, Origen, they too have TRIED (with the patience of angels, LOL) to help you see what you're doing on this, the assumed and entirely unsubstantiated claims piled up on each other and used to try to support each other (as if two wrongs make a right). They've gotten nowhere. You ignore them.


More follows...



.

 

[Josiah]

Your latest claim: That I'm the PRIME EXAMPLE of Lutherans who ESPECIALLY discourage the reading of the Apocrypha."

From my 11, 500+ posts, you haven't supplied one that has me saying that. And nothing from the other 71,999.999 Lutherans. And nothing from any Lutheran denomination. NOTHING.

It's also the case in all the other remarkable claims you've made on this topic.






Andy -

IF, IF, IF you had been saying, "Look, there are a lot of works beyond "the 66" that many Christians have cherished, used, quoted, even placed into collections with "the 66" ... historical and important and helpful books... but works that have largely been forgotten among Christians today, especially modern "Evangelicals," and we would be blessed to embrace them again, encouraged to read them." IF, IF, IF you had said THAT, I would have fully agreed and championed that - quoting Luther and my own parish pastor, noting how some Lutheran Lectionaries include readings from them, how Lutherans have a lectionary exclusively for them (readings for each day of the year from them), how my parish had a 6 month study of them. And I know Albion, Lanman87, Origen and others too would have noted their value.

But that's not what you've said. We've gotten all the Jewish Conspiracy theories, how the list of books (you've wavered all over the place on
WHICH books - perhaps unaware that they lists you keep referencing at not the same!) and how "they" were regarded as equal to the rest, how they were in books (there were no books back then!!!) together with the rest, how Christianity and Christians adopted them, and on and on and on and on and on and on.... NONE of it substantiated, just a HUGE glob of such entirely unsubstantiated claims, increasingly thrown together as if that makes any of them true, each used to try to support the other (as if 2 wrongs make a right), with a lot of circular reasoning and personal accusations thrown in. And I long ago lost track of how many times you claimed I said something and when I asked "where?" (because I KNOW I never did), that's just ignored (substantiation seeming to be entirely irrelevant). Frankly, all your wild claims about "them" just has served to discredit them as those who use them. Frankly, the one who has most served to push people away from them is you - by all the obviously baseless claims.

Why have Albion, Lanman87, Origen, Lamm and I stayed with you in this? Because we embrace you as brother and realize ON THIS TOPIC you are being out-of-character (NO CLUE WHY). We want to help.


Blessings!

- Josiah




.

 

[Albion]

The ante-nicene Christians did not segregate nor distinguish them apart from the rest of scripture.

That's nonsense. All you're saying there is that the average churchman who didn't own a copy of the Bible and wasn't a theologian "didn't segregate or distinguish" between the books in those days before the canon was even determined by the Church.

 

[Andrew]

Your latest claim: That I'm the PRIME EXAMPLE of Lutherans who ESPECIALLY discourage the reading of the Apocrypha."

From my 11, 500+ posts, you haven't supplied one that has me saying that. And nothing from the other 71,999.999 Lutherans.


Here's the REALITY:


JUST FROM THIS THREAD....

Post 21


Post 24



In other threads of you and Nathan's, I've noted that I've read Apocrypha books and found them very helpful and inspirational.... I noted that Luther INCLUDED 8 of "them" in his translation (one more than the modern RCC does) and quoted him "encouraging" their reading. I noted that when Lutherans were still using German, Danish, Norwegian, Swedis they were from Luther and the tomes included those 8 books. I noted that Lutherans have a daily lectionary to encourage people to read from the 8 each day. I noted that in my LUTHERAN church, we had a 6 month study of them in the Sunday Pastor's Class, I noted that my Study Bible has all 8 of them in it, with study notes and references to how they connect to the OT and NT.

I can provide those quotes (although they are from other threads here at CH). Glad to do it. But I'll wait for the quotes from me that substantiate how I'm the "PRIME EXAMPLE" of how it's true that "ESPECALLY LUTHERANS DISCOURAGE READING THE APOCRYPHA." But I suspect you're getting the point. And friend, brother... this is the very consistent pattern we have from you on this topic. And it's so out of character for you, making me wonder WHERE are you getting this stuff and WHAT is keeping you from seeing the profound lack of substantiation, the circular reasoning - even when Albion, Lanman87, Origen and others flat out shown it.

I used to think you just don't bother with substantiation and use a LOT of hyperbole. But that would not explain things... and how you don't let it go, you make it worse. As you did with this last claim in your long, long chain on this. It's the pattern.

Would you stop.... sit back.... consider this?



Andy -

Again, still another time, guilty of spamming because I've said this so often..... IF, IF, IF you had been saying, "Look, there are a lot of works beyond "the 66" that many Christians have cherished, used, quoted, even placed into collections with "the 66" ... historical and important and helpful books... but works that have largely been forgotten among Christians today, especially modern "Evangelicals," and we would be blessed to embrace them again, encouraged to read them." IF, IF, IF you had said THAT, I would have fully agreed and championed that - quoting Luther and my own parish pastor, noting how some Lutheran Lectionaries include readings from them, how Lutherans have a lectionary exclusively for them (readings for each day of the year from them), how my parish had a 6 month study of them. And I know Albion, Lanman87, Origen and others too would have noted their value.

But that's not what you've said. We've gotten all the Jewish Conspiracy theories, how the list of books (you've wavered all over the place on
WHICH books - perhaps unaware that they lists you keep referencing at not the same!) and how "they" were regarded as equal to the rest, how they were in books (there were no books back then!!!) together with the rest, how Christianity and Christians adopted them, and on and on and on and on and on and on.... NONE of it substantiated, just a HUGE glob of such entirely unsubstantiated claims, increasingly thrown together as if that makes any of them true, each used to try to support the other (as if 2 wrongs make a right), with a lot of circular reasoning and personal accusations thrown in. And I long ago lost track of how many times you claimed I said something and when I asked "where?" (because I KNOW I never did), that's just ignored (substantiation seeming to be entirely irrelevant). Frankly, all your wild claims about "them" just has served to discredit them as those who use them. Frankly, the one who has most served to push people away from them is you - by all the obviously baseless claims.

Why have Albion, Lanman87, Origen, Lamm and I stayed with you in this? Because we embrace you as brother and realize ON THIS TOPIC you are being out-of-character (NO CLUE WHY). We want to help.


Blessings!

- Josiah




.

.

I have read a novels of your posts throughout more threads on this subject that I can count, you don't have to take my word for it I could care less, thanks for accusing me for altering Jeromes translation in the letter of Rufinus.

You spit in the face of Holy tradition of the early Churcn fathers just as you spit in mine because for having a passion of the true scriptures used by the early churches as even Rufinus to Jerome states, they are scripture from ALL of the churches he has personally attended.

You are against the return to Biblical Tradition because it is too Catholic, you are not your brothers keeper because you are cold and full of hatred toward the Holy Bibles that ALL Christians used BEFORE the Anti'Catholic Bible, the Bible Luther would have REJECTED.

Ignoring you from now on, I am sick of your rude insults, accusations, and sick attitude toward Holy Church Books.

 

[Josiah]

That's nonsense. All you're saying there is that the average churchman who didn't own a copy of the Bible and wasn't a theologian "didn't segregate or distinguish" between the books in those days before the canon was even determined by the Church.

Albion,


I'm HOPING our brother actually reads and considers posts 214 and 215, although I have no reason to think so....


It MAY be "nonsense" but it IS entirely unsubstantiated. Like the countless number of other claims he's made on this topic. It's POSSIBLE he could quote 1 or 2 or maybe even 5 pre-nicene Christians who used a book or even called such "Scripture" (graphi - the word only means "writing" - it would not be for centuries that the word was equated with canon) but he hasn't shown that. So the claim is baseless. But all this does is show the issue was OPEN... not determined by the Apostles as he claims, with all Christians with the SAME Bible because the 14 Apostles handed down the exact same list of 72 or 73 or 74 or 82 or 86 or 90 book it's just that NOT ONE PERSON on Earth speaks of that list or that action and there's zero historical evidence of such ever happening. He could (if he chose; he hasn't) that maybe 6 people on the planet USED all the books he can't agree with himself are "apocrypha" (but wait, ARN'T "apocrypha") but to equate "used" with THEREFORE equal to all the rest is a very weird, crazy theory (he himself proves that "used" by no means even implies that).

What I think he unknowingly is showing is that the were various TRADITIONS... several, none the same as another, none universal, none perfect. SOME eventually (many centuries later) got officially endorsed by a denomination, some by others, most denominations never officially embracing any of them. Instead of focusing on where these have been variant and divergent (and largely irrelevant), I think it would be more helpful to focus on the AMAZING tradition around 66... it was firm (but not perfect, not universal) by the 5th Century (not before that) - certainly in the West, not so much in the Coptic, Syrian, Ethiopean areas. Today: Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Protestants - maybe 95% or more of Christians embrace these 66 (however counted and named) as inerrant, canonical (although not necessarily equally so) divinely inspired Scriptures, cherished and in our Lectionaries and often regarded as normative -and that's been so for 1500 years. Andy and Nathan have TRIED to insist that there's some grand conspiracy to insist that ONLY those 66 books can be read, used, quoted by Christians (NO others allowed!) and some ancient ecumenical law that "they" must be in every tome sold by book stores if it has the word BIBLE on the cover... they note what ONE individual society did TWO HUNDRED YEARS ago as proof that Protestants are now forbidden to read some books so thus they couldn't read them (yet they have, pretty much disproving their own claim).

I have no problem with the Syrian Orthodox, Coptic Orthodox, Egyptian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, Anglican and some Lutheran churches having more than 66 books in their lectionary and some publishing houses, print shops and book stores making available books with 27-94 books in them (especially if the printer doesn't claim THIS number of books was officially declared to be fully canonical, inerrant, divinely inspired and all of them equal in every way - they would be permitted to claim that, but the claim would be false, publishing houses are allowed to lie in books they sell).


Thank you, Albion, for TRYING to be so helpful to our mutual friend! Your patience and spirit of helpfulness is commendable.

A blessed Easter season to you and yours.

Josiah



.

 

[Albion]

You spit in the face of Holy tradition of the early Churcn fathers just as you spit in mine because for having a passion of the true scriptures used by the early churches as even Rufinus to Jerome states, they are scripture from ALL of the churches he has personally attended.

There was no such "tradition." There was a diversity of opinions about which books were inspired and which were not.

You are against the return to Biblical Tradition because it is too Catholic,

There was no such "tradition," not even if we dress the notion up a bit with the word Catholic.

you are not your brothers keeper because you are cold and full of hatred toward the Holy Bibles that ALL Christians used BEFORE the Anti'Catholic Bible,

Come back when you are ready to behave.

 

[Josiah]

you don't have to take my word for it I could care less

So. here's the last in your claims: "You are the prime example of how Lutherans especially discourage the reading of the Apocrypha." I asked for SOMETHING to substantiate that.

And your response: "I could care less."


Friend, you nailed it on the head. On this topic, truth doesn't matter to you. Substantiation for all your amazing, endless claims doesn't matter. You could care less.

You are against the return to Biblical Tradition because it is too Catholic

Since you've now admitted you "could care less" then I won't bother to request some substantiation for this ABSURD claim. You don't care if it's true, you could care less.

Since you've admitted that you simply "could care less" about the truthfulness of your accusations and claims about me... and that you are now ignoring me.... I'm also placing you on my ignore list. No reason to read anything from one who could care less about accusations or truthfulness. You are the first one I've put on IGNORE since I was 10 years old... but the first to say they could care less.



.