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

[NathanH83]

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.






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.



.

Don’t you think there’s possibility that some of the Apocryphal books were in the Jews’ Bible prior to the start of Christianity? And maybe that’s the reason we find the earliest of Christians quoting from them?

In fact, isn’t that kind of where the evidence seems to point?

If when the evidence points in one direction, and if you completely ignore that direction because it’s different from what today’s Jews are saying, so you have to stick with what your Protestant and Lutheran denomination tells you, and you ignore the evidence that is in front of you to stick with your narrative, when that’s not the narrative that the evidence is telling?

 

[Albion]

Albion,


It MAY be "nonsense" but it IS entirely unsubstantiated.

That's true enough, but it isn't that they weren't substantiated. It's that they cannot be substantiated.

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).

Agreed.. The average person thinks that anything which has a possible forerunner or precedent is "traditional." Of course, that doesn't hold true when it comes to the Christian religion, if it even does so in any other case. To be able to point to a handful of predecessors who entertained some notion that is similar but who were scattered through past history as well as geography is not tradition.

As has already been explained to him, the religious meaning of Tradition is that some belief is counted as true if it has always been believed by all and throughout the expanse of the Church, even if it's not taught in Holy Scripture. That would be real tradition.

If anyone is going to talk approvingly about "tradition" having supposedly verified such books as we've been talking about here, he should at least be familiar with what the theory is. Our colleague isn't, nor does he care to learn. As noted, he "could [sic] care less."

 

[Josiah]

Albion,

See posts 214, 215 and his reply in 217.

I picked JUST ONE of his many, remarkable, amazing claims related this... JUST ONE.... only one ... the latest one, his last one. And asked him to substantiate that. Just that one. Could he do it for just ONE of them?

We got his answer. Blunt but right on the head: He could care less.

His claim... his accusation... truthfulness.... substantiation.... "I could care less."

Sad. But it explains something I did not want to see.

And this comes from one on Staff.

Well, I was a fool - yup - and the substantiation is all the time I spent TRYING to help someone who could care less.

He now says he's ignoring me and it's foolish of me not to do the same; he'll get on my ignore list as soon as I'm shown how to do that.



.

 

[Albion]

He now says he's ignoring me and it's foolish of me not to do the same; he'll get on my ignore list as soon as I'm shown how to do that.

Let me know how, when you find out.

No Christian should be forced to put up with this kind of stuff that has shamed the forum.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Some of these posts are just too long.
Too long to read.
Too long for an informal discussion.
Too long for maintaining interest.
Too long too too long just too long!

 

[Andrew]

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

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


Come back when you are ready to behave.

Really? No tradition yet Jerome translated "something" and still every book kept them in the Holy Bible until an authorized Bible Society removed them in the 19th Century.

 

[NathanH83]

Some of these posts are just too long.
Too long to read.
Too long for an informal discussion.
Too long for maintaining interest.
Too long too too long just too long!

True, I don’t read most of them. Just don’t have time for it.

 

[NathanH83]

Really? No tradition yet Jerome translated "something" and still every book kept them in the Holy Bible until an authorized Bible Society removed them in the 19th Century.

Church authority required Jerome to include them. Who the heck let the modern Bible societies take them out?

 

[MoreCoffee]

until an authorized Bible Society removed them in the 19th Century.

The bible societies were not authorised by an ecclesiastical or government authority. The British & Foreign Bible Society and the Edenborough Bible Society removed them for their own reasons. The removal was met with opposition on the European Continent.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Church authority required Jerome to include them. Who the heck let the modern Bible societies take them out?

They did it on their own for their own reasons - the reasons seem prejudicial and rather anti-Catholic.

 

[Andrew]

They did it on their own for their own reasons - the reasons seem prejudicial and rather anti-Catholic.

Thank you!

Quotes from the book "The Bible Cause"

"The ABS took a decidedly Protestant and American approach to the Bible. The Bible was a book of liberty. It not only taught individuals how to be free from the bonds of sin and the devil, but it was wholly compatible with the kind of political liberty that flowed naturally from the American Revolution"

"Protestantism, the religion of the Bible, was a religion of freedom. Catholicism was a threat to democracy and all forms of religious liberty. It substituted the truth of God for the theological reflections and inventions of men"

"This was an organization of lay leaders (mostly businessmen), not professional theologians. It did not work with churches or denominations"

Note: This is the horrible reality, this organization exploited the Holy Bible and corrupted the traditional Protestant and Catholic Bibles by removing books that both denominations had always found beneficial whether they regarded them as Canonical or Apocryphal. Throughout this history book on the American Bible Society you find out that these men not only wanted to make more money from using less paper but were extreme Anti-Catholic radicals, not necessarily for theological reasons, but of prejudice against foreigners of which the majority of were Catholic.
Of course MY PERSONAL OPINION after having read this book.

 

[Lanman87]

Don’t you think there’s possibility that some of the Apocryphal books were in the Jews’ Bible prior to the start of Christianity?

Which Jews? It is my understanding that different sects of Jews held different "traditions" about the Old Testament books. Some held to the Law and the Prophetical books and others only considered the 5 Books of the Law to be binding scripture. Some we don't know enough about to determine their belief system.

 

[Josiah]

Don’t you think there’s possibility that some of the Apocryphal books were in the Jews’ Bible prior to the start of Christianity?

Well....

1. There were no books then (books were invited centuries later... and the concept of a Bible also came centuries later). There were a few (2 or 3 perhaps) LISTS of what some considered "scripture"in some sense, but no books, no Bibles.

2. Yes, it's not only possible but certain that SOME (important word!) books which you MIGHT (perhaps) consider Apocrypha (thus, not canonical) were among books Jews used and probably thought of as Scripture. I don't think anyone here has disagreed with that (but then you've admitted you don't necessarily read what people say.

3. Now, that does not prove that ERGO all were viewed equally or even canonically... it does not prove that some mysterious Ruling Body of Judaism declared "them" (which?) to be Scripture or inerrant or canonical or inspired... it does not prove that Christianity considered "them" (which?) to be anything or some mysterious Ruling Body of all Christianity declared them to be anything.... it does not prove some Jewish conspiracy or some Christian conspiracy... it just means that for the Jews, what is and is not canonical was an open question.

And MAYBE that's the reason we find earliest Christians quoting them?

Well, we can find a FEW (3, 4, maybe even 10) quoting from this "them." They also quoted from the Church Fathers (a lot!), from philosophers, etc. Christians (including you) often quote from things beyond the 39 OT or 27 NT books - even YouTubes, movie and TV videos, etc. But do we find a lot of Christians stating "And 4 Maccabees is equal to the Pentetuch, it is inerrant, fully canonical, inspired words of God?" No, we see folks quoting them (as Christians at times still do.... Luther quoted from SOME a lot, even though he especially stated that they are NOT canonical, NOT to be used to source or norm dogma, NOT equal to the rest).

And yes, of course, they would use a translation - the common one - because few of them could read Hebrew. Just like here, many quote from some English translation because most here can't read Hebrew. Simple, huh? Doesn't substantiate anything except people who can't read the original language of a work might read a translation of it. Nothing more.

If when the evidence points in one direction .....

And the key there is IF. Not, when a person makes a remarkable claim with ZERO substantiation for it and admits they don't even care if it's true, therefore we are to just swallow it whole. As you note, there needs to be evidence, substantiation. What we've found here is NOTHING. Your "if" has simply been circumvented.

Protestant and Lutheran denomination tells you

I doubt you have a clue what my Lutheran denomination tells me about this.

your narrative

I doubt you have a clue what my narrative is.... you've admitted to not reading things. I've stated it many times but again, you don't read. And you've never asked me for my view and so I doubt you care. More claims.... no substantiation.




.

.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Which Jews? It is my understanding that different sects of Jews held different "traditions" about the Old Testament books. Some held to the Law and the Prophetical books and others only considered the 5 Books of the Law to be binding scripture. Some we don't know enough about to determine their belief system.

What the Jews in their various sects at the time of Christ thought and what the Jews of later times thought or think today is not relevant. Judaism is not Christianity. Whatever is counted as holy scripture by Jews is up to them. One thing we can be sure about is that Judaism does not now and never has received the 27 books of the new testament. A Jewish canon or many Jewish canons is certain not to include the new testament.

It is Christians who decided what is canonical holy scripture for Christians. For Catholics it is 73 books.

 

[Albion]

Don’t you think there’s possibility that some of the Apocryphal books were in the Jews’ Bible prior to the start of Christianity? And maybe that’s the reason we find the earliest of Christians quoting from them?

In fact, isn’t that kind of where the evidence seems to point?

If when the evidence points in one direction, and if you completely ignore that direction because it’s different from what today’s Jews are saying, so you have to stick with what your Protestant and Lutheran denomination tells you, and you ignore the evidence that is in front of you to stick with your narrative, when that’s not the narrative that the evidence is telling?

Hi, Nathan. Thanks for posting that thoughtful message. To answer all of what you brought up in as concise a way as possible, the fact is that the Jews were divided right down the middle about those books both before and after Christ, and that's one reason (in addition to the content, etc.) for the Christian councils to not be able to give them an unqualified seal of approval.

So the evidence doesn't point in one direction as you suggested; it's just the opposite.

I do think, however, that it's terribly presumptuous to claim that what is explained in response to a question being asked of the forum is nothing more than "you have to stick to what your...denomination tells you."

What's more, many of us have changed denominations over the years precisely because we were persuaded, from our studies, that one or more of them that we'd associated with previously are teaching incorrectly.

That, IMO, is far better than what we often encounter online, which is people who decide to become their own denomination in effect (and usually therefore label themselves as simply "Christian" or "non-denominational") by boycotting every Christian church after they've found that their personal hunches about God, etc. find no support from the Bible, linguists, historians, or theologians.

 

[Albion]

Really? No tradition yet Jerome translated "something" and still every book kept them in the Holy Bible until an authorized Bible Society removed them in the 19th Century.

They were kept WITH the Bible books, but not as additional books of the Bible.

I also find it telling that every time someone here wants to say that the Apocrypha is equal in authority with the OT and NT, he finds it necessary to use ambiguous language when making that claim.

 

[Lanman87]

What the Jews in their various sects at the time of Christ thought and what the Jews of later times thought or think today is not relevant. Judaism is not Christianity.

That is not entirely true. While it is true that Chrisitianity is not Judaism and do think we need to take ancient Jewish thought into the equation. The Old Covenant was to the Jews, God's chosen people. By the work of Christ, Gentiles (us) were grafted into Israel. Romans 11:11-24.

One reason I've seen for not accepting the Dueterocanon is that it is up to the Jews to determine the Old Testament books. The Old Covenant was to the Jews and the Old Testament is about the History, Law, and interaction of God with the Jews. Therefore, we should receive the Old Testament books from the Jews and follow their tradition.

For whatever reason, soon after the time of Christ the majority of Jews rejected the Deutero Books. My guess is that it was because the Septuagint was a Greek Translation used by the Hellenistic Jews but not used by the Orthodox Hebrew speaking Jews. Also, the fact that Rome sacked Jerusalem probably made the Jews want to get rid of any hint of anything that wasn't completely Hebrew in nature.

We know that Josephus, the first Century Jewish Historian, does not include them in his list of Old Testament books (but does include all the books of the Protestant Old Testament). So there seems to be a disconnect between the Septuagint and Jewish scholars very early in the 1st Century. A good three hundred years before Jerome argued that we shouldn't accept as part of the Old Covenant what the Jews don't accept.

 

[MoreCoffee]

we need to take ancient Jewish thought into the equation.

We do already, the apostles were Jews who became the founding fathers of the Church. That was Christ's plan. And choosing the canon of holy scripture was a work of the Apostles' successors and the Holy Spirit in them. But the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes and whatever other ancient Jewish sects may have created a list or a canon or whatever of books that they received as holy is irrelevant except insofar as they left copies of the holy books for Christians to find and use.

 

[Andrew]

They were kept WITH the Bible books, but not as additional books of the Bible.

I also find it telling that every time someone here wants to say that the Apocrypha is equal in authority with the OT and NT, he finds it necessary to use ambiguous language when making that claim.

Again, this is not about canon, this is about the traditional series of books that were always in every Holy Bible of both Catholics and Protestants alike.

Lutherans call them Apocrypha
Catholics call them Deuterocanon
Either way, they were found to be of great value to the churches and worthy of being placed in their Bible, as among Sacred Scripture or in designated section apart from Scripture.

There was never a protest to have them taken out but rather protest against taking them out by both Protestants and Catholics alike.

The video MoreCoffee posted provides us with the documents that testify of this.

 

[MoreCoffee]

All 73 books in a Catholic bible are canonical. There is nothing ambiguous about that language. Those 73 books are inspired by God and are useful for teaching the truth, rebuking error, correcting faults, and giving instruction for right living.