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]

A thought or two regarding saint Jerome's vulgate and accompanying notes.

 

[NathanH83]

One more time, Nathan --

Referring to an old writing does not mean that the writing in question is inspired or that the person referring to it considers it to be inspired. Anybody who knows the first thing about church history and Catholic theology knows this.

Any 3rd grader can understand context. The context of Hebrews 11 is Old Testament Biblical history.

You must think I’m dumber than a 3rd grader.

 

[Andrew]

Any 3rd grader can understand context. The context of Hebrews 11 is Old Testament Biblical history.

You must think I’m dumber than a 3rd grader.

Gary has a video dedicated to this where he qoutes dozens of Protestants confirming this!
I need to find it again. It was common among Protestants

 

[Albion]

Any 3rd grader can understand context. The context of Hebrews 11 is Old Testament Biblical history.

...which doesn't explain why you imagine that Hebrews affirms an Apocryphal writing as being divine revelation simply because it makes a reference to the contents of that Apocryphal book.

You must think I’m dumber than a 3rd grader.

 

[Albion]

Gary has a video dedicated to this where he qoutes dozens of Protestants confirming this!

Since when did that fact decide any issue of this importance?

Name almost any controversy in church history and everybody here would be able to find "dozens of Protestants confirming" it. Or Catholics or wannabe Catholics or people who've made themselves their own denomination, for that matter.

Having lost the argument on its own merits, you've been reduced to defending the indefensible by saying there are other mistaken people in the world. too. Yes, there probably are.

I need to find it again. It was common among Protestants

Why not just say that you refuse to be anyone's "dancing monkey" again and do nothing?

I have provided quotes from "Apocrypha" books in the NT far too many times already, I am not you and Josiahs dancing monkey, I am not going to entertain you two any longer with quotes.

 

[Andrew]

Protestants I guess will call these Protestant Commentaries Heresy

 

[Josiah]

substantiated substantiated substantiated substantiated.

You keep using that word.

@NathanH83


Yup. Because some here think truth matters.

LOTS of claims by you and Andy... LOTS.... big, remarkable ones.... and nothing given to show the claims are true.

The church has known for centuries that Hebrews 11:35 is referencing 2 Maccabees 7.

What "church?"


Another claim with NOTHING to show it's true. Another! Still another!


You have offered NOTHING WHATSOEVER to show that Hebrews 11:35 is referencing 2 Maccabees 7. What you have shown is that it's likely Hebrews is referencing an EVENT, a bit of history, that is also recorded in 2 Maccabees. But that does not mean the author of Hebrews is referencing a book, obviously, If I said "The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor" and I note that a book printed in the Soviet Union also states that bit of history, that doesn't prove I'm referencing that book. Think.


And of course, even if your claim was true (and you've powerfully shown it's not), that has NOTHING AT ALL to do with substantiating that the author of Hebrews regarded 2 Maccabees as Scripture or canon or inerrant or inspired... nearly every Christian references stuff (as you have videos, for example) that does not substantiate that whatever if referenced is thus inerrant, fully canonical, divinely inspired Scripture. Think.

You’re ignoring church history.

No, you are.

When you insist that Christianity did all the things you claim it did. Which is why you can offer no substantiation for the claims. It didn't happen. Your claims are not historically true. YES, you can support that a TINY number of INDIVIDUAL persons (maybe 3, 4, 5) embraced some book beyond "the 66", even listed along with "the 66" (books like the Didache, the Shepherd of Hemas, The Epistle of Barnabas, etc.) but that's not Christianity, that's not The Church. When you DO present something, you simply show that your claim is not supported. But usually, you don't even try.

Your claims that the Apocryphal books don’t belong are what’s not substantiated.

Quote me where I said that anything doesn't belong. Can't? We all know why.

And it's weird you post this to me when you know that 2 Maccabees IS in my Bible.




.

 

[Albion]

More evidence on our side than yours

But apparently, we have to take your word for it, since you won't or can't point to your "evidence."

The very title of this thread is a falsehood and has been shown to be so. Therefore, your team, which is attempting to defend any side issue it can come up with, is left to say that there have been a few people in Christian history who also were wrong.

So what?

The rest of us have already admitted that there are indeed some people in the world who have the wrong idea concerning this or another doctrinal or scriptural issue, so what is it that you actually are determined to defend???

 

[Lanman87]

Protestants I guess will call these Protestant Commentaries Heresy

The Book of Macabees was well known by the Early church. It was considered a historical book by the Jews that accurately related the Maccabean revolt. Whoever wrote Hebrews was writing to Jewish Christians. It is therefore logical for the writer of Hebrews to invoke Jewish History and historical figures that were well know by the Jews.

Historically, Protestants admit that the books are good to read and contain historical truth. The writer of Hebrews apparently agreed. The fact that the writer of Hebrews alluded to a historical event in Jewish History does not mean that he thought the book that that event was recording in is "God Breathed Scripture".

Making an allusion to non-canonical books does not mean that the writer thought that book as Canonical Scripture. The New Testament writers used all kinds of cultural, historical, and religious material in order to show people their need for Christ.

If that is your standard then you have to include the Book of Enoch (Jude) the Assumption of Moses (2 Timothy 3:8, Jude 9), and the Apocalypse of Moses (2 Cor 11:14 and 12:2) as Biblical Text. They were all books that were read in the 1st Century and were all alluded to by New Testament writers. However, I don't see anyone going around claiming those books are inspired scripture. Most would agree that they are cultural/historical references that would have been familiar to the reader. Not an endorsement that those books are scripture.

 

[Josiah]

If that is your standard then you have to include the Book of Enoch (Jude) the Assumption of Moses (2 Timothy 3:8, Jude 9), and the Apocalypse of Moses (2 Cor 11:14 and 12:2) as Biblical Text. They were all books that were read in the 1st Century and were all alluded to by New Testament writers. However, I don't see anyone going around claiming those books are inspired scripture. Most would agree that they are cultural/historical references that would have been familiar to the reader. Not an endorsement that those books are scripture.

Good point, Lanman87

And if "included in lists along with 'the 66'" is the standard, then The Didache, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabas, the First Epistle of Clement, The Revelation of Peter, the Gospel of the Hebrews and more would therefore be inerrant, canonical, divinely inspired Scripture and covered by the claimed grant international law mandating that all books sold with the word "BIBLE" on the cover MUST include those books between the covers.

And if a book is actually MENTIONED in the Bible (unlike the book of Tobit or Maccabees) means ergo that's proof that it's inerrant, canonical, divinely-inspired Scripture and must (by law) be in every tome with the word "BIBLE" appearing on the cover, then all the following qualify: The Book of the Wars of the Lord (Numbers 21:14-15) The Book of the Upright One (Joshua 10:13) The Annals of Solomon (1 Kings 11:41) The Annals of the Kings of Israel (1 Kings 14:19 and 2 Chron. 20:34) The Annals of the Kings of Judah (1 Kings 15:7) The Records of Samuel (1 Chron. 20:29) The Records of Shemaiah (2 Chron 12:15) The Acts of Uzziah (2 Chron 26:22) and more.

And if a Christian quoting from a source (outside "the 66") proves that's inerrant, canonical, divinely-inspired Scripture and must (by law) be in every tome with the word "BIBLE" appearing on the cover, then obviously every book written by Max Lucado qualify because some modern American "Evangelicals" quote him.... and some YouTube videos qualify because Nathan and Andy reference them.




.

 

[Lanman87]

Here are a couple of interesting videos on the Topic of the canon. They are part of a series of interviews by Houston Baptist University Professor (who got into trouble with Al Molher at Southern Seminary) with Lee Martin McDonald, who has written several books about the Canon of Scripture.

These are two scholarly people (that doesn't mean the are always right but it does mean they are educated). In other words, there are people like me who read books about these topics and there are people like them who write books about these topics.

These aren't short videos but after watching us abuse each other on this thread I found them very interesting.

 

[NathanH83]

Here are a couple of interesting videos on the Topic of the canon. They are part of a series of interviews by Houston Baptist University Professor (who got into trouble with Al Molher at Southern Seminary) with Lee Martin McDonald, who has written several books about the Canon of Scripture.

These are two scholarly people (that doesn't mean the are always right but it does mean they are educated). In other words, there are people like me who read books about these topics and there are people like them who write books about these topics.

These aren't short videos but after watching us abuse each other on this thread I found them very interesting.

Looks helpful. I’ll check it out when I get time

 

[NathanH83]

But apparently, we have to take your word for it, since you won't or can't point to your "evidence."

The very title of this thread is a falsehood and has been shown to be so. Therefore, your team, which is attempting to defend any side issue it can come up with, is left to say that there have been a few people in Christian history who also were wrong.

So what?

The rest of us have already admitted that there are indeed some people in the world who have the wrong idea concerning this or another doctrinal or scriptural issue, so what is it that you actually are determined to defend???

We already pointed to the evidence.
Did I not mention the letter of Clement? Did I not mention the writings of Ignatius and Polycarp? They can be found in the Ante-Nicene fathers. Did I not mention the councils of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage?

Yes, we already pointed to the evidence.

 

[Andrew]

.

 

[NathanH83]

.View attachment 1843

Esther is never mentioned in the New Testament. Never even alluded to.

But Hebrews 11:35 DOES allude to 2 Maccabees, and the context implies that it’s biblical history. And 2 Maccabees references “Mordecai’s Day” (aka Purim) on the 14th of Adar.

So the New Testament doesn’t verify Esther. But the New Testament verifies Maccabees, and Maccabees verifies Esther.

Poor Mileto. Got deceived that Esther isn’t scripture. But we know better, thanks to Clement.

 

[Josiah]

But Hebrews 11:35 DOES allude to 2 Maccabees, and the context implies that it’s biblical history.

No. As you yourself proved, it never mentions ANY book - 2 Maccabees or any other. It MAY refer to an EVENT, a historical EVENT, which 2 Maccabees also speaks, but it's an EVENT that it alludes to, not a book, not any book.

And just because it alludes to an EVENT does not mean that therefore anything that also alludes to that event must ergo be holy Scripture, the inerrant, fully canonical, divinely inscripturated words of God and that some grand international law thus mandates that all such books be included in any tome printed or sold with the word BIBLE on the cover.

the New Testament verifies Maccabees

Another claim... with NOTHING WHATSOEVER offered to substantiate it.






.

 

[Josiah]

Esther is never mentioned in the New Testament.

Hum... So, if some mysterious person (obviously, not here, not posting in any thread here), according to you makes a claim here... and it's not substantiated as true... ergo it's false. But when you make a claim here.... and don't substantiate it at all... ergo it's true. Hum.

Just because some mysterious, unidentified person not participating in this discussion may make some claim that isn't substantiated is thus false does NOT mean therefore all your unsubstantiated claims are true. Think about that.


I don't think anyone posting in these threads with you denies that SOME modern American "Evangelicals" have made some unsubstantiated claims about "apocryphal" books. But that does not mean that therefore all your unsubstantiated claims are thus true. Remember Jesus' "log and speck" point?





.

 

[Andrew]

No. As you yourself proved, it never mentions ANY book - 2 Maccabees or any other. It MAY refer to an EVENT, a historical EVENT, which 2 Maccabees also speaks, but it's an EVENT that it alludes to, not a book, not any book.

And just because it alludes to an EVENT does not mean that therefore anything that also alludes to that event must ergo be holy Scripture, the inerrant, fully canonical, divinely inscripturated words of God and that some grand international law thus mandates that all such books be included in any tome printed or sold with the word BIBLE on the cover.





Another claim... with NOTHING WHATSOEVER offered to substantiate it.






.

Josiah, quote one single mention in the NT where anyone names the title of an Old Testament book, besides the ONE instance where Jesus reads from the Scroll of Isaiah using the Septuagint Hebrew-Source, which you are not a fan of one bit and will probably add this very claim of mine to your list of claims I have made, if this claim is false, then kudos for accepting the source that Jesus accepted!

 

[Josiah]

Josiah, quote one single mention in the NT where anyone names the title of an Old Testament book, besides the ONE instance where Jesus reads from the Scroll of Isaiah

Quote where I claimed anyone did.


It's beyond strange that you demand I substantiate claims I never made.... while you refuse the substantiate the many claims you have made.

Here's just a short list of some of those....

The Apostles declared what is and is not canonical Scripture...

All books found in all Bibles are equal....

"The Church" "Christianity" "Christians" declared what is and is not canonical Scripture...

"Protestantism" declared what is and is not canonical Scripture...

There is ONE set of "Apocrypha" books (always the same corpus)....

Every Bible among Christians contained EXACTLY THE SAME material from 300-1800....

The American Bible Society is The Authoritative Ruling Body for Protestantism, what it says is therefore what Protestantism says.

Jude states that the Book of Enoch is Scripture....

Lutherans especially discourage the reading of "them"....

I (Josiah) am THE "prime example" of one who discourages the reading of "them"..

I (Josiah) rejects the Bible of Luther (although I have and use one)...

I (Josiah) am a "neo-Lutheran" who is apathetic toward the movement of the" Protestant Deformation" (Whatever that gobbledygook means)

and many more...



.

 

[Andrew]

Quote where I claimed anyone did.


It's beyond strange that you demand I substantiate claims I never made.... while you refuse the substantiate the many claims you have made.

Here's just a short list of some of those....

The Apostles declared what is and is not canonical Scripture...

All books found in all Bibles are equal....

"The Church" "Christianity" "Christians" declared what is and is not canonical Scripture...

"Protestantism" declared what is and is not canonical Scripture...

There is ONE set of "Apocrypha" books (always the same corpus)....

Every Bible among Christians contained EXACTLY THE SAME material from 300-1800....

The American Bible Society is The Authoritative Ruling Body for Protestantism, what it says is therefore what Protestantism says.

Jude states that the Book of Enoch is Scripture....

Lutherans especially discourage the reading of "them"....

I (Josiah) am THE "prime example" of one who discourages the reading of "them"..

I (Josiah) rejects the Bible of Luther (although I have and use one)...

I (Josiah) am a "neo-Lutheran" who is apathetic toward the movement of the" Protestant Deformation" (Whatever that gobbledygook means)

and many more...



.

You are pushing it Josiah. This is trolling.
I have apologized and retracted the ones about Protestants ripping out scripture and calling you a Neo Lutheran who discourages people from the Deuterocanon, prime example etc.
A few of those claims I have never made, what you are doing is pure propaganda against me by not removing from the list things I retracted and adding in more without context. As for the rest, I have addressed with evidence that you may reject and that's fine if you reject what I have presented, but your list of yours is 100% comprimised and corrupt.

Post this list again and I am reporting you