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

[Josiah]

You are confusing American Evangelicals with Protestants. All American Evangelicals are Protestant (not Catholic or EO) but not all Protestants are American Evangelicals. Anglicans are still very friendly with the Duetero books. So are Lutherans.

@NathanH83
@Andy


Yes, it seems our friends are confusing a FEW modern American "Evangelicals" with Protestants and Protestantism. Just as they seem to confuse The American Bible Society with Protestantism.


Andy, Nathan,

Let's try this AGAIN.

If you want to buy a Bible that has 27-83 books it in (and hundreds of other things) YOU CAN. No one, nothing, is keeping you from it. Buy one you think is right for you. It's legal. It's allowed. It's available. And has been so for centuries. Simple. Easy.

And....

IF, IF, IF you two had been saying....

"Look, there are a number of books beyond "the 66" that many Christians have cherished, used, quoted, even called "Scripture" and placed into collections with "the 66" ... books perhaps 7 to 20 or so in number.... historical and important and helpful books... but works that have largely been forgotten among a few Christians today, especially modern American "Evangelicals," and we would be blessed to embrace them again, blessed if all were encouraged to read them, perhaps not as fully canonical but certainly as inspirational and very helpful."

IF, IF, IF you two 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 in these many, many threads and posts on the topic of "those books."

What we've gotten is a LOT of remarkable, unsubstantiated (and at times clearly false) claims. Lots of Jewish conspiracy stuff, lots of claims about "the early church" and "put in" and "ripped out." SWEEPING generalizations clearly false. Incredible hyperbole. A lot of circular reasoning and bad logic. Even personal attacks and accusations. But nothing in terms of substantiation (although FINALLY, at LONG LAST, Andy has "retracted" a couple of things but substantiated nothing). For those who think truth matters, this is very disturbing.




.

 

[Andrew]

@NathanH83
@Andy


Yes, it seems our friends are confusing a FEW (unidentified) modern American "Evangelicals" with Protestants and Protestantism. Just as they seem to confuse The American Bible Society with Protestantism.


Andy, Nathan,

Let's try this AGAIN.

I addressed what I have found recently in the records of the ABS, they were non denominational and non theological business men who wanted to save money by taking out the deuterocanon/Apocrypha and not being theologians, they chose to call themselves Protestants because they thought that the Canon of the Protestants would allow them to print less books, not knowing that Protestants still included the Apocrypha in Protestant Bibles and used them for edification and examples of faithful morals.

Thus I do not believe the ABS were actuals Protestants and far from representing Protestantism, they are businessmen and didn't care for foreigners who were typically Catholic, the demand for a complete bible would hurt their wealth.

Are we clear on that matter now Josiah?

 

[Andrew]

But he ought to know that those who wish to live according to the teaching of Sacred Scripture understand the saying, 'The knowledge of the unwise is as talk without sense,' [Sirach 21:18] and have learnt 'to be ready always to give an answer to everyone that asketh us a reason for the hope that is in us.' [1 Pt 3:15] " Origen, Against Celsus, 7:12 (A.D. 248),in ANF, IV:615

As is written in the book of Tobit: 'It is good to keep close the secret of a king, but honourable to reveal the works of God,' [Tobit 12:7]--in a way consistent with truth and God's glory, and so as to be to the advantage of the multitude." Origen, Against Celsus, 5:19(A.D. 248),in ANF,IV:551.

The sacred writers to whom the Son has revealed Him, have given us a certain image from things visible, saying, 'Who is the brightness of His glory, and the Expression of His Person;' [Heb 1:3] and again, 'For with Thee is the well of life, and in Thy light shall we see lights;' [Ps 36:9] and when the Word chides Israel, He says, 'Thou hast forsaken the Fountain of wisdom;' [Baruch 3:12] and this Fountain it is which says, 'They have forsaken Me the Fountain of living waters' [Jer 2:13]" [3] Athanasius the Great: Defense of the Nicene Faith,2 (A.D. 351), in NPNF2, IV:158.

And where the sacred writers say, Who exists before the ages,' and 'By whom He made the ages,' [Heb 1:2] they thereby as clearly preach the eternal and everlasting being of the Son, even while they are designating God Himself. Thus, if Isaiah says, 'The Everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth;' [Is 40:28] and Susanna said, 'O Everlasting God;' [Daniel 13:42-Susanna] and Baruch wrote, 'I will cry unto the Everlasting in my days,' and shortly after, 'My hope is in the Everlasting, that He will save you, and joy is come unto me from the Holy One;' [Baruch 4:20,22]" Athanasius the Great: Discourses Against the Arians, 1:4 (A.D. 362), in NPNF2, IV:313

 

[Josiah]

I addressed what I have found recently in the records of the ABS, they were non denominational and non theological business men who wanted to save money by taking out the deuterocanon/Apocrypha and not being theologians, they chose to call themselves Protestants because they thought that the Canon of the Protestants would allow them to print less books, not knowing that Protestants still included the Apocrypha in Protestant Bibles and used them for edification and examples of faithful morals.

Thus I do not believe the ABS were actuals Protestants and far from representing Protestantism, they are businessmen and didn't care for foreigners who were typically Catholic, the demand for a complete bible would hurt their wealth.

Are we clear on that matter now Josiah?

@Andy
@Origen
@Lanman87
@Albion



Andy -

It's taken TWO YEARS.... and a LOT of work and time and effort by Origen, Albion, Lanman 87, others and myself.... a LOT of it.... over two years... but it seems it might be paying off. It's dawning on you: a lot of what you and Nathan have been saying is, well.... it requires being retracted. If we've helped you (perhaps not Nathan) then that's great; we care about each other at CH.

Please consider:

IF for over 2 years you had been saying....

"There are a number of books beyond "the 66" that many Christians have cherished, used, quoted, even called "Scripture" and placed into collections with "the 66" ... books perhaps 7 to 20 or so in number.... historical and important and helpful books... but works that have largely been forgotten among a few Christians today, especially modern American "Evangelicals," and we would be blessed to embrace them again, blessed if all were encouraged to read them, perhaps not as fully canonical but certainly as inspirational and helpful."

IF you had said THAT, you'd need retract nothing. All that could be easily substantiated. 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 for two years in these many, many threads and posts on the topic of "those books." We got a LOT of things.... repeated endlessly (and variently) that you now realize need to be retracted. Perhaps our persistence and hard work has not been in vain? AND, you drove me into the topic, to study it more, to get back into my class notes and books, and that's a good thing. I want to greatly thank Origen, Lanman and Albion - I learned a lot from them!! One of the best reasons to come to a site like this is to learn and grow. Have you?



Josiah



.

 

[NathanH83]

I agree. Maccabees was a Jewish History book that Jews would be familiar with. If you were a Hellenist Jew you probably thought it was scripture. If you were a Palestinian Jew, probably not. Hebrews was written to Jewish converts in the 1st Century. The Old Testament records Jewish History till a certain point, but not the inter-testament period.


There was a mixed tradition in the early church. If you were a Christian in the 2nd Century you may or may not have been taught that Macabees is Scripture, depending on who your Bishop was and where you lived.

Augustine was the catalyst that caused the councils of Hippo and Rome to say they are part of the canon. Augustine was hugely influential in the 4th Century Church and those councils followed his lead.

Did you ever think there was a mixed tradition among the Jews?

The Sadducees didn’t believe in a resurrection. They wouldn’t have taken a liking to 2 Maccabees, since it talks about the resurrection.

But the Pharisees DID believe in the resurrection. And since Paul was a Pharisee, and since Paul was likely the author of Hebrews, then it seems pretty clear that the Pharisees were Jews who accepted 2 Maccabees as scripture. That’s why the Christians did. That’s why early church councils declared Maccabees to be scripture. Because that’s the tradition handed down to them by the disciples.

 

[NathanH83]

I agree. Maccabees was a Jewish History book that Jews would be familiar with. If you were a Hellenist Jew you probably thought it was scripture. If you were a Palestinian Jew, probably not. Hebrews was written to Jewish converts in the 1st Century. The Old Testament records Jewish History till a certain point, but not the inter-testament period.


There was a mixed tradition in the early church. If you were a Christian in the 2nd Century you may or may not have been taught that Macabees is Scripture, depending on who your Bishop was and where you lived.

Augustine was the catalyst that caused the councils of Hippo and Rome to say they are part of the canon. Augustine was hugely influential in the 4th Century Church and those councils followed his lead.

There is no “inter-testamental” period. The Old Testament was finished when Jesus said on the cross “It is finished.”

The beginning of the New Testament IS the end of the Old. A testament does not go into effect until the death of the testator.

 

[NathanH83]

Here's what I said:



You argued that because the author of Hebrews references a BOOK, therefore that BOOK is Scripture. Problem is, he doesn't reference a book (as you yourself proved!), he alludes to an EVENT. You assume he knew of that event from 2 Maccabees (and that's possible) but he says NOTHING about the book, he seems to allude to an EVENT that is mentioned in 2 Maccabees. Your statement is wrong. Even a kindergartner is able to see right through your dishonesty, your false claim.





Another false claim. NOWHERE in the NT are those books so much as mentioned, much less referred to. Any kindergartner can see right through that false claim.

And of course, the Bible DOES reference, by NAME, specifically and verbatim, several books you don't accept as canonical (they've been listed to you many times, complete with a verse where one is specifically named). So, since you don't accept a book just because it IS referenced, why should we accept a book that (as you've proven) is NOT referenced?



.

Illogical. Most Old Testament books are not mentioned by name. Most quotes are just quoting or referencing without mentioning the name of the book.

Illogical argument.

For example:
2 Peter 2 references the story of Balaam. That story is only recorded in Numbers 22. But he doesn’t mention the book of Numbers.

Hebrews 11:35 alludes to the stories of Elijah and Elijah, which comes from 1 and 2 Kings. But those books are not mentioned by name in Hebrews 11.

Hebrews 11 also mentioned Gideon, Barak, Jephthah, and Samson. But the name of the book they’re from, the book of Judges, is not mentioned by name.

Your insistence that the NAME of the book Maccabees isn’t found in the New Testament is illogical. It’s an illogical point, and a moot point. It means nothing. It proves nothing. It’s a pointless argument.

 

[Andrew]

@NathanH83
@Andy


Yes, it seems our friends are confusing a FEW modern American "Evangelicals" with Protestants and Protestantism. Just as they seem to confuse The American Bible Society with Protestantism.


Andy, Nathan,

Let's try this AGAIN.

If you want to buy a Bible that has 27-83 books it in (and hundreds of other things) YOU CAN. No one, nothing, is keeping you from it. Buy one you think is right for you. It's legal. It's allowed. It's available. And has been so for centuries. Simple. Easy.

And....

IF, IF, IF you two had been saying....

"Look, there are a number of books beyond "the 66" that many Christians have cherished, used, quoted, even called "Scripture" and placed into collections with "the 66" ... books perhaps 7 to 20 or so in number.... historical and important and helpful books... but works that have largely been forgotten among a few Christians today, especially modern American "Evangelicals," and we would be blessed to embrace them again, blessed if all were encouraged to read them, perhaps not as fully canonical but certainly as inspirational and very helpful."

IF, IF, IF you two 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 in these many, many threads and posts on the topic of "those books."

What we've gotten is a LOT of remarkable, unsubstantiated (and at times clearly false) claims. Lots of Jewish conspiracy stuff, lots of claims about "the early church" and "put in" and "ripped out." SWEEPING generalizations clearly false. Incredible hyperbole. A lot of circular reasoning and bad logic. Even personal attacks and accusations. But nothing in terms of substantiation (although FINALLY, at LONG LAST, Andy has "retracted" a couple of things but substantiated nothing). For those who think truth matters, this is very disturbing.




.

For the record I as well as many ancient and modern apologists have noted the changes to the bibles at the hands of early Pharisaic Rabbis mainly Rabbi Aqiba and Aquila his translator who provided a new greek to the Jewish synagogues after the Christians gathered at their churches, but there is a lot more to it than that, and btw, calling it a Conspiracy Theory is fine, just remember though who conspired against Christ.

As for that subject, I'm taking a sabbatical from that topic here and planning on a project of some sort that I can organize wl enough for a fair presentation.

 

[Josiah]

As for that subject, I'm taking a sabbatical from that topic here and planning on a project of some sort that I can organize wl enough for a fair presentation.

@Andy


You made TWO amazing, remarkable claims just today! And you've not bothered to offer ANYTHING to show they are true. Nothing. And no retraction (admitting they aren't true), no evidence, no apology, no nothing. There they stand...

And while you have "retracted" two claims you've made on this topic over the past two years, that's all.

I hope, I trust you are not "leaving" all those unaddressed? Running away isn't dealing with them. They are all still there... for all to see and and read....



.

 

[Andrew]

@Andy


You made TWO amazing, remarkable claims just today! And you've not bothered to offer ANYTHING to show they are true. Nothing. And no retraction (admitting they aren't true), no evidence, no apology, no nothing. There they stand...

And while you have "retracted" two claims you've made on this topic over the past two years, that's all.

I hope, I trust you are not "leaving" all those unaddressed? Running away isn't dealing with them. They are all still there... for all to see and and read....



.

If in a year or so I make a 40 minute video presentation you have to watch it okay?


I'm resigning so I don't have to check in as often, and honestly we have some toxic conversations that I never intended on having, you obviously run the show here and can do whatever you want, flood threads with repost after repost, scoff at whomever, run people off, you dont have an open ear for anyone, you are closed off, biased and are free to do just that!!
You make people so frustrated because you dont listen and you repeat the same thing over and over until they snap! And then strike one for that person, strike two and three "yerrrrrrrr ouut!!!!"

I cant let that happen to me as a mod.

Now I can take a break and not worry about checking in, plus we haven't had too much going on anyway. But I need to stop while I'm ahead.

See you around

 

[Albion]

Now I can take a break and not worry about checking in, plus we haven't had too much going on anyway. But I need to stop while I'm ahead.

If you were ever "ahead," it would have been about two weeks ago.

 

[Josiah]

Now I can take a break and not worry about checking in, plus we haven't had too much going on anyway. But I need to stop while I'm ahead.

@Andy
@Lamb


You've made several entirely unsubstantiated (and absurd) claims about me.... two just yesterday... personal..... and now you say you are running off. Leaving all those claims and accusations ... in most cases, not retracted, not apologized for, public for all to see. Would you please think and pray about this? Perhaps discuss with Lamm?

Unlike you've tried to cast this (again, focusing on ME), the issue has never been you (no one is going to buy the "pur, pur me" pitch). This has never been about you - not for me, not for anyone. And of course I'm not the only one noting your need for evidence and substantiation, not the only one TRYING so hard to help you. In that company are Origen, Lanman, Albion, atpollard and others.

The issue has never been you, it's always been truth. I've always liked and respected you and still do... I've always been thankful of your service on staff and still am ... but two years ago, you got on this horse. And it became all-consuming. I have NO CLUE where you are getting this stuff... and you are certainly welcomed to echo it here... but when ANYONE (not just YOU, your "you pic'n on pur me" thing doesn't work), when ANYONE posts remarkable claims here, there is a call to substantiate it. The issue has never been you (you are liked), it's always been truth. THAT has been the issue for origen, lanman, albion, and several others, including me.

Yeah, I and others have repeated that call for two years. And it SEEMED to me that maybe.... after two years.... after all those posts repeating the call... it MAYBE was beginning to work. A little bit anyway. You said you "retracted" two of those many, many, many long-standing claims (both about me). GOOD!!!!! Maybe our patience and hard work was beginning to pay off? Your admission yesterday that you don't have substantiation for your claims was huge and directly contradicted what you'd said for two years in countless posts and threads. And your admission that you made numerous claims about Lutherans... but have never met even one ... I felt maybe that was part of an epiphany? But now, you've retreated and seem to want to take a very unfortunate path.

Friend... my counsel to you is to cease making this personal, against you. Cease blaming others for what perhaps has become evident to you. Yeah, take a break from this topic but not from CH. And I very sincerely hope you will not step away from the staff here. I like you. I respect you. I'm thankful for you. And what happened on this topic, this "horse" you got on, always stunned me because it is SO out of character for you.


Would you please consider this?


Blessings!


- Josiah



.

 

[Bluezone777]

Acts 17:10-12 came to mind just now. In this passage Paul commends the Bereans for both being willing to hear his message and also go to the scriptures to see if it was true what he and his group were telling them. In other words, he commended them for substantiating his claims rather then just blindly accepting them without any investigation or just blindly shutting them out without giving them a fair chance. When you make a claim and don't show how you come to that conclusion, you are expecting people to just accept a claim without any substantiation and any sensible person shouldn't do that.

When I read threads that either Andrew or Nathan posts, they show the conclusions they have come to on the topic but don't show any of the work that led them to that conclusion which leaves the reader nothing to even remotely discuss other then to point out the lack of evidence and to call for it or to just outright reject it and not even bother to ask for any evidence. A better discussion to be had would be showing both the conclusion and what led you to believing the conclusions you have provided from the start.

When Daniel L for example made his claim that killing animals was murder and eating them was a sin, many people asked for substantiating evidence that proved the claim was true. They did to him what they are doing to you because it's the right thing to do. The first stop to correcting error is to expose it to the light. To do otherwise would be to leave your fellow man to possible error and how could you claim to care about others if you have no qualms about leaving them in their error rather then checking for error and then exposing and attempting to correct it if error is found?

 

[NathanH83]

Acts 17:10-12 came to mind just now. In this passage Paul commends the Bereans for both being willing to hear his message and also go to the scriptures to see if it was true what he and his group were telling them. In other words, he commended them for substantiating his claims rather then just blindly accepting them without any investigation or just blindly shutting them out without giving them a fair chance. When you make a claim and don't show how you come to that conclusion, you are expecting people to just accept a claim without any substantiation and any sensible person shouldn't do that.

When I read threads that either Andrew or Nathan posts, they show the conclusions they have come to on the topic but don't show any of the work that led them to that conclusion which leaves the reader nothing to even remotely discuss other then to point out the lack of evidence and to call for it or to just outright reject it and not even bother to ask for any evidence. A better discussion to be had would be showing both the conclusion and what led you to believing the conclusions you have provided from the start.

When Daniel L for example made his claim that killing animals was murder and eating them was a sin, many people asked for substantiating evidence that proved the claim was true. They did to him what they are doing to you because it's the right thing to do. The first stop to correcting error is to expose it to the light. To do otherwise would be to leave your fellow man to possible error and how could you claim to care about others if you have no qualms about leaving them in their error rather then checking for error and then exposing and attempting to correct it if error is found?

Huh????
We haven’t shown the work that led us to our conclusions?

Uh, on which points?

I’ve made the point that Hebrews 11:35 is referencing 2 Maccabees 7.

What led me to this conclusion? Well, I read a marginal note in the original printing of the KJV where in Hebrews 11:35 the marginal note references 2 Maccabees 7. Then I read 2 Maccabees 7, and I found that the story matches up with Hebrews 11:35.

Then I found out from David Bercot’s audio teaching (I can provide a link to it) that it has been understood throughout church history that Hebrews 11:35 is a reference to 2 Maccabees 7 and the tortured men in that chapter. David Bercot has read the entire collection of the Ante-Nicene fathers. He’s very knowledgeable.

Then I showed a quote from Origen (a church father) who quoted 2 Maccabees and Origen called Maccabees Holy scripture.

Then I showed 3 early church councils (Rome, Hippo, and Carthage) which took place in the 300’s and declared Maccabees to be holy scripture. (I can provide links to those councils).


I mean, all I’ve been doing is showing the work, showing the work, and showing the work that led me to this conclusion. How have I “not been showing the work” that led me to these conclusions?

Have you read Hebrews 11:35?
Have you read 2 Maccabees 7?

I think you need to do the work of reading these passages. I think I’ve shown my work.

Please explain to me how I haven’t been “showing my work” that led me to these conclusions? On which points exactly???? What are you talking about?

 

[Josiah]

I’ve made the point that Hebrews 11:35 is referencing 2 Maccabees 7.

No. You made that CLAIM... then showed that Hebrews MAY be referencing an EVENT, not a book. You proved your claim isn't true.

Then I showed 3 early church councils (Rome, Hippo, and Carthage) which took place in the 300’s and declared Maccabees to be holy scripture. (I can provide links to those councils).

And you admitted those meetings were not ecumenical councils... and had little to no impact bringing their authority greatly into question. Yes, those churches in align with the Pope in Rome - western, latin churches - did seem to embrace those books (how, the status of which is highly questioned) but no other churches did. And none still do. Not even western Latin churches in submission to the Bishop in Rome followed these meetings... it was not uncommon for western RCC Bibles to INCLUDE books never mention at these meetings... indeed, to do so well into the 16th and 17th Centuries... obviously these meetings don't carry the significance you assume.


.

 

[Albion]

Huh????
We haven’t shown the work that led us to our conclusions?

Uh, on which points?

I’ve made the point that Hebrews 11:35 is referencing 2 Maccabees 7.

I'll agree that you showed what it is that led you to your conclusion. And we in turn showed why that information didn't in any way show that your conclusion was correct.

So, do we all have things in order now?

 

[NathanH83]

I'll agree that you showed what it is that led you to your conclusion. And we in turn showed why that information didn't in any way show that your conclusion was correct.

So, do we all have things in order now?

Your conclusion doesn’t make any sense to me.

All my life as a Christian, whenever I would read Hebrews 11:35, I always got the impression from the context of the chapter that the story of the men being tortured not accepting deliverance, that that story comes from Biblical history. I’ve ALWAYS gotten the impression from the context of the chapter that it was referencing Old Testament biblical history. That’s why it always confused me so much.

It was almost as if Paul was talking about some book of Biblical history that I SHOULD have read about, but for some mysterious reason that book has been hidden from me, and I never knew why.

But even though it confused me, it never even DAWNED on me to check the Catholic Apocrypha. Like, that idea never even entered my mind. It was literally the furthest thing from my mind to check what the Catholic Apocrypha has to say.

Instead, I just trusted that whatever Hebrews 11:35 is talking about, God knows, and maybe he’ll reveal it to me someday.

Well, I’m thankful that day has come now. I’m SO HAPPY that I decided to investigate the Apocrypha. NOW I KNOW who those tortured men are.

And after listening to David Bercot’s audio tapes, NOW I KNOW that 2 Maccabees is also a part of Holy Scripture.

It all makes sense now!

I love it.

God is awesome.

 

[Josiah]

All my life as a Christian, whenever I would read Hebrews 11:35, I always got the impression from the context of the chapter that the story of the men being tortured not accepting deliverance, that that story comes from Biblical history. I’ve ALWAYS gotten the impression from the context of the chapter that it was referencing Old Testament biblical history. That’s why it always confused me so much.

... and that seems fine. But it's a huge (and baseless leap) to insist that THEREFORE, if some book tells of that story, it must be inerrant, fully canonical, divinely-inscripturated Scripture and some grand law must mandate that every publisher and bookstore include it in any tome with the word BIBLE on the cover.

I agree that it's very likely the author of Hebrews has an EVENT in mind. And my Bible notes that. But here's the point you never proved: A book that tells of that event MUST be Scripture and MUST be in every Bible.

Well, I’m thankful that day has come now. I’m SO HAPPY that I decided to investigate the Apocrypha.

I'm glad you did, too.

It's very sad that some modern American "Evangelicals" seem so ignorant of them. I fully agree that many of them are precious, full of helpful information and inspiration. But of course that doesn't mean that there was some Jewish or Protestant conspiracy against them, that all helpful and inspirational books are inerrant, fully canonical, divinely inscripturated Scripture, that Christianity declared some to be Scripture (it's just no one got the list of which), and there must be some law mandating they be in all tomes with the word BIBLE on the cover. It means that we have some excellent, helpful, inspirational books - long treasured but pretty much forgotten by some modern American "Evangelicals." Maybe those "Evangelicals" need to check out their local Lutheran, Anglican, Orthodox or Catholic church?

As a Catholic, I knew NOTHING about them...never heard a word from them, didn't know anything about them. When I became Lutheran, then I was encouraged to read them, I participated in a 6 month study of them, I purchased a Bible from a Lutheran publishing house (it included them) and saw all the great notes and cross references provided by this Lutheran tome. I'm sure the same might be true for American Evangelicals.




.

 

[NathanH83]

... and that seems fine. But it's a huge (and baseless leap) to insist that THEREFORE, if some book tells of that story, it must be inerrant, fully canonical, divinely-inscripturated Scripture and some grand law must mandate that every publisher and bookstore include it in any tome with the word BIBLE on the cover.

I agree that it's very likely the author of Hebrews has an EVENT in mind. And my Bible notes that. But here's the point you never proved: A book that tells of that event MUST be Scripture and MUST be in every Bible.






I'm glad you did, too.

It's very sad that some modern American "Evangelicals" seem so ignorant of them. I fully agree that many of them are precious, full of helpful information and inspiration. But of course that doesn't mean that there was some Jewish or Protestant conspiracy against them, that all helpful and inspirational books are inerrant, fully canonical, divinely inscripturated Scripture, that Christianity declared some to be Scripture (it's just no one got the list of which), and there must be some law mandating they be in all tomes with the word BIBLE on the cover. It means that we have some excellent, helpful, inspirational books - long treasured but pretty much forgotten by some modern American "Evangelicals." Maybe those "Evangelicals" need to check out their local Lutheran, Anglican, Orthodox or Catholic church?

As a Catholic, I knew NOTHING about them...never heard a word from them, didn't know anything about them. When I became Lutheran, then I was encouraged to read them, I participated in a 6 month study of them, I purchased a Bible from a Lutheran publishing house (it included them) and saw all the great notes and cross references provided by this Lutheran tome. I'm sure the same might be true for American Evangelicals.




.

I think that this fact combined with listening to David Bercot’s 2-hour audio teaching on the Apocrypha is more than enough evidence. I’m convinced.


Hour 1:

Hour 2:

 

[NathanH83]

... and that seems fine. But it's a huge (and baseless leap) to insist that THEREFORE, if some book tells of that story, it must be inerrant, fully canonical, divinely-inscripturated Scripture and some grand law must mandate that every publisher and bookstore include it in any tome with the word BIBLE on the cover.

I agree that it's very likely the author of Hebrews has an EVENT in mind. And my Bible notes that. But here's the point you never proved: A book that tells of that event MUST be Scripture and MUST be in every Bible.




.

I disagree with that. I don’t think it’s the tiniest leap at all. I think that any educated child in junior high who simply reads Hebrews 11 is going to come away from the chapter thinking that the author of Hebrews was referencing the many biblical figures throughout biblical history that are recorded in scripture. Thus, the context insinuates that the author of Hebrews considers the men who were tortured as ALSO a part of that biblical history that is recorded in sacred scripture.

That’s not at all a giant leap. More like one small logical step. Any normal child would think that. This is NOT some kind of AdHoc leap in logic here. The context VERY strongly suggests it. The fact that you’re even arguing against it is pretty pathetic, really.