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]

All that and more. EOC accept 3 Maccabees and 1 Esdras which Catholics don’t.

Isn't 1 Esdras "Ezra"?

 

[Andrew]

Isn't 1 Esdras "Ezra"?

Ezra is Ezra, 1rst Esdras is really 2nd Esdras if you consider Ezra to be 1rst Esdras, 2nd Esdras in the EOC is 3rd Esdras because they call Ezra 1rst Esdras, making 2nd Esdras to the Greek a FOURTH Esdras to the Catholics.
So second Esdras in the Greek is also refered to as 4th Esdras... simple!

Im certain I got some of that wrong.
Nathan has a video where he explains it better, as well as proving that Jesus quotes 2nd/4th Esdras

 

[Albion]

Yeah and guess what, Apocrypha books weren't allowed in the churches at all!, these did not include the books found in the LXX.

You're mistaken about that.

 

[Albion]

God provided the corpus of Scripture for the early churches, it was not by mere happenstance either, Jesus and the Apostles quote from the Septuagint as it's primary source of Scripture.

Change my mind

Quote a few of the Apostles saying that any of these Apocryphal books were inspired the same as the Old Testament books that we all recognize.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Ezra is Ezra, 1rst Esdras is really 2nd Esdras if you consider Ezra to be 1rst Esdras, 2nd Esdras in the EOC is 3rd Esdras because they call Ezra 1rst Esdras, making 2nd Esdras to the Greek a FOURTH Esdras to the Catholics.
So second Esdras in the Greek is also refered to as 4th Esdras... simple!

Im certain I got some of that wrong.
Nathan has a video where he explains it better, as well as proving that Jesus quotes 2nd/4th Esdras

My Douay Rheims Bible has 1 Esdras and 2 Esdras (aka Nehemias).

 

[Albion]

I thought the great schism divided the RCC and the EOC, regardless, both still hold "Apocrypha" books (give or take a few) as scripture, just as the first churches did.

The Great Schism did not mark the beginning of doctrinal disagreements between Rome and the East. It merely was the 'breaking point' event.

And for you to say that both sides acknowledge some books of the Apocrypha is another and typical dodge.

The issue concerned the fact that the Eastern churches never accepted some of the doctrinal innovations that Rome claimed were valid thanks to the Apocrypha. If the oldest churches in Christendom did not accept such unScriptural doctrines, it's obvious that all claims about tradition, RCC-style, are invalid. If anyone would know what was believed by tradition, it would be the Orthodox.

 

[Albion]

Nathan has a video where he explains it better, as well as proving that Jesus quotes 2nd/4th Esdras

...which is what Anglicans, Lutherans, and other reformed Christians have done for centuries. This was all explained to you earlier and proven to be true.

But quoting the Apocrypha does not mean that the contents of those books is divine revelation. Not at all. It just means that there is something worthwhile that we can learn from them.

 

[Andrew]

...which is what Anglicans, Lutherans, and other reformed Christians have done for centuries. This was all explained to you earlier and proven to be true.

But quoting the Apocrypha does not mean that the contents of those books is divine revelation. Not at all. It just means that there is something worthwhile that we can learn from them.

Have you read 2nd Esdras? Do you know that God actually tells Esdras the good news and how everything is about to change soon and what events will occure?
Did you know that Jesus quotes 2nd Esdras?
Have you read Wisdom 2? Did you know that the talks about the son of God being slowly tortured and how the Jews will taunt him saying "If he truly is the son of God, then truly God will rescue him"
Have you read Tobit?
Did you know it mentions the 7 Angels of the Lord that stand before the Throne of God?, that we only hear of in Revelation?
Or in Sirach that the Word of God will live amongst men?

How about the fact that after the Temple was destroyed, the Scribes and Sadducies went away, leaving only the Pharisees and Christians for Jews to follow. The Pharisees created a false form of Judaism called "Rabbanic Judaism", the Oral Torah and the Talmud are equally divine as the TORAH itself, the rest of the Tanakh -the Prophets and writings, are the least important and Jewish life is all about studying the Torah and the Talmud, these are the curriculum of Jewish study.
The Prophets no longer matter, the writings no longer matter, their long awaited Messiah is not longer anticipated and there is no need for a Jew for a Savior... you can ask any honest Rabbi this, or go to Rabbanic Judaism websites and find out how eager they are for a Prophet or a Messiah... crickets... Rabbis believe they are the prophets, what they write down is Holy and Divine, their Messiah is Moses who gave them the Law.
They murdered the prophets, they murdered their Messiah. If the Jews don't receive a book a canonical but Christians did, then that's the way God intended it, Christ is our example, since the Jews don't recieve Jesus Christ as their Messiah nor the Gospel as Holy Divine, so be it, Christians shouldn't accept only what the Jews accept, and when it comes to Scripture that the churches use, remember that they recieved it BEFORE any Hebrew canon was even formed.
Some fathers quoted Wisdom more than others, other churches may have quoted Tobit and Judith in their sermons more than Wisdom, some may not have had only a few books in their library, some more, but this was a matter of limited resources and not because they were judgy.

Pick a book from the Septuagint, Deuterocanon, or "Apocrypha", there is more value and wisdom in there than what most pastures spout, or the penltiful unfruitful Christian youtube preachers that love to attack other churches.

That's what Christianity has become, followers of hostile theologians and ear ticklers with plenty of skeletons in their closets, starting up new denominations that reminds me of the evergrowing choices of gender identities. Aren't we SUPPOSED to be of ONE accord?

One thing we do have in common is the love for the Gospel, but denominations are created out of fueding against the former.
One thing that the early Church had in common with eachother was the use of reading from books that they held in common, instead of shadow banning books depending on denominations, walking up to the pulpit to read from Tobit is frowned upon.. when it used to be typical for the majority of churches to read from approved Ecclesiastical writings for examples of Holy living... now we have preachers using the Lion King in their sermons, Alladin, and other fairy tales.
My local Catholic priest would have the fantastic stories that he claimed happened to him, they are entertaining but totally fabricated, is that normal in churches these days? To tell personal stories that aren't personal but made up for giggles and a twist?

Nathen and I would rather enjoy discussing exegesis on some of these books but all we ever got was discouraging remarks and ridicule.
Truth is, more and more Christians are reading them now but unfortunately many of them are ignorant enough to read books that are also called Apocrypha, and rightfully called so, along with the so called "Apocrypha".

I encourage all to pick a book from the "Apocrypha" or Deuterocanon, give it a read, and see if it blessed you with a wise lesson that you may find useful down the road.

 

[Andrew]

My Douay Rheims Bible has 1 Esdras and 2 Esdras (aka Nehemias).

I totally made a mess of mistakes in my explanation, my Catholic Bible's also contain 1rst and 2nd Esdras, 2nd Esdras is the book Jesus quotes from and is also the book where God reveals the coming of His son Jesus [Messiah in the Good News Bible] who will die to loose many of the bondage of sin and make all things new for a new people obedient to my will and the promised Kingdom which was arranged for the Jews but by their disobedience, wickedness, murderous and worship of other gods, I will reject their offerings and turn away from them save those who kept my commandments and to my people not of the circumcision, and who have no knowledge of me will know my name and those who murder, lie and celebrate the moon festivals and all of their sabbaths will not inherent His kingdom for I will forsake them and leave them disolent...

Wowie!

 

[Albion]

Have you read 2nd Esdras? Do you know that God actually tells Esdras the good news and how everything is about to change soon and what events will occure?

Stories about God and other spiritual matters are found in almost every religion, and the mere idea of there being a god and something about his presumed plans and wishes is certainly not evidence that the writing is divine revelation! As for the expected coming of the Messiah in particular, that is not a belief that's dependent upon the Apocrypha. Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Hosea offer very specific information about him.

If it happend to be so, the church wouldn't have had to determine which of the many theological books floating around in the early years of church history were part of the word of God and which others were of human origin.

 

[Josiah]

Quote a few of the Apostles saying that any of these Apocryphal books were inspired the same as the Old Testament books that we all recognize.

The list of ENTIRELY UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIMS just keeps growing longer and longer and longer.... NOTHING presented to show such is true, they are just repeated and repeated as if saying something enough times makes it exempt from truthfulness.


I've asked Andy this question many times.... he has presented NOTHING to show it's true. Perhaps truth just doesn't matter to him?

Apocrypha books weren't allowed in the churches at all!

What Apocrypha?

Who/what made it illegal/forbidden to include "them" between the covers of a tome with the word "BIBLE" on the cover? Quote the institution that declared this, the date and place in which it did; quote the ruling.

All churches? Please provide the evidence that every church on Earth received this declaration and thus was forced to remove their collection of apocryphal books?

Won't? Because you can't?

Perhaps we should add this to the ever-growing, long list of unsubstantiated claims on this topic? Or just conclude that for you truth is simply irrelevant?

Orthodox churches accept all the books regarded as canonical by the Catholic Church.

....but not the other way around. NO church agrees with The Catholic Church on what is and is not canonical Scripture, the RCC has a UNIQUE corpus that NO OTHER church on earth agrees with - or ever has.




.

 

[Andrew]

The list of ENTIRELY UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIMS just keeps growing longer and longer and longer.... NOTHING presented to show such is true, they are just repeated and repeated as if saying something enough times makes it exempt from truthfulness.


I've asked Andy this question many times.... he has presented NOTHING to show it's true. Perhaps truth just doesn't matter to him?

Stories about God and other spiritual matters are found in almost every religion, and the mere idea of there being a god and something about his presumed plans and wishes is certainly not evidence that the writing is divine revelation! As for the expected coming of the Messiah in particular, that is not a belief that's dependent upon the Apocrypha. Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Hosea offer very specific information about him.

If it happend to be so, the church wouldn't have had to determine which of the many theological books floating around in the early years of church history were part of the word of God and which others were of human origin.

Albion, Quote the Apostles listing all of the canonical books of the OT.

I have posted in and created threads upon threads with references, quotes, allusions from the Apostles toward "Apocrypha" books.
I will not be going in the same circles with you as Josiah does by dismissing every qoute, every allusion and every refference from thread to thread by asking for them again and again and again with his big list of things he has forgotten, maybe one day I will copy and paste all my threads and post in a blogger link.

2nd Esdras literally states the name Jesus, being thr Son of God, being sent by God within 400 years and he will die shortly after for the sins of many etc.. that is prophecy, that came to pass, also "Thus sayeth the Lord" is stated over and over PLUS Jesus QUOTES from this very BOOK.

Wisdom chapter 2, is likewise not just some spurious religious writings as it also contains prophecy with specific dialogs that are found in Mathew, in a way, Mathew confirms this prophecy in Wisdom.

Josiah, define Scripture according to the Church, according to you it just means "writings", and thus when a early Church Father quotes Wisdom as scripture, he couls also quote Moby Dick as scripture if he wanted to... by your definition, however, no books other than CHURCH SCRIPTURE were allowed into the CHURCH, so no, by your definition of Scripture to mean writings in general, that is false for according to the NT; All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

The Ecclesiastical books (so called "Apocrypha") is Church Scripture for the reasons listed above.

 

[Albion]

Albion, Quote the Apostles listing all of the canonical books of the OT.

That was YOUR assignment.

YOU made the claim that the Apostles had quoted from Scripture, by which you meant the Apocrypha. I asked for you to quote some of them doing so. But of course it proves nothing about our topic here if they did quote from the Apocrypha, because doing so does not in any way imply that these books are divine revelation, i.e. inspired writings.

As I noted before, Protestants quote from the Apocrypha as well and they know that these writings are not inspired and aren't part of the Old or New Testaments. In other words, you cannot show that the Apostles or Christ himself considered these writings to be Holy Scripture just because something or other that's found in them might be referred to once in awhile by anyone.

 

[NathanH83]

All right. So now we have both of the "Do-it-Yourself" Christian theologians here admitting that they "don't care."

That being the case, and considering that neither of them has presented a case for their own preferences that accords with Christian history, let's move to another topic!

I care about what the EARLY Christians said. I care about the councils in the 300’s. I care about what the author of Hebrews said. I care about what the Apostolic fathers said who knew the disciples.

Let me clarify: I don’t care about what 6th century heretics said.

 

[Andrew]

That was YOUR assignment.

YOU made the claim that the Apostles had quoted from Scripture, by which you meant the Apocrypha. I asked for you to quote some of them doing so. But of course it proves nothing about our topic here if they did quote from the Apocrypha, because doing so does not in any way imply that these books are divine revelation, i.e. inspired writings.

As I noted before, Protestants quote from the Apocrypha as well and they know that these writings are not inspired and aren't part of the Old or New Testaments. In other words, you cannot show that the Apostles or Christ himself considered these writings to be Holy Scripture just because something or other that's found in them might be referred to once in awhile by anyone.

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. Go through my data base and word key search them.

 

[Albion]

I have provided quotes from "Apocrypha" books in the NT far too many times already,

Anyone can do that--provide quotes from the Apocrypha. That wasn't what was requested of you.

The follow-up question to you was concerned with your claim about the Apostles citing these writings and your assumptions about what they might have meant by doing so.

Specifically, the issue was whether the writings were considered by them to be either inspired or not. You apparently want to think that referring to these books means agreeing to the proposition that these writings are divine revelation, but we know that this isn't warranted, since thousands of Christian churches that pointedly state that they are not inspired, not part of the Bible, still cite them for various other reasons.

I am not you and Josiahs dancing monkey,

All right. I accept that statement as your admission that you cannot back up your claim with any facts.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Why does an inspired book need to be quoted by an apostle in order to be accepted as inspired?

 

[Albion]

Why does an inspired book need to be quoted by an apostle in order to be accepted as inspired?

It doesn't.

However, when the claim is made that if an Apostle quotes from some writing, doing so "proves" that the Apostle considered that book to be inspired...then we are dealing with a logical fallacy as well as a theological mistake.

 

[Andrew]

Anyone can do that. The challenge to you concerned your claim about the Apostles citing them and your assumptions about what they might have meant so far as these writing being either inspired or not inspired.

All right. I accept that statement as your admission that you cannot back up your confident claim with any facts.
[/QUOTE]
accept, don't accept, doesn't matter, we here at Christianity Haven do not delete posts or threads, as much time as I have spent researching, fact checking Gary Machuta, David Bercot, buying specific book studies on single Bible books for dates for authentication of prophecy, copying and pasting qoutes using 3 seperate android apps and a notebook app, all for YOU and JOSIAH to dismiss with strawmen arguments to change the subject, obscure and debatable semantics, secular reasoning (i.e. Scripture; especially in Church terms, means any writing, thus Cat in the Hat is Scripture)... the LEAST you could do is search "Apocrypha" in my data base or something... the YouTube channel "Apocrypha Apocalypse" points out dozens of these quotes, I get much of my studies from fact checking his claims with my Bible.

Have fun!! Bye bye!

 

[Andrew]

Why does an inspired book need to be quoted by an apostle in order to be accepted as inspired?

It's one of their favorite strawmen arguments, they use at least 6 different strawmen in rotation, so by the time I knock all 6 down, they ask for the qoutes again