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]

Isn't 1 Esdras "Ezra"?

1 Esdras in the KJV is called 3 Esdras by Catholics. But yea, the EOC just calls it Ezra. That’s what the Orthodox Study Bible calls it, Ezra.

 

[NathanH83]

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! [emoji38] [emoji1787]

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

It’s crazy confusing because Protestants, Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox all number them 3 different ways.

 

[NathanH83]

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.

Hebrews 11:35 is to me the most obvious example.

But then there’s also Hebrews 13:2 and John 10:22.

 

[NathanH83]

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

When I said 1 Esdras, I was talking about 1 Esdras in the KJV, which Catholics deem 3 Esdras.

What Catholics call 1 Esdras is actually just Ezra.

 

[NathanH83]

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

Notice how the Latin Vulgate has 1, 2, 3, and 4 Esdras.

The King James changes the name of 1 and 2 Esdras to Ezra and Nehemiah. Then the KJV also changed 3 and 4 Esdras to 1 and 2 Esdras. This causes people to confuse 1 and 2 Esdras in the KJV with the 1 and 2 Esdras in the Latin Vulgate. But they’re not the same.

Then the Eastern Orthodox do something completely different. Ezra is now 2 Ezra. 2 Esdras is just Nehemiah. 3 Esdras is now 1 Esdras as in the KJV. And 4 Esdras isn’t included.

tOtAlLy cOrNfUsInG

 

[NathanH83]

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

Obviously an inspired book doesn’t need to be quoted by an Apostle in order to be accepted as inspired, since numerous Old Testament books are never quoted in the New Testament. It’s just another one of their double standards. And it’s not even true since the Apocryphal books ARE referenced and quoted in the New Testament. So it’s both a double standard and a LIE.

 

[NathanH83]

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.

That logical fallacy is put forth by Protestant teachers who say, “Jesus and the disciples quoted the Old Testament, but never the Apocrypha! See, that proves it!”

I’ve heard this from numerous Bible teachers.

 

[NathanH83]

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.

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

“Back up your claim with facts”

That’s all you people have. You shift the burden of proof because you can’t defend your own position. We’ve already shown you the “facts” that THREE early church councils accepted the Apocryphal books and declared them to be scripture. THREE!

Rome, Hippo, and Carthage.

Can you show THREE early church councils that rejected the Apocrypha? No. You can only show ONE council and a few people’s personal opinions.

We’ve shown THREE early church fathers, Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp who knew the disciples personally, and who quoted the Apocryphal books as scripture.

Can you show THREE early church fathers who knew the disciples personally and rejected the Apocrypha? No.

Man, get outta here. The FACTS are on OUR side. But you wanna keep shifting the burden of proof and say:

“Back up your claim with evidence”
“Back up your claim with evidence”
“Back up your claim with evidence“

Man, back up YOUR claims with evidence!

We’ve got 10 times more evidence than you could ever HOPE to have!

 

[Andrew]

Hebrews 11:35 is to me the most obvious example.

But then there’s also Hebrews 13:2 and John 10:22.

It's funny because the Masoretic has Jesus and the Apostles misqouting scripture most of the time, so this is another bad argument Protestants make

 

[Albion]

Hebrews 11:35 is to me the most obvious example.

But then there’s also Hebrews 13:2 and John 10:22.

I asked for some substantiation (see below) for the claim that Apostles cited verses from the Apocrypha because they believed those verses to be divinely inspired.**

Andy had no answer and you've responded to the request by naming two NEW TESTAMENT books (!) instead of something from the Apocrypha.

** "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."

 

[NathanH83]

I asked for some substantiation (see below) for the claim that Apostles cited verses from the Apocrypha because they believed those verses to be divinely inspired.**

Andy had no answer and you've responded to the request by naming two NEW TESTAMENT books (!) instead of something from the Apocrypha.

** "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."

These New Testament verses are referencing the Apocrypha.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Notice how the Latin Vulgate has 1, 2, 3, and 4 Esdras.

The King James changes the name of 1 and 2 Esdras to Ezra and Nehemiah. Then the KJV also changed 3 and 4 Esdras to 1 and 2 Esdras. This causes people to confuse 1 and 2 Esdras in the KJV with the 1 and 2 Esdras in the Latin Vulgate. But they’re not the same.

Then the Eastern Orthodox do something completely different. Ezra is now 2 Ezra. 2 Esdras is just Nehemiah. 3 Esdras is now 1 Esdras as in the KJV. And 4 Esdras isn’t included.

tOtAlLy cOrNfUsInG

The Vulgate makes a whole lot of sense with its numbering of the Esdrases.

 

[Josiah]

These New Testament verses are referencing the Apocrypha.

1. You have zero substantiation.

2. Quoting a book (even if you had such) does not mean that the source ergo must be inerrant, canonical, divinely inscripturated words of God. Your assumption on that is just.... well.... absurd.




.

 

[Josiah]

I asked for some substantiation (see below) for the claim that Apostles cited verses from the Apocrypha because they believed those verses to be divinely inspired.**

Andy had no answer and you've responded to the request by naming two NEW TESTAMENT books (!) instead of something from the Apocrypha.

** "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."

Good luck, Albion....

Look at the MANY threads Andy and Nathan have produced on this topic.... the plethora of posts from them.... NEVER any substantiation for any of their claims. It just doesn't happen.



.

 

[Andrew]

Good luck, Albion....

Look at the MANY threads Andy and Nathan have produced on this topic.... the plethora of posts from them.... NEVER any substantiation for any of their claims. It just doesn't happen.



.

You truly do amaze me with your bold face wicked lies and accusations, I have wasted my time providing for you what you have asked of me for the past 3 years, through countless of threads. I had grown impatient and have tried to bite me tongue, yet by your false witnessing and endless scoffings, even after I retracted the a few claims to appease your -what is clear to me now- over exaggerated "sensitivity"...though now I regret retracting them.
I know you didn't read my retraction that obviously Protestants did not rip out the "Apocrypha" from their Bibles... but I do add now that they have become laxed to holding a lighter Bible than that of Luther, and also they have become rather hip to the idea that the very mention of the "Apocrypha" is both Taboo and dangerous with a -"no matter what! We are always right! Spread the doctrine that these books are created by men and hated by God!! Protest Protest Protest!!!" -attitude.. I mean this quite literally, as more and more Christians from all denominations are starting to re-descover and read the "Apocrypha", more and more Protestant pastors and writers are speaking evil of them.
Josiah YOU have messaged me before that YOU believe Nathan is a dangerous influence on me and that WAS a great discouragement, implying that it would be beneficial to stop meddling in promoting the "Apocrypha", as I do defend the Bible of our Christian ancestors.

The Church was warned numerous times in the NT to beware of Jewish deception, do not forsake our tradition, Jesus calls them sons of the devil and Liars, they conspired to have Christ crucified.

The 66 Protestant Bible is a direct result of the Jeromes fraternitizing with the children of the Devil, HE insisted that for OUR old testament to be DIVINE we must translate from HEBREW because for some reason he believed the HEBREW was CLOSER to GOD than the GREEK from which THE GOSPEL was mostly, if not all, written in.

The Messiah was CUT OFF from the Jews and this is reflected in their canon that CUTS HIM OFF.

So please stop your discourages and accusations

 

[NathanH83]

1. You have zero substantiation.

2. Quoting a book (even if you had such) does not mean that the source ergo must be inerrant, canonical, divinely inscripturated words of God. Your assumption on that is just.... well.... absurd.




.

The entire church history is unsubstantiated????
The church knew for centuries that Hebrews 11:35 is a reference to Maccabees. Just because you’re ignorant of church history doesn’t make it unsubstantiated.

 

[Josiah]

I had grown impatient and have tried to bite me tongue, yet by your false witnessing and endless scoffings, even after I retracted the claims to appease your -what I clear to me now- over exaggerated "sensitivity"...

My "sensitivity" has been singular: truth matters. You and Nathan have given a very, very long list of claims on this topic for some two years.... And no, there has not been substantiation, just repetition.


LOTS of claims have been made, never substantiated.
Here's just a few of them, just a short list of the claims made on the general topic of "the Apocrypha."

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...

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... never substantiated.

Now, today, you claim that you have retracted this one: Protestantism "ripped out" some unidentified books .... Great. Please provide the thread name and post number of that retraction.



I think 've been really nice and ever so accommodating, even stating I'll drop all concern for truth if you'd prove even just ONE of these claims, the one that I'm the prime example of a Lutheran who discourages reading "them" but you've not done that. At least 3 of your claims have been about me (not counting the one you make above).

Josiah YOU have messaged before implying that it would be beneficial to stop meddling in promoting the "Apocrypha"

Quote me where I said that.

So please stop your discourages and accusations

My "accusation" (??) has been that you seem to make a plethora of claims that you don't substantiate. There have been a few - a tiny few - times when you've posted stuff about your claim but in so doing, offered nothing.



.

 

[NathanH83]

Good luck, Albion....

Look at the MANY threads Andy and Nathan have produced on this topic.... the plethora of posts from them.... NEVER any substantiation for any of their claims. It just doesn't happen.



.

More evidence on our side than yours

 

[NathanH83]

My "sensitivity" has been singular: truth matters. You and Nathan have given a very, very long list of claims on this topic for some two years.... And no, there has not been substantiation, just repetition.


LOTS of claims have been made, never substantiated.
Here's just a few of them, just a short list of the claims made on the general topic of "the Apocrypha."

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...

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... never substantiated.

Now, today, you claim that you have retracted this one: Protestantism "ripped out" some unidentified books .... Great. Please provide the thread name and post number of that retraction.



I think 've been really nice and ever so accommodating, even stating I'll drop all concern for truth if you'd prove even just ONE of these claims, the one that I'm the prime example of a Lutheran who discourages reading "them" but you've not done that. At least 3 of your claims have been about me (not counting the one you make above).








Quote me where I said that.







My "accusation" (??) has been that you seem to make a plethora of claims that you don't substantiate. There have been a few - a tiny few - times when you've posted stuff about your claim but in so doing, offered nothing.



.

Substantiated, substantiated.
It’s not substantiated.

substantiated substantiated substantiated substantiated.

You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means.

The church has known for centuries that Hebrews 11:35 is referencing 2 Maccabees 7. You’re ignoring church history.

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

 

[Albion]

The entire church history is unsubstantiated????
The church knew for centuries that Hebrews 11:35 is a reference to Maccabees. J

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

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.