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]

1. We have no evidence that Pope Clement (Clement of Rome) was known to either Peter or Paul. Yes, there was a man with the very common name of "Clement" known to Paul, but that is zero evidence that it's the SAME person with that very common name. IF I wrote that I knew Joe, would that prove that I know President Joe Biden? No. There was NO contemporary of either Clement who remotely suggested they were one and the same person, that entirely baseless and unsubstantiated claim comes from centuries later.

2. IF you could quote Pope Clement giving a list of books identical to those listed in Article 6 of the 39 Articles of the Church of England and stating (ex cathredra as the pope) that "these - and only these - books are the inerrant, fully canonical, inscripturated words of God and ONLY these and ALL of these must be published in any book with the word "BIBLE" on the cover" well, then, friend, you'd have ONE man (albeit, a pope according to Roman Catholics). It really doesn't make your point that "most ante-nicene Church Fathers" held to that, it would just prove that one man (not a Church Father) held to it - IF you could quote him stating that.



Again...

I STILL don't have a clue what your "beef" is. Unlike Nathan (whom it seems you echo), you don't consistently argue that ANY book (perhaps beyond the 66) is canonical or normative or inerrant or divinely-inscripturated, ONLY that some (the exact list in Article 6 of the Church of England's 39 Articles) were USED by some Christians - a point NONE here have challenged or disagreed with. So what's your beef? Explain this "bee in your bonnet" (as my mother would put it).

Now, Nathan just seems MAD that evidently his Assembly of God pastor intentionally kept him ignorant of these books so that he could not understand some verse in Hebrews. Okay. He's offered no substantiation for this but I have no reason to doubt the claim. But then his beef is with his pastor - not Protestantism, no Christianity, and with no one here. IMO, he is simply misapplying his anger, transferring it to innocent persons.

Friend, if you want to buy a KJV translation WITH all the books mentioned in Article 6 of the 39 Articles, you may. NO ONE is forbidding such. They are easily available. I've given you a link where you can purchase such online - in paperback or hardbound. Nathan can buy one too. There is no law anywhere (that you've referenced) that forbids or commands what publishing houses and book stores MUST have and MUST exclude from any tome with the word "BIBLE" on the cover. As I've explained, my "BIBLE" has 2780 pages in it, with over 300 things listed in the Table of Contents. The publishing company and book store violated no laws. What's your "beef" in this?

And if you want to read, use, quote from Psalm 151 or 152 or 153.... from the Epistle of Barnabas or the Didache or the Revelation of Peter or the First Epistle of Clement, YOU CAN. YOU MAY. Easy. No one is forbidding it. THE ISSUE IS CANONICITY - whether such is broadly accepted in Christianity (since no later than 200 AD) as FULLY CANONICAL (to be used to form and norm dogma), inerrant, inscripturated words of God. You MAY read them, use them, quote them - you are ENCOURAGED in some cases to do so!! Luther encouraged it. The Church of England ENCOURAGED it. I'm sorry if YOUR pastor does not but that's an issue with your pastor - not Christianity, not Protestantism, not me, not anyone here (Or anyone known to anyone here). True - a LOT of Christians have not and do not consider any beyond the 66 to be EQUAL to the 66 in every way but I know of none who insist that you are forbidden to know of them, can't read them, can't use them, can't quote from them.

You've been following Nathan around on this for a LONG TIME now. It seems to be your over-riding passion above all else. And I fail to understand why or even what. Nathan - YES, he's mad (just at the wrong persons). But YOU?





.

You say there’s ZERO evidence that the Clement Paul mentioned in Phillipians 4:3 is Clement of Rome who wrote the letter of 1 Clement.

Oh, except that a 4th-century church historian Eusebius said that they were the same. And the fact that Clement lived the same time as Paul.

Oh, but there’s ZERO evidence.

Huh? Eusebius is zero evidence?

 

[Josiah]

Who said I reject the deuterocanon?

Not I

I would be thankful if you read all of post 119 above.

I realize the "them" of which you speak are those that the Church of England numerated in Article 6 of its own Thirty-Nine Articles (and thus included in the 1611 KJV of which you and Nathan constantly refer). It's not the same as what the RCC said at Florence in the 15th Century or at Trent in the 16th... it's not the same as Luther's.... it's not the same as the Coptic or Ethiopian set or typical RCC tomes of the Middle Ages (which of course varied from location to location)... it's not the same as the LXX. Why you follow the Church of England, I don't know since you said you don't care about it but you keep saying it's the one that get it right.... without noting it does NOT regard them as canonical or inerrant or inspired and it does NOT regard that all Bibles must or even should contain all those listed in Article 6 (the Church of England has never so ruled).

The Greek Septuagint was handed by God to the gentile world in preparation for the church age soon to come as the arrival of the Messiah was drawing near.

Wow! That is - by far - THE most stunning, remarkable and unsubstantiated claim I've ever heard from you....

I've heard of "KJV ONLY" people - who think GOD inspired only that TRANSLATION, never Greek Septuagint Only folks. Wow. Do you only read the LXX in it's koine Greek since that's what gave to us? Are you mad that not all Bibles are the LXX in Greek? Is that your "beef?"

And now you have a whole other set of problems - switching from the Church of England's Article 6 to the LXX. Because they aren't the same either (look for Psalm 151 in your 1611 KJV for example). And it's not the same as that listed by any Western Church Father or by the Catholic Church (in your Catholic Bible, look for the Prayer of Manasseh, 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees, the Psalms of Solomon, etc. - all IN the LXX and NOT accepted by the Catholic Church and some NOT by the Church of England or in your 1611 King James Bible).

Apocrypha, Ecclesiasticals, Deuterocanon, eitherway they are divinely connected and serve an equal purpose.

Like many other works, writings and books that Christians have found useful... but NOT canonical (thus NOT to be used to source or norm doctrine, and some would add practice), NOT inerrant, NOT inspired by God. Luther's Small Catechism is a very good book to use... very helpful.... often quoted.... but it's NOT canonical (NOT to be used to source and norm dogma), not inerrant, not inspired by God. Unlike most of the books you support, we know when and where and by whom it was written but NOT canonical at all. Friend, the term "APOCRYPHA" is just a way of saying exactly that - good to read, NOT Scripture, NOT canonical, NOT inerrant, NOT inspired. And the Church of England NEVER said they must appear in every tome with the word BIBLE on the cover - no such law. No prohibitions from NOT including those. NO mandate to include them. You are permitted to buy a tome WITH whatever stuff you want in it... and to NOT do so.




Please read post 119. Again if you have. I'd really appreciate it.




.

 

[Albion]

That's fine, a lot of protestants reject Luthers Bible as well.

I doubt that, but if so, it's not at all parallel to the fact that a lot of Catholics have no or only scant knowledge of the Apocrypha, meaning in turn that your claim about Catholics supposedly agreeing with those books isn't correct.

 

[Andrew]

Wow! That is - by far - THE most stunning, remarkable and unsubstantiated claim I've ever heard from you....


.

So God had nothing to do with providing knowledge of the Scripture to the nations, Christians just got lucky to have access to scripture just in time

 

[MoreCoffee]

Catholic bibles contain 73 books 7 of which Protestants no longer print in their bibles and 2 of which Protestants no longer print portions.

What protestants do is their business.

 

[Josiah]

So God had nothing to do with providing knowledge of the Scripture to the nations, Christians just got lucky to have access to scripture just in time

Andrew..


Here's verbatim what you claimed: "The Greek Septuagint was handed by God to the gentile world in preparation for the church age soon to come as the arrival of the Messiah was drawing near." NOT "God had something to do with providing knowledge of the Scriptures to the nations." Not even remotely related. I'm pleased you strongly desire to wholly retreat from what you said (GOOD! You had me worried). But I rejoice that you now so far distance yourself from this absurd claim.



Now...

How about post 108?

How about post 116?

How about post 119?

How about post 122?



.

 

[Josiah]

You say there’s ZERO evidence that the Clement Paul mentioned in Phillipians 4:3 is Clement of Rome who wrote the letter of 1 Clement.

Oh, except that a 4th-century church historian Eusebius said that they were the same. And the fact that Clement lived the same time as Paul.

Oh, but there’s ZERO evidence.

Huh? Eusebius is zero evidence?

Nathan,

Thanks (again) for proving me correct.

Here's what I said: "1. We have no evidence that Pope Clement (Clement of Rome) was known to either Peter or Paul. Yes, there was a man with the very common name of "Clement" known to Paul, but that is zero evidence that it's the SAME person with that very common name. IF I wrote that I knew Joe, would that prove that I know President Joe Biden? No. There was NO contemporary of either Clement who remotely suggested they were one and the same person, that entirely baseless and unsubstantiated claim comes from centuries later."

Then you confirmed it. Specifically as I stated, the claim that these two men sharing a VERY common name were first claimed to be the same person CENTURIES later, by one single man... a man born TWO CENTURIES after the death of these men with the very common moniker of "Clement." Eusebius never met either man - or even a child of them or grandchild of them or great-great grandchild of them or great, great, great grandchild of either. He noted to support his claim - no documents, no substantition, nothing. TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY YEARS LATER, he makes this claim to try to support the Roman Papacy with no way to know this, nothing to substantiate it. One person. Made this entirely unsubstantiated, unsupported claim over TWO CENTURIES later for dubious reasons.

Thanks again for proving me correct.





.

 

[Josiah]

Catholic bibles contain 73 books 7 of which Protestants no longer print in their bibles and 2 of which Protestants no longer print portions.

What protestants do is their business.

I'm Protestant.

My Bible has 74 books in it.

It was printed 2012



.

 

[NathanH83]

Nathan,

Thanks (again) for proving me correct.

Here's what I said: "1. We have no evidence that Pope Clement (Clement of Rome) was known to either Peter or Paul. Yes, there was a man with the very common name of "Clement" known to Paul, but that is zero evidence that it's the SAME person with that very common name. IF I wrote that I knew Joe, would that prove that I know President Joe Biden? No. There was NO contemporary of either Clement who remotely suggested they were one and the same person, that entirely baseless and unsubstantiated claim comes from centuries later."

Then you confirmed it. Specifically as I stated, the claim that these two men sharing a VERY common name were first claimed to be the same person CENTURIES later, by one single man... a man born TWO CENTURIES after the death of these men with the very common moniker of "Clement." Eusebius never met either man - or even a child of them or grandchild of them or great-great grandchild of them or great, great, great grandchild of either. He noted to support his claim - no documents, no substantition, nothing. TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY YEARS LATER, he makes this claim to try to support the Roman Papacy with no way to know this, nothing to substantiate it. One person. Made this entirely unsubstantiated, unsupported claim over TWO CENTURIES later for dubious reasons.

Thanks again for proving me correct.





.

A well-respected historian said that the Clement who Paul mentions in Phillipians 4:3 is the same Clement who wrote the letter of 1 Clement, and that letter references some of the Apocryphal books as scripture.

That IS at least SOME evidence.

You say there’s ZERO evidence. But that’s not true. There is at least SOME evidence.

I have a friend named John Kennedy. Obviously he’s not the same as John Kennedy who was president in the 1960’s. My friend wasn’t even born until decades after he was assassinated. But if there’s a well-respected historian who talks about a guy named John Kennedy who lived in the 1960’s, and this historian says he’s the same guy who was president, then that IS significant evidence that it’s the same guy. A well-researched historian is identifying them as the same person, and they lived at the same time.

Clement of Rome was born approximately 30 years before Paul died. They lived the same time. Eusebius is claimed by Bible scholars to be the “greatest of church historians” and he says in his book “Ecclesiastical History” that this is the same Clement as the one Paul greeted in Phillipians 4:3.

That IS significant evidence, and it speaks volumes about the early church’s view on the “Apocryphal” books.

 

[Andrew]

Andrew..


Here's verbatim what you claimed: "The Greek Septuagint was handed by God to the gentile world in preparation for the church age soon to come as the arrival of the Messiah was drawing near." NOT "God had something to do with providing knowledge of the Scriptures to the nations." Not even remotely related. I'm pleased you strongly desire to wholly retreat from what you said (GOOD! You had me worried). But I rejoice that you now so far distance yourself from this absurd claim.



Now...

How about post 108?

How about post 116?

How about post 119?

How about post 122?



.

Its the same exact thing.

 

[Josiah]

Its the same exact thing.

Andrew....

Not even close, but I'll just rejoice that you've chosen to completely distance yourself from that "LXX is God's Bible" thing. I'm VERY glad. Moving on

Now...

How about post 108?

How about post 116?

How about post 119?

How about post 122?


Nathan...

Thanks again for agreeing with me. Yup, exactly as I said, TWO CENTURIES after these men with the VERY common name of "Clement"died, a single individual - hoping to prop up the Roman Bishop - made an entirely, wholly, completely unsubstantiated claim that they were one and the same person. Of course, there's no way for him to know this since he never met either of them (or even a great, great, great, great grandchild of either) and never remotely suggests that he had ANYTHING AT ALL to support his claim. No one joined him at the time in this. There were LOTS of baseless claims made about the papacy at the time.

You noting that this comes from ONE PERSON who lived over TWO CENTURIES later with NOTHING to support the claim just confirms exactly what I said. Thank you.




.

 

[NathanH83]

There’s literally dozens of Old Testament books that were never quoted word-for-word by Jesus or anyone else in the New Testament. But even though they’re not quoted, they’re still referenced.

For example, the book of Ruth is never quoted by Jesus. But she’s mentioned in Jesus’ genealogy in Matthew 1.

Ruth is referenced, but not quoted.

In the same way, 1 Maccabees is never quoted by Jesus. But John 10:22 mentions Jesus being at the temple in Jerusalem during the Feast of Dedication (Chanukah = Hebrew for Dedication) which is the holiday that commemorates the events in Maccabees.

Maccabees is referenced, but not quoted.

Jesus never quoted the book of Judges. But 4 names of the judges are mentioned in Hebrews 11 (Gideon, Barak, Jephthah, Samson).

Judges is Referenced, but not quoted.

In the same way, 2 Maccabees is never quoted in the New Testament. But Hebrews 11:35 references the men that were tortured not accepting deliverance in 2 Maccabees 6 & 7.

2 Maccabees is referenced, but not quoted.

So the fact that they’re not quoted word-for-word, verbatim, is a rather moot point. Esther’s not even referenced, let alone quoted by Jesus or anyone in the New Testament.

Also, you claim Tobit endorses magic. Not true. But rather, Tobit just says to burn fish guts. That’s not magic/witchcraft/sorcery. There’s not a single shred of evidence that ANY witches anywhere burn fish guts for any reason whatsoever. But Leviticus chapter 4 tells the Levite priests to burn sheep guts. It’s a pleasing aroma unto the Lord.

So let me get this straight. Witches DON’T burn animal guts, while the holy people of God DO burn animal guts, but when Tobit says to burn animal guts…..it’s unbiblical and endorsing witchcraft?

That’s illogical.

If anything, Tobit is endorsing the same type of thing Leviticus is endorsing. Nothing magical about it.

I broiled a salmon in my oven (and It smelled SO good). That doesn’t make me a witch. Give me a break.

Besides, Tobias burned the fish guts so that the smell would DRIVE AWAY a demon. Acts 13 calls a sorcerer a “son of the devil”. A sorcerer (son of the devil) isn’t going to drive away demons because SATAN DOESN’T CAST OUT SATAN (didn’t Jesus say that?).

If you’re claiming Tobit endorses magic then you’re literally contradicting Jesus. Satan doesn’t cast out Satan.

Also, Tobit doesn’t say that money can forgive sin any more than 1 Peter 4:8, which says in the KJV:

”And above all things have fervent charity among yourselves: for charity shall cover the multitude of sins.”
-1 Peter 4:8 (KJV)

Noah Webster’s 1828 dictionary says:
CHARITY, noun
“Liberality to the poor, consisting in almsgiving or benefactions, or in gratuitous services to relieve them in distress.
Alms; whatever is bestowed gratuitously on the poor for their relief.”

So…charity is alms, and 1 Peter says charity covers sins. Hmmmm.

Oh, but Tobit is the one being heretical? Riiight…..
Nice double standard you got going there.

Also, why does Exodus talk about atonement money?

“The rich shall not give more and the poor shall not give less than half a shekel, when you give an offering to the Lord, to make atonement for yourselves. And you shall take the atonement money of the children of Israel, and shall appoint it for the service of the tabernacle of meeting, that it may be a memorial for the children of Israel before the Lord, to make atonement for yourselves.”
-Exodus 30:15-16 (NKJV)

Exodus is literally telling the Israelites to give money to make atonement for themselves, and yet you’re over here complaining about Tobit? Really? Talk about a double standard.

And Maccabees chapter 12 is NOT saying that Judas Maccabee paid silver coins to atone for the dead. Read it again:

”He then took up a collection among all his soldiers, amounting to two thousand silver drachmas, which he sent to Jerusalem to provide for an expiatory sacrifice. In doing this he acted in a very excellent and noble way, inasmuch as he had the resurrection in mind;”
-2 Maccabees 12:43(New American Bible)

Notice how it says that the silver coins are TO PROVIDE for the sacrifice.

NEWS FLASH:
Jewish Levite priests don’t sacrifice silver coins on the alter at the temple in Jerusalem. But they DO use silver coins to PURCHASE ANIMALS that they sacrifice on the altar.

And if the animals being sacrificed have not been paid for, then it’s a pretty meaningless sacrifice if you’re sacrificing something that COST YOU NOTHING, as David said to Araunah:

” ‘I will surely buy it from you for a price; nor will I offer burnt offerings to the Lord my God with that which costs me nothing.’ So David bought the threshing floor and the oxen for fifty shekels of silver. And David built there an altar to the Lord, and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings.”
-2 Samuel 24:24-25

Notice how David used silver coins to PURCHASE the animals, and then sacrificed the animals.

Judas Maccabee sent silver coins to Jerusalem so that the priests could PURCHASE the animals to be sacrificed.

And he didn’t do it because he believed in purgatory. He did it because he believed in the resurrection. Purgatory is the idea of a dead person’s soul being between Heaven and Hell. The resurrection is where a dead person is no longer dead because THEY’VE BEEN RESURRECTED. Those are like two completely different things.

And if you’re going to say that an animal sacrifice can’t atone for the sins of dead people who were disobedient in the past, well then explain how Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross atoned for the sins of dead people in the past. When Jesus ascended on high he led captivity captive, after having descending into the lower parts of the Earth and preaching the gospel to the spirits in prison who were disobedient in the days of Noah. So yes, a sacrifice in the present can atone for the sins of dead people in the past. Jesus proved that. Denying that is denying the gospel.

By the way, I’m Protestant. I’m not Catholic, never have been Catholic, have no plans of ever becoming Catholic. But I believe the Apocrypha belongs in the Bible. Why? Because the very first Christians accepted them, because they were in the original Jewish Bible.

Wow, Nathan. Thanks for sharing.

 

[NathanH83]

Andrew....

Not even close, but I'll just rejoice that you've chosen to completely distance yourself from that "LXX is God's Bible" thing. I'm VERY glad. Moving on

Now...

How about post 108?

How about post 116?

How about post 119?

How about post 122?


Nathan...

Thanks again for agreeing with me. Yup, exactly as I said, TWO CENTURIES after these men with the VERY common name of "Clement"died, a single individual - hoping to prop up the Roman Bishop - made an entirely, wholly, completely unsubstantiated claim that they were one and the same person. Of course, there's no way for him to know this since he never met either of them (or even a great, great, great, great grandchild of either) and never remotely suggests that he had ANYTHING AT ALL to support his claim. No one joined him at the time in this. There were LOTS of baseless claims made about the papacy at the time.

You noting that this comes from ONE PERSON who lived over TWO CENTURIES later with NOTHING to support the claim just confirms exactly what I said. Thank you.




.

No, I didn’t agree with you. You’re saying absurd things like “Historians can’t know anything about history because they didn’t live back then.”

That’s basically the gist of what you’re saying. No, I don’t agree with that.

I guess I can’t know that the same Lincoln who was senator in Springfield, Illinois is the same Lincoln who was president in Washington DC. By your logic, I’m not capable of knowing that they’re the same Lincoln because I didn’t live back then.

 

[NathanH83]

Andrew....

Not even close, but I'll just rejoice that you've chosen to completely distance yourself from that "LXX is God's Bible" thing. I'm VERY glad. Moving on

Now...

How about post 108?

How about post 116?

How about post 119?

How about post 122?


Nathan...

Thanks again for agreeing with me. Yup, exactly as I said, TWO CENTURIES after these men with the VERY common name of "Clement"died, a single individual - hoping to prop up the Roman Bishop - made an entirely, wholly, completely unsubstantiated claim that they were one and the same person. Of course, there's no way for him to know this since he never met either of them (or even a great, great, great, great grandchild of either) and never remotely suggests that he had ANYTHING AT ALL to support his claim. No one joined him at the time in this. There were LOTS of baseless claims made about the papacy at the time.

You noting that this comes from ONE PERSON who lived over TWO CENTURIES later with NOTHING to support the claim just confirms exactly what I said. Thank you.




.

Besides all this, not only is what you’re saying illogical and absurd, but it’s also irrelevant. The point is that Clement lived the same time as the apostles, admits in his letter to being alive the same time as them, and in his letter references the Apocryphal books. So even if you could prove that the Clement in Phillipians 4:3 is a different person (which you haven’t proven), then it’s still an irrelevant point anyway.

 

[Andrew]

I guess I can’t know that the same Lincoln who was senator in Springfield, Illinois is the same Lincoln who was president in Washington DC. By your logic, I’m not capable of knowing that they’re the same Lincoln because I didn’t live back then.

Well, if protestants claim that Zachariah son of Barachias is really Zechariah son of Jehoiada then proving who Clement of Rome was to Paul wouldn't matter much anyway.

 

[Josiah]

No, I didn’t agree with you. ,

I said that NO contemporary of these two men with the VERY common name of "Clement" said they were one and the same person... that that claim first came from ONE man who lived more than TWO HUNDRED YEARS later... who could not possibly have known either (or even a great, great, great, great grandchild of either) and who gave ZERO substantiation for his entirely baseless claim. You agreed. Yup, you indicated, the first time anyone made the claim you did was one man, over TWO HUNDRED YEARS after both of these "Clements" died, no one agreed with him at the time.

An individual referencing something in some book not in our "66" does not prove that ERGO such a book was authoritatively declared to be inerrant, fully canonical, inscripturated words of God that must appear in every tome with the word "BIBLE" on the cover. It prove this: he referenced a book. People do it ALL THE TIME. I've referenced dozens of books here at CH. The Bible itself references many books - specifically and by name - that you don't accept.



.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Well, if protestants claim that Zachariah son of Barachias is really Zechariah son of Jehoiada then proving who Clement of Rome was to Paul wouldn't matter much anyway.

There is evidence that the Clement of the letters is the clement mentioned in Saint Paul's letters. But many modern scholars disagree. The letters are not canonical scripture yet have had importance as a source of information about the state of the Church in Rome and the Church in Corinth in the first century.

Wikipedia says

Although traditionally attributed to Clement of Rome,[7] the letter does not include Clement's name, and is anonymous, though scholars generally consider it to be genuine.[5] The epistle is addressed as "the Church of God which sojourneth in Rome to the Church of God which sojourneth in Corinth". Its stylistic coherence suggests a single author.[8]

Scholars have proposed a range of dates, but most limit the possibilities to the last three decades of the 1st century,[9][10] and no later than AD 140.[11] The common time given for the epistle's composition is at the end of the reign of Domitian (c. AD 96).[5][6] The phrase "sudden and repeated misfortunes and hindrances which have befallen us" (1:1) is taken as a reference to persecutions under Domitian. Some scholars believe that 1 Clement was written around the same time as the Book of Revelation (c. AD 95–97).[12]

 

[Andrew]

Note-reiterated: This subject is about certain traditional books that Christians have used for centuries, having been removed completely and for a good long while as there was no printing of them under any circumstance!
This is NOT necessarily about the canon of books, just about biblical history and tradition.

I've been studying the Bible Societies for the past year and finally someone does a youtube breakdown of it.

He agrees, yep, Luther did not want the books removed, the Protestants didn't want them removed, Anti-Catholic Bible Societies had them removed even after years of protest FROM PROTESTANTS!

For the Protestants here who own a Bible with the 66 canonical books plus the deuterocanon/Apocrypha, just know that I was never against the Lutheran Bible, I apologize, I have my reasons for defending these books and it has a lot to do with the amount of evils spoken against them, my last church had a 66 book bible and they basically said that all Catholics will go to hell.. that's why I left. The Catholic Bible was the first Bible I dusted off and used, I had to know if God was real, I was in my darkest hour and I never got much help from the church (as an atheist) so I went straight to the horses mouth. The books that I read straight through were the wisdom books like Proverbs, Wisdom, Sirach.. it really felt like God was speaking and was present.. this was before I got to the Gospels and that's when I let go of my struggle with God as an atheist and became a believer in Christ.

So this video is about a hidden truths about these societies, I say hidden because information on them is very hard to find, this guy had to get the information from them the hard way and it's darker than I had thought.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Note-reiterated: This subject is about certain traditional books that Christians have used for centuries, having been removed completely and for a good long while as there was no printing of them under any circumstance!
This is NOT necessarily about the canon of books, just about biblical history and tradition.

I've been studying the Bible Societies for the past year and finally someone does a youtube breakdown of it.

He agrees, yep, Luther did not want the books removed, the Protestants didn't want them removed, Anti-Catholic Bible Societies had them removed even after years of protest FROM PROTESTANTS!

For the Protestants here who own a Bible with the 66 canonical books plus the deuterocanon/Apocrypha, just know that I was never against the Lutheran Bible, I apologize, I have my reasons for defending these books and it has a lot to do with the amount of evils spoken against them, my last church had a 66 book bible and they basically said that all Catholics will go to hell.. that's why I left. The Catholic Bible was the first Bible I dusted off and used, I had to know if God was real, I was in my darkest hour and I never got much help from the church (as an atheist) so I went straight to the horses mouth. The books that I read straight through were the wisdom books like Proverbs, Wisdom, Sirach.. it really felt like God was speaking and was present.. this was before I got to the Gospels and that's when I let go of my struggle with God as an atheist and became a believer in Christ.

So this video is about a hidden truths about these societies, I say hidden because information on them is very hard to find, this guy had to get the information from them the hard way and it's darker than I had thought.

Useful and interesting videos.
Good source of information here in ChristianityHaven.

 

[Andrew]

Useful and interesting videos.
Good source of information here in ChristianityHaven.

.