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]

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.

I think it's a HUGE and baseless leap. Hebrews is (as you admit) referencing a historical EVENT, not a book. And a LOT of history is referenced in the Bible, that does not mean whatever source for that is therefore inerrant, fully canonical, divinely inscripturated Scripture - it's simply A source for history.

There are MANY actual BOOKS referenced in the Bible (not just events, but BOOKS), referenced verbatim, specifically BY NAME. Given as the source of the historical information the biblical author is sharing. I've listed some for you several times. Yet you don't argue those are therefore inerrant, fully canonical, divinely inscripturated Scriptures (no one does).

IF you had said, "It's likely the author of Hebrews knew about the Maccabee revolt because of the book we know as 2 Maccabees" well... I don't think anyone would challenge that... that would be a fallible opinion of likelihood that many would agree with (including me). Your huge LEAP is in declaring that this proves that Jews and Christians had declared that book to be inerrant, fully canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God. No. It makes it perhaps likely that it was accepted as a source of historical information. That's it. That all. What you are doing is making a huge leap that is entirely unsubstantiated....and not at all reasonable.




.

 

[Albion]

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.

What difference would that make? Just about everyone who's contributed to the several threads here which deal with essentially the same subject agree that there is something of value to be gotten from a reading of those books.

So now you've reiterated that point with emphasis.

Fine, but the issue wasn't whether or not the Apocrypha is worth reading and might have good advice, etc.

It's whether or not these writings are divine revelation with all the authority that would go along with that. You haven't done a thing to show this to be true.

 

[NathanH83]

What difference would that make? Just about everyone who's contributed to the several threads here which deal with essentially the same subject agree that there is something of value to be gotten from a reading of those books.

So now you've reiterated that point with emphasis.

Fine, but the issue wasn't whether or not the Apocrypha is worth reading and might have good advice, etc.

It's whether or not these writings are divine revelation with all the authority that would go along with that. You haven't done a thing to show this to be true.

I disagree. I think Hebrews 11 shows that to be true. Of course, backing that up is the multiple early church councils.

 

[NathanH83]

I think it's a HUGE and baseless leap. Hebrews is (as you admit) referencing a historical EVENT, not a book. And a LOT of history is referenced in the Bible, that does not mean whatever source for that is therefore inerrant, fully canonical, divinely inscripturated Scripture - it's simply A source for history.

There are MANY actual BOOKS referenced in the Bible (not just events, but BOOKS), referenced verbatim, specifically BY NAME. Given as the source of the historical information the biblical author is sharing. I've listed some for you several times. Yet you don't argue those are therefore inerrant, fully canonical, divinely inscripturated Scriptures (no one does).

IF you had said, "It's likely the author of Hebrews knew about the Maccabee revolt because of the book we know as 2 Maccabees" well... I don't think anyone would challenge that... that would be a fallible opinion of likelihood that many would agree with (including me). Your huge LEAP is in declaring that this proves that Jews and Christians had declared that book to be inerrant, fully canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God. No. It makes it perhaps likely that it was accepted as a source of historical information. That's it. That all. What you are doing is making a huge leap that is entirely unsubstantiated....and not at all reasonable.




.

I disagree. Hebrews is not just referencing a bunch of historical events. Hebrews is mentioning a bunch of BIBLICAL historical events. Saying that verse 35 is referencing “just history” is pulling right out of its context.

 

[Josiah]

Fine, but the issue wasn't whether or not the Apocrypha is worth reading and might have good advice, etc.

It's whether or not these writings are divine revelation with all the authority that would go along with that. You haven't done a thing to show this to be true.

Bingo.

Hit nail on head.




.

 

[NathanH83]

What difference would that make? Just about everyone who's contributed to the several threads here which deal with essentially the same subject agree that there is something of value to be gotten from a reading of those books.

So now you've reiterated that point with emphasis.

Fine, but the issue wasn't whether or not the Apocrypha is worth reading and might have good advice, etc.

It's whether or not these writings are divine revelation with all the authority that would go along with that. You haven't done a thing to show this to be true.

Why are you worried about 2 Maccabees having authority? It doesn’t teach Purgatory. That’s just Catholic misinterpretation.

Any false doctrine that Catholics base on the Apocrypha is just misinterpretation of what the Apocrypha actually says.