Apocrypha?

[NathanH83]

People have asked me what it is that caused our bible translations to be missing those extra 100 years on 6 generations, causing the timeline to get distorted out of proportion. But what people don't realize is that the thing that caused the timeline to get distorted is also the thing that caused disagreements about the canon of scripture.

The main reason why Catholics and Protestants have disagreed with which books belong in the canon of scripture is mainly because the Jews have distorted their scriptures, throwing the Christian world into confusion.

The earliest Christians knew that God had preserved His Words in the Greek Septuagint years before Christ. And it was the good, believing Jews of that time that God used to preserve it, many years before Christ.

But about 100 years after Christ, the unbelieving Jewish Rabbis (who rejected Christ) began to also reject the Septuagint (which points to Christ) and began to corrupt their Hebrew scriptures by taking out prophecies Jesus fulfilled, as well as whole entire books. So they made newer Greek translations that were missing the prophesies that the Septuagint had, as well as missing many of the books the Septuagint contains. Why? Because those books either point to Christ, or they didn't fit in with the theology that the Rabbis came up with to disprove that Jesus is the Christ.

Now, the early church knew better, and still clung to the Septuagint for the first four centuries, and even argued with the Jews, accusing the Jews of taking things out of the Bible.

But the Jews successfully convinced the Catholic church in the following centuries to abandon the Septuagint, and follow their corrupted Hebrew Bible. But even though the Catholics followed the Hebrew, they still kept a few of the prophesies from the Septuagint, and still kept most of the extra books of the Septuagint as well, although some of the Popes throughout the years condemned the books that the Jews had taken out.

And so it was, later on in the Protestant Reformation of the 1500's, most of the Protestant leaders were already convinced by the Catholic church that the Hebrew text of the Jews ought to be followed, and not the Greek Septuagint. And since the Jews rejected certain books in the Septuagint, then the Protestants did what the Catholics had never done, and took those books out entirely, setting them aside in a separate section. They did this because the Catholics were misusing and abusing those books, misinterpreting them to make money off of people.

Then, a few hundred years later in the 1800's, bible printers took those books out completely so that they could make Bibles cheaper to print, and therefore make more profits. After all, why waste paper and ink on something that isn't the Word of God anyway? Especially when we can make more money by taking it out.

So Christians unknowingly threw a significant chunk of God's Word in the trash, all because the Jewish Rabbis of the 1st and 2nd centuries wanted to attack the deity of Christ, and we the church naively believed them.

But then the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, and we realized we made a boo-boo.

 

[Andrew]

People have asked me what it is that caused our bible translations to be missing those extra 100 years on 6 generations, causing the timeline to get distorted out of proportion. But what people don't realize is that the thing that caused the timeline to get distorted is also the thing that caused disagreements about the canon of scripture.

The main reason why Catholics and Protestants have disagreed with which books belong in the canon of scripture is mainly because the Jews have distorted their scriptures, throwing the Christian world into confusion.

The earliest Christians knew that God had preserved His Words in the Greek Septuagint years before Christ. And it was the good, believing Jews of that time that God used to preserve it, many years before Christ.

But about 100 years after Christ, the unbelieving Jewish Rabbis (who rejected Christ) began to also reject the Septuagint (which points to Christ) and began to corrupt their Hebrew scriptures by taking out prophecies Jesus fulfilled, as well as whole entire books. So they made newer Greek translations that were missing the prophesies that the Septuagint had, as well as missing many of the books the Septuagint contains. Why? Because those books either point to Christ, or they didn't fit in with the theology that the Rabbis came up with to disprove that Jesus is the Christ.

Now, the early church knew better, and still clung to the Septuagint for the first four centuries, and even argued with the Jews, accusing the Jews of taking things out of the Bible.

But the Jews successfully convinced the Catholic church in the following centuries to abandon the Septuagint, and follow their corrupted Hebrew Bible. But even though the Catholics followed the Hebrew, they still kept a few of the prophesies from the Septuagint, and still kept most of the extra books of the Septuagint as well, although some of the Popes throughout the years condemned the books that the Jews had taken out.

And so it was, later on in the Protestant Reformation of the 1500's, most of the Protestant leaders were already convinced by the Catholic church that the Hebrew text of the Jews ought to be followed, and not the Greek Septuagint. And since the Jews rejected certain books in the Septuagint, then the Protestants did what the Catholics had never done, and took those books out entirely, setting them aside in a separate section. They did this because the Catholics were misusing and abusing those books, misinterpreting them to make money off of people.

Then, a few hundred years later in the 1800's, bible printers took those books out completely so that they could make Bibles cheaper to print, and therefore make more profits. After all, why waste paper and ink on something that isn't the Word of God anyway? Especially when we can make more money by taking it out.

So Christians unknowingly threw a significant chunk of God's Word in the trash, all because the Jewish Rabbis of the 1st and 2nd centuries wanted to attack the deity of Christ, and we the church naively believed them.

But then the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, and we realized we made a boo-boo.

ExActly!!``

 

[Lamb]

People have asked me what it is that caused our bible translations to be missing those extra 100 years on 6 generations, causing the timeline to get distorted out of proportion. But what people don't realize is that the thing that caused the timeline to get distorted is also the thing that caused disagreements about the canon of scripture.

The main reason why Catholics and Protestants have disagreed with which books belong in the canon of scripture is mainly because the Jews have distorted their scriptures, throwing the Christian world into confusion.

The earliest Christians knew that God had preserved His Words in the Greek Septuagint years before Christ. And it was the good, believing Jews of that time that God used to preserve it, many years before Christ.

But about 100 years after Christ, the unbelieving Jewish Rabbis (who rejected Christ) began to also reject the Septuagint (which points to Christ) and began to corrupt their Hebrew scriptures by taking out prophecies Jesus fulfilled, as well as whole entire books. So they made newer Greek translations that were missing the prophesies that the Septuagint had, as well as missing many of the books the Septuagint contains. Why? Because those books either point to Christ, or they didn't fit in with the theology that the Rabbis came up with to disprove that Jesus is the Christ.

Now, the early church knew better, and still clung to the Septuagint for the first four centuries, and even argued with the Jews, accusing the Jews of taking things out of the Bible.

But the Jews successfully convinced the Catholic church in the following centuries to abandon the Septuagint, and follow their corrupted Hebrew Bible. But even though the Catholics followed the Hebrew, they still kept a few of the prophesies from the Septuagint, and still kept most of the extra books of the Septuagint as well, although some of the Popes throughout the years condemned the books that the Jews had taken out.

And so it was, later on in the Protestant Reformation of the 1500's, most of the Protestant leaders were already convinced by the Catholic church that the Hebrew text of the Jews ought to be followed, and not the Greek Septuagint. And since the Jews rejected certain books in the Septuagint, then the Protestants did what the Catholics had never done, and took those books out entirely, setting them aside in a separate section. They did this because the Catholics were misusing and abusing those books, misinterpreting them to make money off of people.

Then, a few hundred years later in the 1800's, bible printers took those books out completely so that they could make Bibles cheaper to print, and therefore make more profits. After all, why waste paper and ink on something that isn't the Word of God anyway? Especially when we can make more money by taking it out.

So Christians unknowingly threw a significant chunk of God's Word in the trash, all because the Jewish Rabbis of the 1st and 2nd centuries wanted to attack the deity of Christ, and we the church naively believed them.

But then the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, and we realized we made a boo-boo.

Could you list the books of the Apocrypha that you're referring to in your post please?

 

[Albion]

ExActly!!``

What "exactly" are we missing that is essential for our salvation? What doctrine is based upon the Apocrypha? Why if "the Protestants" were wrong to omit these books from the Bible, did the Catholic church expel some of the Apocrypha itself (and is never criticized for doing so)?

 

[Josiah]

What "exactly" are we missing that is essential for our salvation? What doctrine is based upon the Apocrypha? Why if "the Protestants" were wrong to omit these books from the Bible, did the Catholic church expel some of the Apocrypha itself (and is never criticized for doing so)?

1. Of course, the post-Trent RCC has fewer Apocrypha books than many other denominations, one fewer even than Luther included in his German translation. IF the Catholic "spin" is correct, and it is true that if a denomination doesn't include book(s) in their current tome ERGO it officially REMOVED it, "ripped it out", then the RCC did that to a LOT of books.


2. It is true that no doctrine comes from or is normed by any of the Apocrypha book "sets" (the RCC one or any other). True.... the RCC occasionally quotes a verse in one such book to support it's unique, new invention of Purgatory, but any one who actually READS the reference knows it does not support that invention at all (as the Greek Orthodox Church agrees, it HAS that book in it's unique tome but does NOT hold that verse supports the new, unique RCC dogma of Purgatory). In my time in the RCC, I heard bits of the RCC's current "set" of these books read during the Mass, but not one sermon or Bible study on ANYTHING in ANY of "them." In fact, the only time they were mentioned AT ALL was to point out the Protestants reject the Authority of the individual RC denomination by "removing" them from the KJV and Luther's translation (which, of course, is a falsehood - both tomes had MORE such books in them than the current RCC one).

 

[Andrew]

What "exactly" are we missing that is essential for our salvation? What doctrine is based upon the Apocrypha? Why if "the Protestants" were wrong to omit these books from the Bible, did the Catholic church expel some of the Apocrypha itself (and is never criticized for doing so)?

Well it is what it is now, kind of doubt any new reforms and you're right it wouldn't make much of a difference seeing that it's the NT that contains the saving gospel.. The OT is used as a reference book, it's good to have but gentiles back then hardly knew anything if anything at all about Judaism, Paul didn't convert gentiles to Judaism did he? Yet the OT remains inspired as it should be but in my honest opinion I believe the whole of the septuagint books as the inspired OT.

 

[Lamb]

Well it is what it is now, kind of doubt any new reforms and you're right it wouldn't make much of a difference seeing that it's the NT that contains the saving gospel.. The OT is used as a reference book, it's good to have but gentiles back then hardly knew anything if anything at all about Judaism, Paul didn't convert gentiles to Judaism did he? Yet the OT remains inspired as it should be but in my honest opinion I believe the whole of the septuagint books as the inspired OT.

The promise of the Savior is found in Genesis and you'll see foreshadowing of our Savior throughout the Old Testament. It's not just a reference book. It's God's Word as well as the New Testament.

 

[Andrew]

The promise of the Savior is found in Genesis and you'll see foreshadowing of our Savior throughout the Old Testament. It's not just a reference book. It's God's Word as well as the New Testament.

I'm only stating that the NT saves, yes the whole book is the Holy inspired word of God but had Jesus the Messiah not have come yet the OT alone was specifically for the Jews.. my point is that we acknowledge it as scripture and for types and shadows especially, some of these books are wisdom books and some are historical records, the Apocrypha was part of that imo...

 

[NathanH83]

What "exactly" are we missing that is essential for our salvation? What doctrine is based upon the Apocrypha? Why if "the Protestants" were wrong to omit these books from the Bible, did the Catholic church expel some of the Apocrypha itself (and is never criticized for doing so)?

Catholics expelled some of the Apocrypha [Staff Edit].

 

[NathanH83]

What "exactly" are we missing that is essential for our salvation? What doctrine is based upon the Apocrypha? Why if "the Protestants" were wrong to omit these books from the Bible, did the Catholic church expel some of the Apocrypha itself (and is never criticized for doing so)?

There's a lot that is missing.

Daniel 8 is a significant prophecy. Not only does it prophesy about the events of Antiochus the King of the Seleucid empire, but according to Jesus it's also a dual prophecy in regards to the anti-christ still to come.

So in order to understand what it still to come, it's important to understand what already came.

The events in Maccabees are prophesied in Daniel 8. They're celebrated at Hanukah by the Jews. Even Jesus celebrated it.

Understanding what already came is incredibly important to having a better picture of what is still to come.

It's a shame that people can't understand Daniel 8 because they've had the history of Maccabees stripped from their Bibles.

What an utter shame.

 

[Albion]

Well it is what it is now, kind of doubt any new reforms and you're right it wouldn't make much of a difference seeing that it's the NT that contains the saving gospel.

I didn't say that. I said that the Apocryphal books do not have the nature of Holy Scripture.

The OT is used as a reference book, it's good to have but gentiles back then hardly knew anything if anything at all about Judaism, Paul didn't convert gentiles to Judaism did he?

While the New affected the Old, it isn't true that the OT is only a reference book for us and offers no guidance for us on either belief or practice. Otherwise, thousands of Christian churches wouldn't be reading from it during worship services.

 

[Josiah]

There's a lot that is missing.

Daniel 8 is a significant prophecy. Not only does it prophesy about the events of Antiochus the King of the Seleucid empire, but according to Jesus it's also a dual prophecy in regards to the anti-christ still to come.

So in order to understand what it still to come, it's important to understand what already came.

The events in Maccabees are prophesied in Daniel 8. They're celebrated at Hanukah by the Jews. Even Jesus celebrated it.

Understanding what already came is incredibly important to having a better picture of what is still to come.

It's a shame that people can't understand Daniel 8 because they've had the history of Maccabees stripped from their Bibles.

What an utter shame.

No one has changed history. No one denies history. It's just that not all consider the books of First Maccabees, Second Maccabees, Third Maccabees and/or Fourth Maccabees to be CANONICAL SCRIPTURE - the divinely inspired, inerrant, written words of God that is the rule and norma normans ("canon") for Doctrine. I think World War Two happened.... but that doesn't make every book that reports it to be Canonical Scripture. And there are millions of books that speak of Jesus, that doesn't make all of theme inerrant, inspired, inscripturated words of God and the norma normans for Doctrine.

 

[Andrew]

I didn't say that. I said that the Apocryphal books do not have the nature of Holy Scripture.


While the New affected the Old, it isn't true that the OT is only a reference book for us and offers no guidance for us on either belief or practice. Otherwise, thousands of Christian churches wouldn't be reading from it during worship services.

Then we should not consider parts of the septuagint as mere reference books.. it's good that we have the OT handy along with the NT in written form, but early greek speaking gentile converts to Christianity were reading these "apocryphal" books without distinction, do you believe that they were ignorant for reading those books and believing them to be inspired? These same Christians were persecuted for their beliefs so I don't recognise them as regarding any vain literature to be inspired writings.

 

[Albion]

Then we should not consider parts of the septuagint as mere reference books.. it's good that we have the OT handy along with the NT in written form, but early greek speaking gentile converts to Christianity were reading these "apocryphal" books without distinction, do you believe that they were ignorant for reading those books and believing them to be inspired? These same Christians were persecuted for their beliefs so I don't recognise them as regarding any vain literature to be inspired writings.

I believe that the canonization of the Bible--which came later--took under consideration many relevant factors.

As a point of information, here is the Wikipedia summary of the pertinent information about the Septuagint:

"The Septuagint includes books called anagignoskomena in Greek, known in English as deuterocanon, itself derived from the Greek words for "second canon", because they are not included in the Jewish canon.[24][25][26] Among these are the first two books of Maccabees; Tobit; Judith; Wisdom of Solomon; Sirach; Baruch, including the Letter of Jeremiah; additions to Esther; and additions to Daniel. All of these books are considered by the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church as canonical books; to Protestantism, they are the Apocrypha.[citation needed] The Septuagint version of some Biblical books, like Daniel and Esther, are longer than those in the Masoretic Text.[27] Meanwhile, the Septuagint text of the Book of Jeremiah is shorter than the Masoretic text.[28]
"Since Late Antiquity, mainstream rabbinic Judaism rejected the Septuagint as a valid Jewish scriptural text."

 

[Andrew]

I believe that the canonization of the Bible--which came later--took under consideration many relevant factors.

As a point of information, here is the Wikipedia summary of the pertinent information about the Septuagint:

"The Septuagint includes books called anagignoskomena in Greek, known in English as deuterocanon, itself derived from the Greek words for "second canon", because they are not included in the Jewish canon.[24][25][26] Among these are the first two books of Maccabees; Tobit; Judith; Wisdom of Solomon; Sirach; Baruch, including the Letter of Jeremiah; additions to Esther; and additions to Daniel. All of these books are considered by the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church as canonical books; to Protestantism, they are the Apocrypha.[citation needed] The Septuagint version of some Biblical books, like Daniel and Esther, are longer than those in the Masoretic Text.[27] Meanwhile, the Septuagint text of the Book of Jeremiah is shorter than the Masoretic text.[28]
"Since Late Antiquity, mainstream rabbinic Judaism rejected the Septuagint as a valid Jewish scriptural text."

The official Jewish OT cannon wasn't established until way after Christ, hence why they completely cut out the NT.. John the baptist was no prophet to them neither was Christ anything to them

 

[Albion]

The official Jewish OT cannon wasn't established until way after Christ, hence why they completely cut out the NT.. John the baptist was no prophet to them neither was Christ anything to them

The point is that there were all sorts of theories about which books are inspired--in the years prior to canonization. At the time of canonization, the church of course was aware of the issues you have been referring to. It was decided that the books we have in all our Bibles today are to be included (in part because the consensus had already existed on all but a handful of them) and the Apocryphal books were included but only provisionally.

During the Reformation, both the Catholic Church and the Protestants re-examined that issue and either eliminated some of them or else eliminated all of them. Quite obviously, neither side consider the Apocrypha to be settled or untouchable.

 

[NathanH83]

No one has changed history. No one denies history. It's just that not all consider the books of First Maccabees, Second Maccabees, Third Maccabees and/or Fourth Maccabees to be CANONICAL SCRIPTURE - the divinely inspired, inerrant, written words of God that is the rule and norma normans ("canon") for Doctrine. I think World War Two happened.... but that doesn't make every book that reports it to be Canonical Scripture. And there are millions of books that speak of Jesus, that doesn't make all of theme inerrant, inspired, inscripturated words of God and the norma normans for Doctrine.

Multiple church councils declared 1 and 2 Maccabees to be holy scripture in the late 300's.

The council of Rome in 382.
Hippo in 393.
Carthage in 397.

Can you please share what church councils declared World War 2 history books to be holy scripture? I've never heard of these church councils. Please, do share.

 

[Josiah]

Multiple church councils declared 1 and 2 Maccabees to be holy scripture in the late 300's.

The council of Rome in 382.
Hippo in 393.
Carthage in 397.

Can you please share what church councils declared World War 2 history books to be holy scripture? I've never heard of these church councils. Please, do share.

Yes, some of the at least 4 "Book of Maccabees" that some tomes have in them are mentioned in some places, but that's irrelevant to the issue here. And no Ecumenical Council EVER decided ANYTHING about ANY book.

And again, your claim that FIRST Maccabees got something historically correct seems irrelevant to whether it is ergo the inscripturated, inerrant, written words of God; the norma normans for doctrine, and thus canonical. I realize it appears in some tomes (as did the Epistle to the Leodiceans and a GREAT many not mentioned in the 39 Articles) but that doesn't mean ergo there historical content is thus right or wrong.


Here's what you posted:

There's a lot that is missing.

Daniel 8 is a significant prophecy. Not only does it prophesy about the events of Antiochus the King of the Seleucid empire, but according to Jesus it's also a dual prophecy in regards to the anti-christ still to come.

So in order to understand what it still to come, it's important to understand what already came.

The events in Maccabees are prophesied in Daniel 8. They're celebrated at Hanukah by the Jews. Even Jesus celebrated it.

Understanding what already came is incredibly important to having a better picture of what is still to come.

It's a shame that people can't understand Daniel 8 because they've had the history of Maccabees stripped from their Bibles.

What an utter shame.

Here is my reply to those statements,

No one has changed history. No one denies history. It's just that not all consider the books of First Maccabees, Second Maccabees, Third Maccabees and/or Fourth Maccabees to be CANONICAL SCRIPTURE - the divinely inspired, inerrant, written words of God that is the rule and norma normans ("canon") for Doctrine. I think World War Two happened.... but that doesn't make every book that reports it to be Canonical Scripture. And there are millions of books that speak of Jesus, that doesn't make all of theme inerrant, inspired, inscripturated words of God and the norma normans for Doctrine.

.

It COULD be that one of the Maccabee books got something right about history. Probably many books have gotten something right about history. That just seems irrelevant to the issue of this thread.

 

[Andrew]

Yes, some of the at least 4 "Book of Maccabees" that some tomes have in them are mentioned in some places, but that's irrelevant to the issue here. And no Ecumenical Council EVER decided ANYTHING about ANY book.

And again, your claim that FIRST Maccabees got something historically correct seems irrelevant to whether it is ergo the inscripturated, inerrant, written words of God; the norma normans for doctrine, and thus canonical. I realize it appears in some tomes (as did the Epistle to the Leodiceans and a GREAT many not mentioned in the 39 Articles) but that doesn't mean ergo there historical content is thus right or wrong.


Here's what you posted:



Here is my reply to those statements,




It COULD be that one of the Maccabee books got something right about history. Probably many books have gotten something right about history. That just seems irrelevant to the issue of this thread.

The Assyrians and Babylonians are interchangeable, the word "Babylon" in scripture always refers to "worldly" fellowship.. So far the only claim I heard against these books was "see it says Nebuchadnezzar was the king of Assyria and not Babylon as cannon scripture suggest", but it's a fact that other OT scriptures has just as many or even more inconsistencies with historically accurate accounts, that's mainly due to the author not being an historian himself.. in fact even the NT authors are inconsistent at times, for good reason

 

[Andrew]

The point is that there were all sorts of theories about which books are inspired--in the years prior to canonization. At the time of canonization, the church of course was aware of the issues you have been referring to. It was decided that the books we have in all our Bibles today are to be included (in part because the consensus had already existed on all but a handful of them) and the Apocryphal books were included but only provisionally.

During the Reformation, both the Catholic Church and the Protestants re-examined that issue and either eliminated some of them or else eliminated all of them. Quite obviously, neither side consider the Apocrypha to be settled or untouchable.

The Septuagint should never have been meddled with seeing that early Christians as well as pre Messianic Judaism used them exclusively..
IMHO the gnostic movement is what stirred up the "canon" movement to take place and by then of course the Jews were no fans of Christ thus their rejection influenced and inspired the dogma of "canon".. I still admit that the NT holds the saving Gospel but it should really give you an idea of why the Masoretic (post Christ Jewish canon) leaves out the New Testament all together along with anti Sabbath law books (Maccabean revolt which Jesus celebrated) and anything to do with them (the "Apocrypha").. leaving us with Isaiah as the last prophet EVER (no John the Baptist, No Jesus Christ and no Gospel)