Did Jesus celebrate a holiday that comes from the apocrypha?

[NathanH83]

John 10:22
The Feast of Dedication.

 

[Albion]

John 10:22
The Feast of Dedication.

This seems like a point that doesn't have a point. If some event is mentioned in an Apocryphal book, that doesn't make it something we ought to do as Christians, nor does the Apocrypha's mention confer some sort of "official" status that either the book or the event didn't otherwise have. The fact that the Apocryphal books are not inspired does not make everything described or referred to in them be mere fiction, you know!

 

[NathanH83]

This seems like a point that doesn't have a point. If some event is mentioned in an Apocryphal book, that doesn't make it something we ought to do as Christians, nor does the Apocrypha's mention confer some sort of "official" status that either the book or the event didn't otherwise have. The fact that the Apocryphal books are not inspired does not make everything described or referred to in them be mere fiction, you know!

But they say the New Testament provides no verification for apocryphal books. But Jesus celebrated the holiday that comes from Maccabees.

If Jesus celebrated Purim, would it really be sensible to say Esther doesn’t belong in the Bible?

 

[Josiah]

This seems like a point that doesn't have a point. If some event is mentioned in an Apocryphal book, that doesn't make it something we ought to do as Christians, nor does the Apocrypha's mention confer some sort of "official" status that either the book or the event didn't otherwise have. The fact that the Apocryphal books are not inspired does not make everything described or referred to in them be mere fiction, you know!

Bingo.




.

 

[Albion]

But they say the New Testament provides no verification for apocryphal books. But Jesus celebrated the holiday that comes from Maccabees.

I wasn't one who said that, but the holiday either existed or it did not. It isn't made true simply because the Apocrypha might have mentioned it.

 

[NathanH83]

I wasn't one who said that, but the holiday either existed or it did not. It isn't made true simply because the Apocrypha might have mentioned it.

If Jesus celebrated it, then isn’t it important enough for us to read it?

 

[Josiah]

If Jesus celebrated it, then isn’t it important enough for us to read it?

No one denies that many books contain useful and/or accurate information. It doesn't mean that if any book has anything accurate or useful in it, it is thus the inerrant, verbally inspired, divinely inscripturated words of God - the rule, norma normans and canonical, equal in every sense to the Book of Deuteronomy and Romans.

I wasn't one who said that, but the holiday either existed or it did not. It isn't made true simply because the Apocrypha might have mentioned it.

Obviously.




.

 

[Albion]

If Jesus celebrated it, then isn’t it important enough for us to read it?

I have already said to read it. The fact that it is informative doesn't make it be divinely inspired, however.

 

[NathanH83]

I have already said to read it. The fact that it is informative doesn't make it be divinely inspired, however.

But when you say it’s not divinely inspired, you’re discouraging people from reading it. Most of the early churches were taught by the disciples that it’s divine scripture. That’s why they declared it so in the 300’s.

Why do you want to discourage people from reading about the holiday Jesus celebrated?

 

[Albion]

But when you say it’s not divinely inspired, you’re discouraging people from reading it.

That's nonsense. There are very few books that are divinely inspired and yet everyone knows that there are others which are beneficial if read. If we just confine ourselves to religious writings, the books that are beneficial are almost endless. Read Augustine, Aquinas, Billy Graham, Norman Vincent Peale, etc. Take your pick. Read any of a hundred prayer books you can find in any Christian Book Store. None of them are divinely inspired nor is anyone claiming that they are.

And as for the Apocrypha, hundreds of millions of Christians belong to churches (yours included!) which DO recommend these books but do not also claim that they are divinely inspired, so your point seems doubly wrong.

 

[Albion]

duplicate.

 

[Josiah]

That's nonsense. There are very few books that are divinely inspired and yet everyone knows that there are others which are beneficial if read. If we just confine ourselves to religious writings, the books that are beneficial are almost endless. Read Augustine, Aquinas, Billy Graham, Norman Vincent Peale, etc. Take your pick. Read any of a hundred prayer books you can find in any Christian Book Store. None of them are divinely inspired nor is anyone claiming that they are.

And as for the Apocrypha, hundreds of millions of Christians belong to churches (yours included!) which DO recommend these books but do not also claim that they are divinely inspired, so your point seems doubly wrong.

Nail on head

 

[Andrew]

That's nonsense. There are very few books that are divinely inspired and yet everyone knows that there are others which are beneficial if read. If we just confine ourselves to religious writings, the books that are beneficial are almost endless. Read Augustine, Aquinas, Billy Graham, Norman Vincent Peale, etc. Take your pick. Read any of a hundred prayer books you can find in any Christian Book Store. None of them are divinely inspired nor is anyone claiming that they are.

And as for the Apocrypha, hundreds of millions of Christians belong to churches (yours included!) which DO recommend these books but do not also claim that they are divinely inspired, so your point seems doubly wrong.

I agree with Nathan and we aren't talking about prayer books etc.. "Apocrypha" makes these books unattractive for anyone to ever read because they are "rejects", heck even the Catholic church doesn't use them in sermons, no body wants to read "uninspired" literature!
The Apostles weren't Catholic nor protestant and they had no canon other than the Gospel, but you know what Jesus read in the temple? Scrolls that agree with the Septuagint and NOT the Masoretic, the Septuagint includes the "Apocrypha", but somehow all those early Christians who read the Septuagint were just a bunch of silly dumb dumbs for EVER considering in the least bit that ANY of these books were inspired!!! ohh but they DID you see, regardless of what a bunch of post Apostle men who were distracted by the Jews happen to agree on as scripture, that happened LATER! The Apostles didn't wear silly hats either, nor did they have a beef with silly hatted people, they were just believers who read what they had, the contents of the Septuagint obviously (the early Hebrew sources NOT the Masoretic)

 

[Josiah]

I agree with Nathan and we aren't talking about prayer books etc.. "Apocrypha" makes these books unattractive for anyone to ever read because they are "rejects", heck even the Catholic church doesn't use them in sermons, no body wants to read "uninspired" literature!

I respectfully disagree, my friend. Indeed, the VAST, VAST majority of reading material (in print or online) is NOT regarded as the inerrant, verbally and divinely inspired, inscripturated words of God - and thus the rule, the canon, the norma normans. Indeed, I think that's true even for Christians, even for very dedicated Christians.


Lutherans do NOT reject them. Luther INCLUDED the common "set" of them popular in Germany in his day (one MORE than you'll find in modern Catholic tomes of the past 300 or 400 years). Some Lutheran lectionaries include readings from them (although not all). Concordia Publishing House (the largest Lutheran publishing house in the world) has a beautiful study edition of them and publishes Bible Study materials for them. Anglicans/Episcopalians do NOT reject them. Indeed, all editions of of the KJV included the unique Anglican "set" of them well into the 20th Century. Together, Anglicans and Lutherans are the majority of Protestants in the world (well, a bunch of them anyway, lol). Calvinists reject them. A group much smaller than Lutheran OR Anglican. And their rejection had a huge impact in the USA where Calvinism dominated American Protestantism for some time, but that's a Calvinist issue, not Protestant issue (and mostly an American issue).

you know what Jesus read in the temple? Scrolls that agree with the Septuagint and NOT the Masoretic, the Septuagint includes the "Apocrypha"

Well, AGAIN, which Apocrypha? The Anglican "set?" Luther's "set?" The post Council of Trent Roman Catholic "set?" The Greek Orthodox 'set?" The Syrian or Coptic "sets?"


Frankly, what version of a scroll happened to be in the synogogue in Nazareth seems irrelevant to this issue. I don't believe the Jews should determine what Books are and are not canonical (if I did, I'd have to reject the entire New Testament) and of course the Jews had NOT official stance on this AT ALL - not at all - until 90 AD when they REJECTED every "set" of these deutero books, all of them, so if we'd look to the Jews to tell us Christians which books are and are not canonical/the rule/the norma normans, we'd have the Calviinist Old Testament (and no New Testament at all).


Thank you.


Josiah



.

 

[NathanH83]

That's nonsense. There are very few books that are divinely inspired and yet everyone knows that there are others which are beneficial if read. If we just confine ourselves to religious writings, the books that are beneficial are almost endless. Read Augustine, Aquinas, Billy Graham, Norman Vincent Peale, etc. Take your pick. Read any of a hundred prayer books you can find in any Christian Book Store. None of them are divinely inspired nor is anyone claiming that they are.

And as for the Apocrypha, hundreds of millions of Christians belong to churches (yours included!) which DO recommend these books but do not also claim that they are divinely inspired, so your point seems doubly wrong.

But teachers today say these books are heretical, teaching false doctrines. This causes people to stay away from them. Most people in the church think these books are works of fiction that Catholics added, rather than what they really are, Jewish books added many years before Christ and accepted by the earliest Christians.

 

[Andrew]

I respectfully disagree, my friend. Indeed, the VAST, VAST majority of reading material (in print or online) is NOT regarded as the inerrant, verbally and divinely inspired, inscripturated words of God - and thus the rule, the canon, the norma normans. Indeed, I think that's true even for Christians, even for very dedicated Christians.


Lutherans do NOT reject them. Luther INCLUDED the common "set" of them popular in Germany in his day (one MORE than you'll find in modern Catholic tomes of the past 300 or 400 years). Some Lutheran lectionaries include readings from them (although not all). Concordia Publishing House (the largest Lutheran publishing house in the world) has a beautiful study edition of them and publishes Bible Study materials for them. Anglicans/Episcopalians do NOT reject them. Indeed, all editions of of the KJV included the unique Anglican "set" of them well into the 20th Century. Together, Anglicans and Lutherans are the majority of Protestants in the world (well, a bunch of them anyway, lol). Calvinists reject them. A group much smaller than Lutheran OR Anglican. And their rejection had a huge impact in the USA where Calvinism dominated American Protestantism for some time, but that's a Calvinist issue, not Protestant issue (and mostly an American issue).






Well, AGAIN, which Apocrypha? The Anglican "set?" Luther's "set?" The post Council of Trent Roman Catholic "set?" The Greek Orthodox 'set?" The Syrian or Coptic "sets?"


Frankly, what version of a scroll happened to be in the synogogue in Nazareth seems irrelevant to this issue. I don't believe the Jews should determine what Books are and are not canonical (if I did, I'd have to reject the entire New Testament) and of course the Jews had NOT official stance on this AT ALL - not at all - until 90 AD when they REJECTED every "set" of these deutero books, all of them, so if we'd look to the Jews to tell us Christians which books are and are not canonical/the rule/the norma normans, we'd have the Calviinist Old Testament (and no New Testament at all).


Thank you.


Josiah



.

Point is we would all be reading them if it weren't for them meddling councils

 

[Josiah]

I respectfully disagree, my friend. Indeed, the VAST, VAST majority of reading material (in print or online) is NOT regarded as the inerrant, verbally and divinely inspired, inscripturated words of God - and thus the rule, the canon, the norma normans. Indeed, I think that's true even for Christians, even for very dedicated Christians.


Lutherans do NOT reject them. Luther INCLUDED the common "set" of them popular in Germany in his day (one MORE than you'll find in modern Catholic tomes of the past 300 or 400 years). Some Lutheran lectionaries include readings from them (although not all). Concordia Publishing House (the largest Lutheran publishing house in the world) has a beautiful study edition of them and publishes Bible Study materials for them. Anglicans/Episcopalians do NOT reject them. Indeed, all editions of of the KJV included the unique Anglican "set" of them well into the 20th Century. Together, Anglicans and Lutherans are the majority of Protestants in the world (well, a bunch of them anyway, lol). Calvinists reject them. A group much smaller than Lutheran OR Anglican. And their rejection had a huge impact in the USA where Calvinism dominated American Protestantism for some time, but that's a Calvinist issue, not Protestant issue (and mostly an American issue).




Well, AGAIN, which Apocrypha? The Anglican "set?" Luther's "set?" The post Council of Trent Roman Catholic "set?" The Greek Orthodox 'set?" The Syrian or Coptic "sets?"


Frankly, what version of a scroll happened to be in the synogogue in Nazareth seems irrelevant to this issue. I don't believe the Jews should determine what Books are and are not canonical (if I did, I'd have to reject the entire New Testament) and of course the Jews had NOT official stance on this AT ALL - not at all - until 90 AD when they REJECTED every "set" of these deutero books, all of them, so if we'd look to the Jews to tell us Christians which books are and are not canonical/the rule/the norma normans, we'd have the Calviinist Old Testament (and no New Testament at all).


Thank you.



.

Point is we would all be reading them if it weren't for them meddling councils

I respectfully disagree, my friend... No ecumenical council determined ANYTHING about "them" (whatever "them" is/are), "meddling" or otherwise. Although again, some DENOMINATIONS have declared them "not the inerrant, verbally and divinely inspired, inscripturated words of God, fully canonical, the Rule, the norma normans, equal in every way to the Epistle to the Romans." But some have officially embraced some "set" in somewhat other ways, most have simply left the issue alone. Luther referred the issue to the Eighth Ecumenical Council which he repeatedly asked for but of course it never happened.

The Calvinists declared "them" (which them?) to not be the Rule/Canon but I don't think Calvin or any Calvinist meeting told anyone not to read them. Perhaps. But that's just the Calvinists - a very small percentage of Christians (even of Protestants). And of course, by tradition, Jews and Christians accept Numbers as Scripture but I'm guessing the percentage of folks who have READ that book (cover to cover) is probably less than thousands of books that no one has ever regarded as canonical Scripture.

BTW, I've read ALL of the "set" that Luther included in his German translation... and participated in a several month long study of them at my Lutheran parish. Never when I was a Catholic but yup, as a Lutheran.




.

 

[Andrew]

I respectfully disagree, my friend... No ecumenical council determined ANYTHING about "them" (whatever "them" is/are), "meddling" or otherwise. Although again, some DENOMINATIONS have declared them "not the inerrant, verbally and divinely inspired, inscripturated words of God, fully canonical, the Rule, the norma normans, equal in every way to the Epistle to the Romans." But some have officially embraced some "set" in somewhat other ways, most have simply left the issue alone. Luther referred the issue to the Eighth Ecumenical Council which he repeatedly asked for but of course it never happened.

The Calvinists declared "them" (which them?) to not be the Rule/Canon but I don't think Calvin or any Calvinist meeting told anyone not to read them. Perhaps. But that's just the Calvinists - a very small percentage of Christians (even of Protestants). And of course, by tradition, Jews and Christians accept Numbers as Scripture but I'm guessing the percentage of folks who have READ that book (cover to cover) is probably less than thousands of books that no one has ever regarded as canonical Scripture.

BTW, I've read ALL of the "set" that Luther included in his German translation... and participated in a several month long study of them at my Lutheran parish. Never when I was a Catholic but yup, as a Lutheran.




.

So let's just hypothetically theorise for a moment that what if there were no great post Apostle councils, would that mean that no OT was set canon? Would that mean they were uninspired?

 

[Albion]

But teachers today say these books are heretical, teaching false doctrines.

They do teach some strange stuff, and that is undeniable; but which teachers do you have in mind?

Most people in the church think these books are works of fiction that Catholics added, rather than what they really are, Jewish books added many years before Christ and accepted by the earliest Christians.

There are all sorts of churches, as you know. So which churches are you referring to? Or is it just members who have screwy ideas about some things as they do concerning almost every other doctrine of their churches?

 

[Andrew]

They do teach some strange stuff, and that is undeniable; but which teachers do you have in mind?


There are all sorts of churches, as you know. So which churches are you referring to? Or is it just members who have screwy ideas about some things as they do concerning almost every other doctrine of their churches?

Give me something from the Apocrypha you totally disagree with that "makes no sense"