Did Jesus celebrate a holiday that comes from the apocrypha?

[Albion]

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

What or whom are you quoting there?

 

[Andrew]

What or whom are you quoting there?

"Screwy ideas", can you emphasis on that?
If you are talking about purgatory you should take a deep breath of fresh air and relax because it's not in 2nd Maccabees like the RCC may claim and Martin Luther even sides with them in agreement that it promotes purgatory, which is false.. Maybe if Martin realized that the RCC misinterpreted 2nd Maccabees instead of condemning it he wouldn't have said "just as 1rst maccabees should be considered Holy Scripture, 2nd maccabees should be rejected" (paraphrasing)

 

[Albion]

"Screwy ideas", can you emphasis on that?

Very well. That's not the same as "makes no sense."
,

If you are talking about purgatory you should take a deep breath of fresh air and relax because it's not in 2nd Maccabees like the RCC may claim

I know that. And that's just a false teaching not based upon Maccabees, even though the RCC says it is. I had in mind other things, such as the command to use magic (Tobit 6:5-7), giving money to offset the sins of the dead (2 Maccabees 12:43-45), the fact that the Old Testament is referred to and quoted hundreds of times in the New Testament and the Apocrypha is not quoted once.

 

[Andrew]

.

 

[Andrew]

Very well. That's not the same as "makes no sense."
,

I know that. And that's just a false teaching not based upon Maccabees, even though the RCC says it is. I had in mind other things, such as the command to use magic (Tobit 6:5-7), giving money to offset the sins of the dead (2 Maccabees 12:43-45), the fact that the Old Testament is referred to and quoted hundreds of times in the New Testament and the Apocrypha is not quoted once.

Many books in the OT are never quoted, and the witch of Samuel doesn't imply that we should practice spiritism and have the dead raised by a medium, just sayin, we can all make screwy ideas, should we start a church that says we should be literally burned in fire baptism?
Double standard

 

[Andrew]

Very well. That's not the same as "makes no sense."
,

I know that. And that's just a false teaching not based upon Maccabees, even though the RCC says it is. I had in mind other things, such as the command to use magic (Tobit 6:5-7), giving money to offset the sins of the dead (2 Maccabees 12:43-45), the fact that the Old Testament is referred to and quoted hundreds of times in the New Testament and the Apocrypha is not quoted once.

Maybe you should read 2nd Maccabees, it only says that is was commemorated to expect the resurrection and to purchase animals for sacrifice in the time of the Maccabees but they were expecting the Messiah the Lord Jesus at any moment

 

[Josiah]

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?

[MENTION=387]Andrew[/MENTION]


Well, the only things that even come CLOSE to an "Apostle's Council" are in Acts 1 and 15, and neither of those had anything whatsoever to do with any book or books (being canonical or useful or anything).

There have been Seven Ecumenical Councils. But none of them had anything whatsoever to do with any book or books (being canonical or heretical or useful or anything).

As I mentioned, there have been tens of thousands of synods, councils, conferences, denominational meetings, etc., all very limited. There are a couple of ones from the 4th century for the Latin west that among many other things also addressed what books could be read from in the lectionary, but they were non-binding, local, regional conferences. NO meeting decided what books ARE Scripture until the Council of Florence in the 15th Century, but that was not very definitive and only for the Roman Catholic Church. The topic was taken up again by that singular denomination's meeting at Trent a century later simply because Florence was not official and definitive on the mater (but then Trent functionally didn't settle this either for the RCC). In the same century, the Calvinists and Anglicans took up the issue, but again ONLY for that singular, individual denomination. NONE of these agreed with each other, they all officially embraced different Bibles.

There are 66 books which were pretty much embraced by common consensus and tradition (although not necessarily equally; until the 17th Century, some were held in higher esteem than others - but all regarded as canoncial/rule/norma normans). There was NEVER been ANY official action on this on the part of the Church, but some denominations have officially spoken for itself individually and exclusively. There has been no significant challenge to any of the 66 in over 500 years and all major denominations that have taken some action during these 500 years have embraced all of these 66 (by our modern count; that material).

Yes, there are 7-20 or so other books that are old covenant (sometimes called Old Testament Apocrypha or Old Testament DEUTEROcanonical), a similar number are new covenant (sometimes called New Testament Apocrypha or New Testament DEUTEROcanonical). None of these have been particularly useful and there has NEVER been universal/historic agreement on them - never has there been two groups or denominations with the same embrace of the same set of these Deutero books. NO ONE CARED since they simply were not used much. The RCC disagrees with every denomination on that planet about these books, but then EVERY denomination that has an official stance on these Deutero books disagrees with EVERY other on this. There is no consensus as to WHICH "set" and WHAT status/use they have, although a handful of denominations agree with one - self but no other. Again, doesn't seem to matter much since no denomination seems to actually use these.

The Bible is a product of tradition, of ancient ecumenical consensus - not an Apostle Council or Ecumenical Council. No one had a problem with that until the Council of Florence in the 15th Century and that was because Catholics were often reading from books such as The Epistle to the Leodiceans (which remained in a lot of Catholic tomes into the 17th Century; it is the "book Luther ripped out of the Bible" because he did not include it in his German translation). Tradition has spoken, ancient and ecumenical consensus has established this issue (to the extent it is). THAT embraces 66 books (that material), but then there are some others that are DEUTERO ("secondary" "under") about which there simply is no consensus about "them" (even what "they" are) or their status, but this never has mattered much (except to Nathan here at CH, lol) and so the lack of consensus that has ALWAYS existed never mattered (so no call for some resolution). For example, of all the many issues that divided the RCC from the EOC (finally leading to mutual excommunications and anathemas in 1054), the issue that they had different "sets" of Deutero books, embraced differently, NEVER came up, NEVER was an issue (still isn't). In truth, the view of Luther and of the Anglican church on these was the nearly universal view of Catholics until Trent - WHATEVER "set" you embrace (and there was no firm set!!!) they are useful and can be used to support teachings found in the Bible but are NOT canonical (the Rule or Norma Normans for theology), what Luther said in his intro to these books in his German translation and what the Anglican Church said about them WAS the pretty much universal position for 1500 years.




See thread "Apocrypha?" post 74




.

 

[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.

It’s not nonsense. Most people who I know in the Protestant church (I was raised Protestant and still am), they simply won’t read the apocrypha. They stay away from it either because they believe it’s heretical, or because they believe it’s fictional work that the Catholics made up, or they believe that there’s just no sense in wasting time with it since it’s not scripture anyway.

So, you’re wrong when you say people are not being discouraged from reading these books. I’ve got lots of friends from church, and I can guarantee you that the vast majority will tell you that they have not read Maccabees. They don’t even know what Maccabees is, or that Jesus celebrated a holiday that comes from it, or that Daniel prophesies about it, or that Paul mentions events from it in Hebrews 11:35.

The vast majority of my church friends have read the whole Bible through at least 3 or 4 times, and have memorized many scriptures. But over 95% of them have NOT read the Apocryphal books, which the majority of early church councils declared to be scripture.

So you can say all you want that people are not being discouraged from reading them. But that doesn’t agree with what I know to be true in reality.

The truth is, people are being discouraged from reading them.

 

[NathanH83]

Very well. That's not the same as "makes no sense."
,

I know that. And that's just a false teaching not based upon Maccabees, even though the RCC says it is. I had in mind other things, such as the command to use magic (Tobit 6:5-7), giving money to offset the sins of the dead (2 Maccabees 12:43-45), the fact that the Old Testament is referred to and quoted hundreds of times in the New Testament and the Apocrypha is not quoted once.

Burning fish guts is not practicing magic. The Old Testament talks about plenty of burnt sacrifices that are a pleasing aroma to the Lord. Tobit simply tells us about burning fish guts, and that this particular aroma scares away demons apparently. Nothing about magic there.

2 Maccabees does not say that the money paid for their sins. It says that the money paid for the animals, and the animal sacrifices paid for their sins.

2 Maccabees 12 said the money was “to provide for the sin offering.”
Any Jewish person knows that the “sin offering” in Leviticus is a bull sacrifice. The money Judas Maccabee sent was so that the Levite priests could buy the animals.

Esther is never quoted in the New Testament. But if you found a passage saying Jesus celebrated Purim, you would undoubtedly use that as justification for Esther’s inclusion.

Well, the New Testament never tells us of Purim being celebrated in the New Testament. But it does tell us about Jesus celebrating Hanukkah. And then Paul briefly mentions the most famous story in the story of Hanukah, of the 7 sons being tortured.

Maccabees has more verification than Esther!

Athanasius said Esther is a work of fiction, and belongs in the Apocrypha, but he never said that about Maccabees.

By your faulty logic, Maccabees belongs and Esther ought to be RIPPED OUT AND THROWN IN THE TRASH!

 

[Josiah]

It’s not nonsense. Most people who I know in the Protestant church (I was raised Protestant and still am), they simply won’t read the apocrypha.

1. There's no such thing as "The Protestant church." There are tens of thousands of Protestant denominations, perhaps, but no "Protestant Church" that includes all Protestants.


2. WHAT apocrypha? The Syrian Orthodox Church's "set?" The Coptic Orthodox Church's set? The Anglican Church's set (you note that you are Anglican)? The Post Trent RCC's set? Luther's personal "set?" The Greek Orthodox Church's "set?" Calvin's set? WHICH books, and WHICH denominations are officially right and wrong about this?


3. List for us denominations that forbid or even discourage reading some books (and kindly list exactly WHAT books they discourage their members from reading). Please do that before we go any further with this. There may be over ten thousand Protestant denominations, so I don't doubt that there may be one or more than officially discourage reading of some "set" of Deutero OT books (perhaps you'd list those denominations for us), but by far the two largest Protestant faith communities - Lutheran and Anglican - not only do NOT forbid the reading of "these books" (which ever those are) but actually ENCOURAGE it and even including readings in their lectionaries; my denomination has an extensive curriculum to study them. Together, Anglicans and Lutherans are nearly half of all Protestants. I'm pretty sure the Methodist Church does not forbid their reading, either. List for us denominations that forbid or even discourage reading some books (and kindly list exactly WHAT books they discourage their members from reading).


4. I hate to say it, but there are a LOT of books Christians don't read much. That would include Numbers in the OT and Jude in the NT. In fact, there are probably hundreds of entire books that many Christians have read cover-t0-cover while having perhaps NEVER read the Bible cover to cover. I find your assumption very flawed that if books are read - they are thu the inerrant, divinely and verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God (and thus the Rule, Canon, norma normans for doctrine) and conversely, if they are not read, they are officially rejected as such. I think your assumption is quite wrong.

But over 95% of them have NOT read the Apocryphal books

WHAT books? Those embraced by the 39 Articles of the 16th Century that your singular, individual denomination embraces but no other?

They must be bad Anglicans. But even they would have heard readings from a few of these Deutero books because your denomination includes some in the lectionary.

The truth is, people are being discouraged from reading them.

Which people? By which denomination(s)? Please, list for us all the denominations that have an official stance that people are not to read certain books, and please give the titles for each of the books they are specifically told not to read.

I don't think anyone here at CH has stated all are to not read any of the DEUTERO book; in fact, no one here has ever suggested that ANY book not be read. And I know of no denomination that has officially said so. I don't know who or what you have an argument with, but I can't think of any known to me that's telling you not to read some book. I might caution you to not embrace all without discernment, but I've never told anyone not to read some book. IMO, you can read whatever you want to read. Might be something inspirational or informational or entertaining. But you READING them doesn't therefore make them the inerrant, divinely and verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and thus the Rule, Canon, norma normans.... and your NOT reading them does NOT mean they are not such, it just means one person read or didn't read a book. I recently read the book, "Boys in the Boat." Read it TWICE! Cover-to-cover! Loved it! Doesn't mean ERGO it's canonical... or not if you've personally not read it.





.

 

[Lamb]

It’s not nonsense. Most people who I know in the Protestant church (I was raised Protestant and still am), they simply won’t read the apocrypha. They stay away from it either because they believe it’s heretical, or because they believe it’s fictional work that the Catholics made up, or they believe that there’s just no sense in wasting time with it since it’s not scripture anyway.

So, you’re wrong when you say people are not being discouraged from reading these books. I’ve got lots of friends from church, and I can guarantee you that the vast majority will tell you that they have not read Maccabees. They don’t even know what Maccabees is, or that Jesus celebrated a holiday that comes from it, or that Daniel prophesies about it, or that Paul mentions events from it in Hebrews 11:35.

The vast majority of my church friends have read the whole Bible through at least 3 or 4 times, and have memorized many scriptures. But over 95% of them have NOT read the Apocryphal books, which the majority of early church councils declared to be scripture.

So you can say all you want that people are not being discouraged from reading them. But that doesn’t agree with what I know to be true in reality.

The truth is, people are being discouraged from reading them.

Well, maybe you should start talking to Lutherans more. We were encouraged during a bible study to read them (and Pastor handed out copies to us and said to rotate them) so there goes your theory

 

[Josiah]

Well, maybe you should start talking to Lutherans more. We were encouraged during a bible study to read them (and Pastor handed out copies to us and said to rotate them) so there goes your theory

See post 30 above.....


Lamm, he states he is Anglican. The Anglican Cburch is one of the very few that since the mid 16th Century actually has an official stance on WHICH books and WHAT status/function those have. And this unique set of books IS included in their lectionary, often ARE preached on, and Anglicans ARE encouraged to read "them" (the Anglican Church's UNIQUE "set"). He also knows the Lutheran position on these, that we don't reject "them" and don't recommend not reading "them" (the "them" is never defined by Lutherans) and since his Anglican Communion and our Lutheran community together is nearly half of all the world's "Protestants," his statement, well.... you know.

IF he responds to post #30, we'll get a LIST of EXACTLY what books the world's protestants are forbidden to read and evidently don't read "cover-to-cover" and also WHICH books are and are not canonical OT and NT Deutero/apocrypha books (and thus find out specifically WHICH denomination has it right because no two that in any way officially agree on "them" agree on what "them" are and aren't).

 

[Albion]

Burning fish guts is not practicing magic. The Old Testament talks about plenty of burnt sacrifices that are a pleasing aroma to the Lord. Tobit simply tells us about burning fish guts, and that this particular aroma scares away demons apparently. Nothing about magic there.

2 Maccabees does not say that the money paid for their sins. It says that the money paid for the animals, and the animal sacrifices paid for their sins.

2 Maccabees 12 said the money was “to provide for the sin offering.”
Any Jewish person knows that the “sin offering” in Leviticus is a bull sacrifice. The money Judas Maccabee sent was so that the Levite priests could buy the animals.

Esther is never quoted in the New Testament. But if you found a passage saying Jesus celebrated Purim, you would undoubtedly use that as justification for Esther’s inclusion.

Well, the New Testament never tells us of Purim being celebrated in the New Testament. But it does tell us about Jesus celebrating Hanukkah. And then Paul briefly mentions the most famous story in the story of Hanukah, of the 7 sons being tortured.

Maccabees has more verification than Esther!

Athanasius said Esther is a work of fiction, and belongs in the Apocrypha, but he never said that about Maccabees.

By your faulty logic, Maccabees belongs and Esther ought to be RIPPED OUT AND THROWN IN THE TRASH!

Looks like I don't need to respond further. You have a position and won't hear of any of our criticisms of it, or reply to them, or provide any evidence to substantiate your own. And now you are also posting what you want our/my position to be, so that you can then satirize it. All in one complete package.

Me thinks you need a different hobby since DISCUSSION is not your thing.

By the way, you see that people are wondering what "Anglican" means in your personal profile, particularly after posting such unAnglican views. Which church body is it that you belong to?

 

[NathanH83]

Looks like I don't need to respond further. You have a position and won't hear of any of our criticisms of it, or reply to them, or provide any evidence to substantiate your own. And now you are also posting what you want our/my position to be, so that you can then satirize it. All in one complete package.

Me thinks you need a different hobby since DISCUSSION is not your thing.

By the way, you see that people are wondering what "Anglican" means in your personal profile, particularly after posting such unAnglican views. Which church body is it that you belong to?

That’s your response?

I’ve just shown that 2 Maccabees is NOT saying that their money paid for the sins of their dead soldiers, but rather their money merely paid for the animals to be sacrificed. The money merely provided for the “sin offering” spoken of in Leviticus.

This proves that the Catholic Church grossly misinterpreted scripture by telling people to send money to Rome to atone for their dead relatives’ sins, and free them from the fictitious place they call purgatory.

But you have no response to that? Instead, you insist that we continue to grossly misinterpret this ancient Jewish text in order to justify throwing it out of the Bible?

That’s a sad attitude.

And I never claimed to be Anglican. I’ve no clue where you’re getting that from.

If you ever catch a fish, when you go to filet it and remove its guts, be careful not to burn any of the internal organs, or else you’ll also be guilty of practicing magic like Tobias apparently was. Give me a break!

 

[Josiah]

This proves that the Catholic Church grossly misinterpreted scripture by telling people to send money to Rome to atone for their dead relatives’ sins, and free them from the fictitious place they call purgatory.

WOW! I've never before witness such an ENORMOUS leap! Amazing!

I never claimed to be Anglican. I’ve no clue where you’re getting that from.

You put a faith icon next to your name. It declares "ANGLICAN." You tell everyone posting here that you are an Anglican. Everyone has every reason to accept that's what you are because that's the icon you chose and chose to make known to all. It's been there for over 100 posts and some 6 months.

Now if you chose wrongly, and you sincerely didn't notice we all embraced you as Anglican BECAUSE that's the icon you chose and selected to make public, then perhaps you should change it. Don't know how? Perhaps if you are polite, staff will do it for you,




Now, back to the issue (which has nothing whatsoever to do with what books are or are not canonical or fish guts or purgatory or the Catholic Church or indulgences or whether a non-canonical book might nonetheless contain something correct) It's about a Jewish festival that a book not all have in their Bible mentions.




.

 

[Andrew]

WOW! I've never before witness such an ENORMOUS leap! Amazing!





You put a faith icon next to your name. It declares "ANGLICAN." You tell everyone posting here that you are an Anglican. Everyone has every reason to accept that's what you are because that's the icon you chose and chose to make known to all. It's been there for over 100 posts and some 6 months.

Now if you chose wrongly, and you sincerely didn't notice we all embraced you as Anglican BECAUSE that's the icon you chose and selected to make public, then perhaps you should change it. Don't know how? Perhaps if you are polite, staff will do it for you,




Now, back to the issue (which has nothing whatsoever to do with what books are or are not canonical or fish guts or purgatory or the Catholic Church or indulgences or whether a non-canonical book might nonetheless contain something correct) It's about a Jewish festival that a book not all have in their Bible mentions.




.

I don't know how to change it actually lol
I remember my profile automatically put me down as agnostic when I first signed up

 

[Josiah]

Now, back to the issue (which has nothing whatsoever to do with what books are or are not canonical or fish guts or purgatory or the Catholic Church or indulgences or whether a non-canonical book might nonetheless contain something correct) It's about a Jewish festival that a book not all have in their Bible mentions.




I don't think the feast Jesus celebrated comes "FROM" some book some don't have in a tome with "BIBLE" on the cover. The book records it but it doesn't come FROM it. And I don't think that a book with something correct in it means ERGO the book IS the inerrant, divinely and verbally inspired inscripturated words of God and thus the Rule and Canon for doctrine. I just finished a book entitled "Boys in the Boat" (well, read it again). It contains HUNDREDS of things that are correct and historical, but none of those things came from that book (it just accurately mentions them) and I don;t agree that BECAUSE something accurate is contained, it ERGO must be canonical Scriptures. I find that apologetic to be amazingly absurd.


If Nathan goofed regarding his faith declaration and only now realized it, that doesn't make all of us wrong to think he is Anglican. IF he doesn't know how or can't change the declaration, he can contact staff, I'm sure someone can do it for him (because we're nice here at CH and staff here is ever so helpful and kind)



.

 

[Andrew]

Now, back to the issue (which has nothing whatsoever to do with what books are or are not canonical or fish guts or purgatory or the Catholic Church or indulgences or whether a non-canonical book might nonetheless contain something correct) It's about a Jewish festival that a book not all have in their Bible mentions.




I don't think the feast Jesus celebrated comes "FROM" some book some don't have in a tome with "BIBLE" on the cover. The book records it but it doesn't come FROM it. And I don't think that a book with something correct in it means ERGO the book IS the inerrant, divinely and verbally inspired inscripturated words of God and thus the Rule and Canon for doctrine. I just finished a book entitled "Boys in the Boat" (well, read it again). It contains HUNDREDS of things that are correct and historical, but none of those things came from that book (it just accurately mentions them) and I don;t agree that BECAUSE something accurate is contained, it ERGO must be canonical Scriptures. I find that apologetic to be amazingly absurd.


If Nathan goofed regarding his faith declaration and only now realized it, that doesn't make all of us wrong to think he is Anglican. IF he doesn't know how or can't change the declaration, he can contact staff, I'm sure someone can do it for him (because we're nice here at CH and staff here is ever so helpful and kind)



.[/QUOTE [MENTION=1]Romanos[/MENTION]

I would summon Lamm but I can never type that weird 'a' lol
Could someone change Nathans denomination to Christian? Not sure why but it seems to be a problem for many signing up
Or someone could walk me through it..

ANYWAY back to the subject, of course no book can BE the origins of a holy day, but that origin DID come from Jewish history and the Maccabean revolt mentioned in a book Martin Luther fancied himself as divine sacred scripture (1rst Maccabees).

 

[Josiah]

ANYWAY back to the subject, of course no book can BE the origins of a holy day

Thus, we're done. If we all agree with that, then this thread can be closed.

that origin DID come from Jewish history and the Maccabean revolt mentioned in a book

This is where the apologetic is absurd and entirely wrong.

TENS OF MILLIONS of books mention things that are correct. It's absurd to insist that ERGO all such books are the inerrant, divinely and verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God; the Rule and Canon, equal in every sense to every other. I just re-read a book entitled "The Boys in the Boat." I highly recommend it. It contains dozens if not hundreds of correct historical realities. THAT does not mean this book should be included with in every tome with "BIBLE" written in the cover and considered equal in every way with say Paul's Letter to the Romans or that some mysterious denomination forbids everyone from reading it. It just means this book has some correct things in it. Millions of books do.

Martin Luther fancied himself as divine sacred scripture (1rst Maccabees).

Already addressed MANY times. No, he did NOT regard this book to be canonical; this has been documented to you. As has the Lutheran position. And First Maccabees is ONE book.... there are close to 100 books that some regard as Apocrypha or Deutero for the OT or NT. But we've already been over this.

But now that Martin Luther is your authority on what books are and are not canonical (and to my knowledge, you'd be the only such person on the planet - Lutherans certainly do not so embrace him), fine. Then we have 66 books that are canonical - and some additional books, one more than the RCC has, but they are good for reading but not to be used as the Rule or Canon (it's similar to the common view at the time and the one the Anglican church would officially embrace albeit for more books than he did). But friend, you can read ANY book you want!!! Just use discernment. Remember: Heretics are very very talented in persuasion; Satan lies in very convincing ways (worked even on Adam and Eve). There are still snake oil sellers.... always soemthing new and divisive... always based on some insight THEY have and how brilliant they are and ignorant/stupid EVERYONE else is.

 

[Andrew]

Thus, we're done. If we all agree with that, then this thread can be closed.






This is where the apologetic is absurd and entirely wrong.

TENS OF MILLIONS of books mention things that are correct. It's absurd to insist that ERGO all such books are the inerrant, divinely and verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God; the Rule and Canon, equal in every sense to every other. I just re-read a book entitled "The Boys in the Boat." I highly recommend it. It contains dozens if not hundreds of correct historical realities. THAT does not mean this book should be included with in every tome with "BIBLE" written in the cover and considered equal in every way with say Paul's Letter to the Romans or that some mysterious denomination forbids everyone from reading it. It just means this book has some correct things in it. Millions of books do.







Already addressed MANY times. No, he did NOT regard this book to be canonical; this has been documented to you. As has the Lutheran position. And First Maccabees is ONE book.... there are close to 100 books that some regard as Apocrypha or Deutero for the OT or NT. But we've already been over this.

But now that Martin Luther is your authority on what books are and are not canonical (and to my knowledge, you'd be the only such person on the planet - Lutherans certainly do not so embrace him), fine. Then we have 66 books that are canonical - and some additional books, one more than the RCC has, but they are good for reading but not to be used as the Rule or Canon (it's similar to the common view at the time and the one the Anglican church would officially embrace albeit for more books than he did). But friend, you can read ANY book you want!!! Just use discernment. Remember: Heretics are very very talented in persuasion; Satan lies in very convincing ways (worked even on Adam and Eve). There are still snake oil sellers.... always soemthing new and divisive... always based on some insight THEY have and how brilliant they are and ignorant/stupid EVERYONE else is.

The origin is testimony, the book is testimony, no this thread is not over! lol
If the council decided to toss out Isaiah you wouldn't be reading it, even when Isaiah is cited in the NT you would still support the councils decision that it was uninspired, you would say "just because it mentions certain things in Isaiah does not make it the origin"..
The early christians did not need an OT official canon decreed by a council, the Apostles declared the Gospel as the final Authority, the ONLY reason an OT council was created was because of the Jews telling Christians "oh no no, you got the wrong books, here, take these books!! Oy, don't mind the subtle changes in genealogies like Paul warned you though!! also the later books we booted out because they support grafting in gentiles and breaks the laws of the Sabbath! John the baptist is no prophet, nor is your Jesus, for more information on what really happened to Jesus you can totally trust our Talmud too! Yes we Jews are right and you Christians have the wrong books"
Just sayin