In what ways does the Apocrypha point to Jesus as Savior?

[Albion]

My comment wasn't about any particular post, Andrew. We're now over 200 posts on this one thread, not to mention the other times the same subject has come up...and nothing has been resolved.

 

[Josiah]

I just wanted someone to answer a question.

I did.

And repudiated the "Jewish Conspiracy Theory" and noted the many falsehoods presented in the thread.



.

 

[Andrew]

My comment wasn't about any particular post, Andrew. We're now over 200 posts on this one thread, not to mention the other times the same subject has come up...and nothing has been resolved.

Lamm created this thread, other threads are more specific concerning a particular passage of a particular book in the form of a layman's question.

The question here was what books of the apocrypha point to Jesus as Messiah?

Well they are full of references to the resurrection, the prophet to come, much of the wisdom books are in sync with what some of what Jesus and the Apostles taught, Tobit teaches alms givings and charity, for me personally these latter books seem to focus almost entirely on compassion. Keep in mind that with God being silent and all the Jews that would have considered these books at the time are indeed the ones who absolutely looked forward to His coming.. as opposed to the corrupted elite high priests who lacked much compassion.

The books do have a different attitude than the ones before, they are blessed ecclesiastical books that regardless of whether or not they are included in ones canon they are wrongfully stigmatized as "apocrypha", the fact is that the Christians have always from tradition read these books in the churches to bestow the blessings of wisdom and instruction, not so much different from John instructing the 7 churches, imparting the wisdom of Christ and a promise that reading the letters in the church would bless them.

Of course the Revelation of Jesus Christ to John of Patmos is NT canon.

The overflow of hope, love and compassion found in these books should not be discouraged by any means, Luther did not discourage them, he simply did not want doctrine to be based on them such as the doctrine of Purgatory which even he knew came from their twisted exegesis of Maccabees.

Yet he wanted them included in his translation, in fact many many protestant commentators from the reformation and onward cited these books without a problem.

The fallout was the Bible Society refusing to print the Apocrypha in modern protestant bibles, they were there for good reason, you know what the bible societies reason was (other than making money by printing less) that if protestants kept the Apocrypha in the bible then they might backslide into Catholicism.. I believe that if that hadn't been done, the way the RCC is now, the two could have finished the reform, but maybe not, just an optimistic-coulda-shoulda.

Those are my thoughts anyway

@Josiah does this make better sense?

Also regarding the unbelievers who remained so, yes of course they held estate in the synagogues and of course they refuse to read any books made during and after the hellenistic era, its not even that big of a conspiracy, they rejected what they wanted and who they wanted, Jerome did the job he was sent to do, to gather and translate what the Hebrews had.. I still believe the Septuagint is more accurate than what the Jews gave us but it hasn't made a dent on Christianity. It has only left a stumbling block for themselves, may God have mercy on them

 

[NathanH83]

It's all been said, folks--and very well. Nothing will be accomplished by letting this go around in the same circle any further. So, let's resolve not to post more on this particular thread or on any other ones dealing with the same subject.

That will allow for everyone to work on more productive discussions. We need some!

Consider it. And "Thank you" for your consideration.

 

[Josiah]

regardless of whether or not they are included the canon

ANDREW


Well, that IS the issue that has been so passionately promoted by a couple of active posters here.... that "they" (never identified books) ARE and must be considered among The inerrant, fully/equally canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God - divine Scripture that is fully canonical in function. All with the claim that CHRISTIANITY formally/offically declared "them" so at some authoritative ecumenical council (it's just no one knows which) AND that at least 51% of all Christians who lived between 33 AD and 1530 AD accepted "them" (whatever "them" are) as inerrant, fully/equally canonical, divinely inscripturated words of God. It's just no attempt was used to confirm that as remotely true.


Now, again, IF (big word there) IF the two promoters of this had said...

+ "Of the many different Bibles Christians have (and always have had), many of these include more books than John Calvin recognized in the 16th Century." Well, Andrew, no one would have disagreed. It's a fact. Now, they don't necessarily accept all books as equally canonical but they certainly consider them Scripture and included them in their tomes and lectionaries.

+ "While Christianity has never done anything officially and while the Tradition here has never been perfect or universal, historically there (and often still are) books beyond Calvin's 66 that were at times read, used and quoted by some Christians.... and we can find a handful of important Christians calling some additional books as "Scripture" (although not necessarily as canonical)."

+ "I have read perhaps half a dozen such books (ones beyond Calvin's 66) and found them to be interesting, informational, inspirational and even transformational."

+ "In several denominations (including Anglican and some Lutheran), readings from some books beyond Calvin's 66 are included in the Lectionary, and this was common throughout Christian history."


... there would be no debate! No argument! There would have been full agreement!



BUT here's what the two promoters have said instead....

+ On a given date, at a given place, the RULING BODY of all Christianity and all Christians and all Denominations and churches, at this ECUMENICAL, PAN-CHRISTIAN, ALL-CHRISTIAN meeting, there was a formal/official declaration of what is and is not fully/equally canonical Scripture and it included all the "them" books which I won't identify. This is false, it's wrong, it's a lie. Repeated endlessly, in one way or another, in countless posts and threads. No such meeting ever happened. EVER. And this should be evident because NEVER has EVERY Christian and EVERY church had the identical same collection of books and EVEN TO THIS DAY never declared that all Scriptures are equal in terms of canonicity.

+ Every (or perhaps just a majority) of Christians from 33 AD to 1533 AD all accepted the exact same set of books as Scripture and regarded all of them as equally canonical - until Luther ripped "them" (whatever "them" are) out of the Bible because he disagreed with them. Every part of that is wrong, a falsehood, a lie. Repeated endlessly, one way or another, in countless posts and threads.

+ PROTESTANTISM ripped out "them"(never identified) from the collection that Christianity had approved and forbids anyone from reading them and publishing houses from printing them. This is not only a pure lie, but it's silly since Protestantism can't do anything... there is no Ruling Body for the half billion Protestants and thousands of Protestant denominations. And of course the two largest Protestant groups in the world (Anglicanism and Lutheranism) didn't rip out anything.... Lutheranism has no official stance in its Confessions and the 39 Articles of Anglicanism has MORE books in its collection than does the Catholic Church and most of the Orthodox Churches - so it's more than a lie. But one repeated endlessly one way or another, in countless posts and threads.

they are wrongfully stigmatized as "apocrypha"

The two promoters here have consistently used that term for the "them" books (they don't identify). It means "unauthentic, unauthorative." THEY used this term ....

Most scholars call them "DEUTEROcanonical." This is the word always used in my Catholic Church and by my Catholic teachers and friends (and the word Catholics HERE have used). It's the word I've preferred (but someones use the word the 2 promoters prefer). It means SECONDARILY, or under or subject to. Canonical - but not equally so. This was the personal opinion of Luther and the official position of the Anglican Church. As you know, "canon" means "rule, measuring stick, normative" what is used to source and norm disputed dogmas and praxis. While Luther at times called some of these "Scripture" he held they were not fully/equally canonical but instead suggested they SHOULD be read (thus, IN the lectionary, IN his Bible) because they are helpful, informational, inspirational, even transformational.... and while he never BASED any teaching on them, he used them to give additional support form something sourced elsewhere. Anglicans have done the same thing.

the fact is that the Christians have always from tradition read these books in the churches

Well, SOME Christians. At least Christians NOT from in a church of the Reformed/Calvinist tradition or American "Evangelicals." Those two small sub-groups of just Protestantism largely ignore the "them" not identified (sticking to Calvin's 66) but they do not forbid their reading or
outlaw publishing housed from printing them, nope, they just ignore them. Those two small sub-sets of Protestantism. No, not all Christians read them in churches.... Calvinists and American "Evangelicals" often don't (they ignore them) but some other Christians do read them.

In my Catholic years, their UNIQUE set of DEUTEROcanonical books seemed as ignored as in American "Evangelicalism." There was a rare inclusion in the Lectionary but that's all. In my LUTHERAN church, we had an extensive study of the unique set that Luther included in his translation. I never read any during my Catholic years but did after becoming Lutheran.

I can understand why a modern American "Evangelical" might be angry at his pastor who prohibited him from reading any book other than the 66 found in his denomination-approved Bible. But I think that outrage should be focused on their pastor, not all Christianity or the community here.... and should stick to facts rather than promote a LOT of ... well..... lies and accusations.





.

 

[Andrew]

ANDREW


Well, that IS the issue that has been so passionately promoted by a couple of active posters here.... that "they" (never identified books) ARE and must be considered among The inerrant, fully/equally canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God - divine Scripture that is fully canonical in function. All with the claim that CHRISTIANITY formally/offically declared "them" so at some authoritative ecumenical council (it's just no one knows which) AND that at least 51% of all Christians who lived between 33 AD and 1530 AD accepted "them" (whatever "them" are) as inerrant, fully/equally canonical, divinely inscripturated words of God. It's just no attempt was used to confirm that as remotely true.


Now, again, IF (big word there) IF the two promoters of this had said...

+ "Of the many different Bibles Christians have (and always have had), many of these include more books than John Calvin recognized in the 16th Century." Well, Andrew, no one would have disagreed. It's a fact. Now, they don't necessarily accept all books as equally canonical but they certainly consider them Scripture and included them in their tomes and lectionaries. But our two promoters haven't been saying that.

+ "While Christianity has never done anything officially and while the Tradition here has never been perfect or universal, historically there (and often still are) books beyond Calvin's 66 that were at times read, used and quoted by some Christians.... and we can find a handful of important Christians calling some additional books as "Scripture" (although not necessarily as canonical)." Again, no one here would have disagreed.

+ "I have read perhaps half a dozen such books (ones beyond Calvin's 66) and found them to be interesting, informational, inspirational and even transformational." I think everyone here would have said "praise God!"

+ "In several denominations (including Anglican and some Lutheran), readings from some books beyond Calvin's 66 are included in the Lectionary, and this was common throughout Christian history." Again, no argument.


No debate! No argument! Full agreement!



BUT here's what the two promoters have said instead....

+ On a given date, at a given place, the RULING BODY of all Christianity and all Christians and all Denominations and churches, at this ECUMENICAL, PAN-CHRISTIAN, ALL-CHRISTIAN meeting, there was a formal/official declaration of what is and is not fully/equally canonical Scripture and it included all the "them" books which I won't identify. This is false, it's wrong, it's a lie. Repeated endlessly, in one way or another, in countless posts and threads. No such meeting ever happened. EVER. And this should be evident because NEVER has EVERY Christian and EVERY church had the identical same collection of books and EVEN TO THIS DAY never declared that all Scriptures are equal in terms of canonicity.

+ Every (or perhaps just a majority) of Christians from 33 AD to 1533 AD all accepted the exact same set of books as Scripture and regarded all of them as equally canonical - until Luther ripped "them" (whatever "them" are) out of the Bible because he disagreed with them. Every part of that is wrong, a falsehood, a lie. Repeated endlessly, one way or another, in countless posts and threads.

+ PROTESTANTISM ripped out "them"(never identified) from the collection that Christianity had approved and forbids anyone from reading them and publishing houses from printing them. This is not only a pure lie, but it's silly since Protestantism can't do anything... there is no Ruling Body for the half billion Protestants and thousands of Protestant denominations. And of course the two largest Protestant groups in the world (Anglicanism and Lutheranism) didn't rip out anything.... Lutheranism has no official stance in its Confessions and the 39 Articles of Anglicanism has MORE books in its collection than does the Catholic Church and most of the Orthodox Churches - so it's more than a lie. But one repeated endlessly one way or another, in countless posts and threads.








The two promoters here have consistently used that term for the "them" churches they don't identify. It means "unauthentic, unauthorative." THEY used this term ....

Most scholars call them "DEUTEROcanonical." This is the word always used in my Catholic Church and by my Catholic teachers and friends (and the word Catholics HERE have used). It's the word I've preferred (but someones use the word the 2 promoters prefer). It means SECONDARILY, or under or subject to. Canonical - but not equally so. This was the personal opinion of Luther and the official position of the Anglican Church. As you know, "canon" means "rule, measuring stick, normative" what is used to source and norm disputed dogmas and praxis. While Luther at times called some of these "Scripture" he held they were not fully/equally canonical but instead suggested they SHOULD be read (thus, IN the lectionary, IN his Bible) because they are helpful, informational, inspirational, even transformational.... and while he never BASED any teaching on them, he used them to give additional support form something sourced elsewhere. Anglicans have done the same thing.







Well, SOME Christians. At least Christians NOT from in a church of the Reformed/Calvinist tradition or American "Evangelicals." Those two small sub-groups of just Protestantism largely ignore the "them" not identified (sticking to Calvin's 66) but they do not forbid their reading or
outlaw publishing housed from printing them, nope, they just ignore them. Those two small sub-sets of Protestantism. No, not all Christians read them in churches.... Calvinists and American "Evangelicals" often don't (they ignore them) but some other Christians do read them.

In my Catholic years, their UNIQUE set of DEUTEROcanonical books seemed as ignored as in American "Evangelicalism." There was a rare inclusion in the Lectionary but that's all. In my LUTHERAN church, we had an extensive study of the unique set that Luther included in his translation. I never read any during my Catholic years but did after becoming Lutheran.

I can understand why a modern American "Evangelical" might be angry at his pastor who prohibited him from reading any book other than the 66 found in his denomination-approved Bible. But I think that outrage should be focused on their pastor, not all Christianity or the community here.... and should stick to facts rather than promote a LOT of ... well..... lies and accusations.





.

Canon is set by men not God, so boo that all together, that's why I never cared to discuss councils to begin with.

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."

Luther rejected the deuterocanonical only after the debate over purgatory, thus he found 2nd Maccabees NOT profitable for doctrine and so he just rejected the rest as well, so what? It is still scripture for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.. for Pete's sake he Luther, a human, believed doctrine should not be based on what he decides it should not be based on. NO "apocrypha" book contradicts doctrine, it's not his fault nor mine nor yours that some Latin bozo with a silly hat created the dogma of purgatory using scripture, ANY scripture, it doesn't matter! The bozo could have easily made a dogma that we be baptized in literal fire in order to get into Heaven. No one knows what God did with Mary, maybe he decided to make her the runner up to Jesus and made her omnipresent or whatever, but the POPE sure as heck didn't know, did that dogma transform our NT at all?

So regardless of what Luther thought or what this and that guy thought, east and west whatever.. Tradition which was passed down early enough to preserve books that would have otherwise been lost in time, was given to Christian hands by previous Christian hands. The very fact that we have them through the glory of the CHRISTIAN, is affirmation enough that the CHRISTIAN accepted them. They were in the Bible along with allllllll the other books, read in churches just like alllllll the other books, stayed in THE HOLY BIBLE along with alllllll the other books until the Bible Societies decided they wanted to make some fast cash by making the Bible LIGHTER.

READ THEM and KEEP THEM just as Luther originally rationalized for the protestant tradition, call them "b-sides" or "waldo books" it doesn't matter, they were handed down and maintained in existence at the hands of Christians, they are good scripture for reproof, correction and instruction that the man of God be made perfect thoroughly furnished unto all good works!

Look Paul told us how to canonize the NT Gospel, since he never gave us the OT list of CANON then let's have trust that the Christians alive at the time of his death were faithful to us in handing down tradition, if that is the case then the books Christians preserved are what Christ and the Apostles had bestowed to them.

Here is a video if you care to even watch, it's your reformation commentators throughout time citing "dem books" with no reluctance

 

[Josiah]

Luther rejected the deuterocanonical only after the debate over purgatory

Wrong.

Luther regarded the DEUTROcanonical books common in Catholic Bibles in German to be DEUTEROcanonical. Not as fully/equally canonical in function. He INCLUDED in his translation all the ones common in Germany (which is one MORE than in post-Trent Catholic tomes). INCLUDED.... ALL..... he simply regarded the DEUTEROcanonicals as deuterocanonical.


Friend, I know of nothing that indicates that Luther ever considered the deuterocanonical books to be anything other than deuterocanonical... whether before or after he rejected Purgatory.

he found 2nd Maccabees NOT profitable for doctrine

No. He continued the position that the deuterocanoncial books are deuterocanonical. That included 1 and 2 Maccabees ; 3 and 4 Maccabees - while also regarded as deuterocanonical - were not included in Catholic Bibles in Germany so they were not included in his translation.

True, Luther disagreed that anything in the deuterocanonical books used in Germany supported the Catholic concept of Purgatory, but then the Eastern Orthodox Churches fully agreed (Luther and the Orthodox Churches stood together on this).

He didn't rip out any book because it supported the unique Catholic theory of Purgatory, like MANY Christians, Luther disagreed that Purgatory was supported by a book he INCLUDED in his collection. But your basic point is correct, since 2 Maccabees is a deuterocanonical book, it could not be used as the source for a dogma EVEN IF that book clearly did so (which it obviously does not). Deuterocanonical books CAN be used to support a dogma found in fully canonical books but it doesn't work the other way around; "deutero" means "under" "subject to" "secondary"

They were in the Bible along with allllllll the other books, read in churches just like alllllll the other books, stayed in THE HOLY BIBLE along with alllllll the other books until the Bible Societies decided they wanted to make some fast cash by making the Bible LIGHTER.

Lots of books were. INCLUDING...

3 Maccabees
4 Maccabees
1 Esdras
The Prayer of Manasseh
Psalm 151
and dozens more....

And for the NT (sometimes called New Testament Apocrypha)...

The Didache
1 Clement
The Shepherd of Hermas
The Epistle of Barnabas
The Epistle to the Leodiceans
and many more.


So since your argument is that any book we still have (handed down) and ever used as Scripture MUST be accepted by every Christian as The inerrant, fully/equally canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God, why aren't you arguing for these books?

READ THEM and KEEP THEM just as Luther originally rationalized, call them "b-sides" or "waldo books" it doesn't matter,

WRONG! It matters enormously!!!!!

I could probably list over 100 books that are VERY helpful and good to read and use and quote.... and even to help support dogma taught in fully canonical books. But THAT per se does not make them FULLY EQUAL to say Paul's Letter to the Romans. The point of two of our posters that USEFUL = FULLY canonical is not one that is acceptable. IF that were true, your Bible would have perhaps thousands of books in it, all regarded as EQUAL in every way and for every purpose.

It's not uncommon for "Evangelical" preachers to use a sermon illustration (perhaps put on the big screen all such churches have) or a video clip from a movie or TV show or even use the lyrics of a song to HELP people understand things or to help support a doctrine the Bible teaches. THAT does NOT mean ergo movies and TV shows are fully/equally canonical to say Paul's Letter to the Romans.

"Confessions" by St Augustine has been read and quoted for some 1600 years.... it is one of the most published books in history.... Luther quotes from it a lot... many (including me) have found it to be profound, inspirational, transformational and very, very helpful. And it's been handed down for 1600 years. But I do NOT agree that ERGO all Christianity and all Christians have always accepted it as FULLY/EQUALLY canonical to say Paul's Epistle to the Romans for the Five Books of Moses since because it is widely read and quoted and very useful. There IS a difference there, my brother. A critical difference.




As for that video, without watching I'd bet you a dime he never proves the unknown author of Hebrews got his information from 2 Maccabees (no other person or source knew of this). And he does not prove that because a book contains accurate history, ERGO it's fully/equally canonical. He can't be that foolish. The MOST he can do (without being laughably stupid) is to claim that 2 Maccabees mentions an event that the author of Hebrews is referring to. That's a whole other enchilada, an entirely different issue than ERGO 2 Maccabees is The inerrant, fully/equally canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God. Come on. Come on!





.

 

[NathanH83]

I don’t think any honest person who reads 2 Maccabees will agree that it supports the idea of purgatory.

 

[Andrew]

Wrong.

Luther regarded the DEUTROcanonical books common in Catholic Bibles in German to be DEUTEROcanonical. Not as fully/equally canonical in function. He INCLUDED in his translation all the ones common in Germany (which is one MORE than in post-Trent Catholic tomes). INCLUDED.... ALL..... he simply regarded the DEUTEROcanonicals as deuterocanonical.


Friend, I know of nothing that indicates that Luther ever considered the deuterocanonical books to be anything other than deuterocanonical... whether before or after he rejected Purgatory.







No. He continued the position that the deuterocanoncial books are deuterocanonical. That included 1 and 2 Maccabees ; 3 and 4 Maccabees - while also regarded as deuterocanonical - were not included in Catholic Bibles in Germany so they were not included in his translation.

True, Luther disagreed that anything in the deuterocanonical books used in Germany supported the Catholic concept of Purgatory, but then the Eastern Orthodox Churches fully agreed (Luther and the Orthodox Churches stood together on this).

He didn't rip out any book because it supported the unique Catholic theory of Purgatory, like MANY Christians, Luther disagreed that Purgatory was supported by a book he INCLUDED in his collection. But your basic point is correct, since 2 Maccabees is a deuterocanonical book, it could not be used as the source for a dogma EVEN IF that book clearly did so (which it obviously does not). Deuterocanonical books CAN be used to support a dogma found in fully canonical books but it doesn't work the other way around; "deutero" means "under" "subject to" "secondary"







Lots of books were. INCLUDING...

3 Maccabees
4 Maccabees
1 Esdras
The Prayer of Manasseh
Psalm 151
and dozens more....

And for the NT (sometimes called New Testament Apocrypha)...

The Didache
1 Clement
The Shepherd of Hermas
The Epistle of Barnabas
The Epistle to the Leodiceans
and many more.


So since your argument is that any book we still have (handed down) and ever used as Scripture MUST be accepted by every Christian as The inerrant, fully/equally canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God, why aren't you arguing for these books?






WRONG! It matters enormously!!!!!

I could probably list over 100 books that are VERY helpful and good to read and use and quote.... and even to help support dogma taught in fully canonical books. But THAT per se does not make them FULLY EQUAL to say Paul's Letter to the Romans. The point of two of our posters that USEFUL = FULLY canonical is not one that is acceptable. IF that were true, your Bible would have perhaps thousands of books in it, all regarded as EQUAL in every way and for every purpose.

It's not uncommon for "Evangelical" preachers to use a sermon illustration (perhaps put on the big screen all such churches have) or a video clip from a movie or TV show or even use the lyrics of a song to HELP people understand things or to help support a doctrine the Bible teaches. THAT does NOT mean ergo movies and TV shows are fully/equally canonical to say Paul's Letter to the Romans.

"Confessions" by St Augustine has been read and quoted for some 1600 years.... it is one of the most published books in history.... Luther quotes from it a lot... many (including me) have found it to be profound, inspirational, transformational and very, very helpful. And it's been handed down for 1600 years. But I do NOT agree that ERGO all Christianity and all Christians have always accepted it as FULLY/EQUALLY canonical to say Paul's Epistle to the Romans for the Five Books of Moses since because it is widely read and quoted and very useful. There IS a difference there, my brother. A critical difference.




As for that video, without watching I'd bet you a dime he never proves the unknown author of Hebrews got his information from 2 Maccabees (no other person or source knew of this). And he does not prove that because a book contains accurate history, ERGO it's fully/equally canonical. He can't be that foolish. The MOST he can do (without being laughably stupid) is to claim that 2 Maccabees mentions an event that the author of Hebrews is referring to. That's a whole other enchilada, an entirely different issue than ERGO 2 Maccabees is The inerrant, fully/equally canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God. Come on. Come on!





.

No Josiah you are wrong
Rufinus was good friends with Jerome, however he did not agree with Jerome's label "apocrypha", he explains this in his list of canon


"But it should be known that there are also other books which our fathers call not "Canonical" but "Ecclesiastical:" that is to say, Wisdom, called the Wisdom of Solomon, and another Wisdom, called the Wisdom of the Son of Syrach, which last-mentioned the Latins called by the general title Ecclesiasticus, designating not the author of the book, but the character of the writing. To the same class belong the Book of Tobit, and the Book of Judith, and the Books of the Maccabees. In the New Testament the little book which is called the Book of the Pastor of Hermas, [and that] which is called The Two Ways, or the Judgment of Peter; all of which they would have read in the Churches, but not appealed to for the confirmation of doctrine. The other writings they have named "Apocrypha." These they would not have read in the Churches. These are the traditions which the Fathers have handed down to us, which, as I said, I have thought it opportune to set forth in this place, for the instruction of those who are being taught the first elements of the Church and of the Faith, that they may know from what fountains of the Word of God their draughts must be taken"

Rufinus is saying that the ecclesiastical literature which are among the "non canonical" books of the OT were handed down to us through Christian tradition via the Fathers of "the first elements of the Church and the Faith".. I exempt the NT little ecclesiastical book mentioned since we are discussing the OT, regardless no doctrine could be based on any NT ecclesiastical books.
Rufinus says that the fathers call the OTHER books Apocrypha which would not have been read in Churches, I assume here that he is not suggesting the "class" of books handed down by tradition are at all "Apocrypha" but the label "Apocrypha" here implies heretical books, possibly the books Paul warned would creep into the Churches, being what we call now "Gnostic writings" for they contained a different gospel.
This proof is found in the Nag hammadi scrolls, clearly the church adhered to Pauls warning and possibly destroyed the heretical apocrypha books which eventually did resurface when the scrolls that were hidden by the heretical sect for some time, were finally discovered.

So Jerome, who's translation was based on the Hebrew must have been told by the Jews that the non canonical books found in the Greek Septuagint were heretical to them thus were they considered "apocrypha" to the Jews.

Rufinus and Jerome actually exchange words through apologetic letters to each other over this matter, Jerome's defense was that his mission was to translate from the Hebrew and his critics can basically take the matter up with the Jews, he claims he himself likewise had no intentions of forsaking traditional and uses Susanna as an example in which he and Rufinus discuss it's importance IN THE CHURCHES.

Rufinus, Jerome's lifelong friend, holds the same views as Nathan and I and countless others..

From the Apology of Rufinus to Jerome
book 2
(Ask yourself who this guy sounds like)


"Did Peter the Apostle of Christ deceive the church and deliver to them books which were false and contained nothing of truth? Are we to believe that he knew that the Jews possessed what was true, and yet determined that the Christians should have what was false? But perhaps the answer will be made that Peter was illiterate, and that, though he knew that the books of the Jews were truer than those which existed in the church, yet he could not translate them into Latin because of his linguistic incapacity. What then! Was the tongue of fire given by the Holy Spirit from heaven of no avail to him? Did not the Apostles speak in all languages?"

"There has been from the first in the churches of God, and especially in that of Jerusalem, a plentiful supply of men who being born Jews have become Christians; and their perfect acquaintance with both languages and their sufficient knowledge of the law is shown by their administration of the pontifical office. In all this abundance of learned men, has there been one who has dared to make havoc of the divine record handed down to the Churches by the Apostles and the deposit of the Holy Spirit? For what can we call it but havoc, when some parts of it are transformed, and this is called the correction of an error?"

 

[Andrew]

"For instance, the whole of the history of Susanna, which gave a lesson of chastity to the churches of God, has by him been cut out, thrown aside and dismissed. The hymn of the three children, which is regularly sung on festivals in the Church of God, he has wholly erased from the place where it stood. But why should I enumerate these cases one by one, when their number cannot be estimated? This, however, cannot be passed over. The seventy translators, each in their separate cells, produced a version couched in consonant and identical words, under the inspiration, as we cannot doubt, of the Holy Spirit; and this version must certainly be of more authority with us than a translation made by a single man under the inspiration of Barabbas. But, putting this aside, I beg you to listen, for example, to this as an instance of what we mean. Peter was for twenty-four years Bishop of the Church of Rome. We cannot doubt that, amongst other things necessary for the instruction of the church, he himself delivered to them the treasury of the sacred books, which, no doubt, had even then begun to be read under his presidency and teaching. What are we to say then?"

"Perhaps it was a greater piece of audacity to alter the books of the divine Scriptures which had been delivered to the Churches of Christ by the Apostles to be a complete record of their faith by making a new translation under the influence of the Jews. Which of these two things appears to you to be the less legitimate? As to the sayings of Origen, if we agree with them, we agree with them as the sayings of a man; if we disagree, we can easily disregard them as those of a mere man. But how are we to regard those translations of yours which you are now sending about everywhere, through our churches and monasteries, through all our cities and walled towns? Are they to be treated as human or divine? And what are we to do when we are told that the books which bear the names of the Hebrew Prophets and lawgivers are to be had from you in a truer form than that which was approved by the Apostles? How, I ask, is this mistake to be set right, or rather, how is this crime to be expiated? We hold it a thing worthy of condemnation that a man should have put forth some strange opinions in the interpretation of the law of God; but to pervert the law itself and make it different from that which the Apostles handed down to us,—how many times over must this be pronounced worthy of condemnation? To the daring temerity of this act we may much more justly apply your words: Which of all the wise and holy men who have gone before you has dared to put his hand to that work? Which of them would have presumed thus to profane the book of God, and the sacred words of the Holy Spirit? Who but you would have laid hands upon the divine gift and the inheritance of the Apostles?"

 

[Andrew]

I don’t think any honest person who reads 2 Maccabees will agree that it supports the idea of purgatory.

Yeah, just because he defends the apocrypha books but believes in purgatory does not disqualify the fact that protestant commentators had no problem citing the Apocrypha, where as very recently Lutherans offer their new apologetic "it doesn't say therefore any suggestion is worthless especially if it's from any apocryphal book"

 

[pinacled]

Yeah, just because he defends the apocrypha books but believes in purgatory does not disqualify the fact that protestant commentators had no problem citing the Apocrypha, where as very recently Lutherans offer their new apologetic "it doesn't say therefore any suggestion is worthless especially if it's from any apocryphal book"

Where is purgatory mentioned in apocrypha?

I've never read any evidence of such.
Nor any mention of salvation.

 

[Andrew]

Where is purgatory mentioned in apocrypha?

I've never read any evidence of such.
Nor any mention of salvation.

Purgatory is not mentioned in the apocrypha.

Again, Wisdom 2 mentions..Gods secret purposes, wages of holiness, prize for the blameless soul, eternity for those who refuse the company of satan

21
Thus they reasoned, but they were led astray,
for their wickedness blinded them,

22 and they did not know the secret purposes of God,
nor hoped for the wages of holiness,
nor discerned the prize for blameless souls;

23 for God created us for incorruption,
and made us in the image of his own eternity,

24 but through the devil’s envy death entered the world,
and those who belong to his company experience it

Also

2nd Maccabees 7:7-9

After the first brother had died in this way, they brought forward the second for their sport. They tore off the skin of his head with the hair, and asked him, “Will you eat rather than have your body punished limb by limb?” He replied in the language of his ancestors and said to them, “No.” Therefore he in turn underwent tortures as the first brother had done. And when he was at his last breath, he said, “You accursed wretch, you dismiss us from this present life, but the King of the universe will raise us up to an everlasting renewal of life, because we have died for his laws.”


2nd Maccabees 7:14

When he was near death, he said, “It is my choice to die at the hands of mortals with the hope that God will restore me to life; but for you [Antiochus], there will be no resurrection to life.”

 

[pinacled]

Purgatory is not mentioned in the apocrypha.

Again, Wisdom 2 mentions..Gods secret purposes, wages of holiness, prize for the blameless soul, eternity for those who refuse the company of satan

21
Thus they reasoned, but they were led astray,
for their wickedness blinded them,

22 and they did not know the secret purposes of God,
nor hoped for the wages of holiness,
nor discerned the prize for blameless souls;

23 for God created us for incorruption,
and made us in the image of his own eternity,

24 but through the devil’s envy death entered the world,
and those who belong to his company experience it

Also

2nd Maccabees 7:7-9

After the first brother had died in this way, they brought forward the second for their sport. They tore off the skin of his head with the hair, and asked him, “Will you eat rather than have your body punished limb by limb?” He replied in the language of his ancestors and said to them, “No.” Therefore he in turn underwent tortures as the first brother had done. And when he was at his last breath, he said, “You accursed wretch, you dismiss us from this present life, but the King of the universe will raise us up to an everlasting renewal of life, because we have died for his laws.”


2nd Maccabees 7:14

When he was near death, he said, “It is my choice to die at the hands of mortals with the hope that God will restore me to life; but for you [Antiochus], there will be no resurrection to life.”

Sounds like luciferian theatrical examples of scalping.

Disgusting

 

[NathanH83]

Where is purgatory mentioned in apocrypha?

I've never read any evidence of such.
Nor any mention of salvation.

They say 2 Maccabees 12 mentions purgatory. But the word “purgatory” is never even mentioned. And when you look at what it’s saying, I don’t think it’s even promoting the idea of purgatory.

 

[pinacled]

They say 2 Maccabees 12 mentions purgatory. But the word “purgatory” is never even mentioned. And when you look at what it’s saying, I don’t think it’s even promoting the idea of purgatory.

2nd macabres sounds like a familiar sadistic form of torture in order to initiate a seared conscience.

 

[Andrew]

Sounds like luciferian theatrical examples of scalping.

Disgusting

The torture methods must have been horrifying, only a soulless evil could do such a thing to a person

 

[pinacled]

The torture methods must have been horrifying, only a soulless evil could do such a thing to a person

Only a worshipper of the murderer and liar would of written such filth

 

[Origen]

Rufinus was good friends with Jerome, however he did not agree with Jerome's label "apocrypha", he explains this in his list of canon

By the time of the source you quote, Rufinus was NO LONGER good friends with Jerome. They had long since had a falling out. This fact must be taking into consideration when reading the text. I find it interesting your comment is most misleading on that point.

From the Apology of Rufinus to Jerome
book 2
(Ask yourself who this guy sounds like)

Give we that know exactly which books Rufinus believed to be part of the canon it sound nothing like you at all.

"Of the Old Testament, therefore, first of all there have been handed down five books of Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; then Joshua the son of Nun; the book of Judges together with Ruth; then four books of Kings, which the Hebrews reckon two; Paralipomenon, which is called the book of Days [Chronicles], and two books of Ezra, which the Hebrews reckon one, and Esther; of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel; moreover of the Twelve [minor] Prophets, one book; Job also and the Psalms of David, each one book. Solomon gave three books to the churches, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs. These comprise the books of the Old Testament."

Here is the list he gives above.
Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy
Joshua
Judges
Ruth
1-2 Samuel
1-2 Kings
1-2 Chronicles
1-2 Esdras
Esther
Job
Psalms
Proverbs
Ecclesiastes
Song of Solomon
Isaiah
Jeremiah
Lamentations
Epistle of Jeremiah
Ezekiel
Daniel
12 Minor Prophets

Everyone should also note that EVEN after their falling out both Rufinus and Jerome listed the same book as canonical (see above list). In the final analysis, no matter what name they referenced them apocrypha or ecclesiastical, both rejected them as canonical.

 

[NathanH83]

Only a worshipper of the murderer and liar would of written such filth

Come on now. Don’t say that about author of Hebrews.