Introduction to the Ecclesiastical books

[Josiah]

So now I'm really confused. You said you agree with Trent that they are all Canon and now you are saying they shouldn't be used to establish doctrine. It is my understand that Trent removes any distinction between the traditional Canonical books and the Deuter books.

The "problem" is that the word "canon" is now used in two ways..... the word can "the body of sacred writings". Trent DID refer to about HALF the books Nathan defends as such, in that way. But the word typically means "rule, norm" (norma normans as it is called in epistemology). When something is called DEUTEROcanonical, that means it's UNDER or below or subject to the canonical - not equal. The word "deutero" means secondary or submissive. Trent DID declare 7 books as part of "the canon" (seems to be the meaning of "part of sacred scripture") but seems to have avoided calling them "canonical" or "deuterocanonical" (typically Catholics then - and often still today - call them DEUTEROcanonical). TODAY, while Catholics often still call these 7 books "DEUTEROcanonical" and while the RCC still has not officially stated anything about this, it is very clear to me that Catholicism has come to accept it's UNIQUE Bible as all equal and all canonical. Nathan rejects the Catholic embrace (he holds to the 1563 position of the Church of England) but it seems Andrew is settling on a different set, that unique one established by only the Catholic Church at Trent about the same time.


And it's confusing because our two friends raise several different issues, all mixed up:

+ What books must be legally required in all nations to be included in any tome a publishing house markets with the word "BIBLE" appearing on the cover (they both seem opposed to other things being there - maps, notes, cross-references): What MUST be in every tome marketed with the word BIBLE on the cover.

+ They claim that Protestants are forbidden to read anything beyond the 66 books found in a lot of biblical tomes. Protestant clergy will be defrocked if they quote from anything other than the 66.

+ Both our friends note that for the first 400-500 years, there were people with different opinions on what is and is not "scripture" . Our friends think they're right IF they agree with them but wrong if they don't... so what individual Christians thought is irrelevant, what they think is = and if they can find someone who agrees with them, then that early Christian is right about THAT (but to be ignored when they also accept books they don't). Nathan accepts a UNIQUE set of 15 books - the ones the Church of England embraced in 1563 and declared are NOT canonical and termed "Apocrypha" - that's the set he says all Christians must accept as canonical (not as the Church of England), whereas Andrew only accepts 7 that the Catholic Church accepted around the same time. The fact that the two brothers don't agree on this seems irrlevant, only if we don't agree with them (as they don't agree with each other).


Here's the counterpoint:...

+ While the TRADITION about 66 books as canonical is amazingly solid, it is a reality that another 7-20 or so additional books around the OT and another 4-7 or so around the NT that were read, used, quoted, sometimes appearing in lectionaries, and we can fine a FEW individual Christians express their opinion that some of them are "scripture" No one denies this. So the issue of books BEYOND the 39 OT and 27 NT books is not denied. It was a bit fluid.... and the issue of STATUS was fluid too (there seems to have been LEVELS of canonicity). Some books just largely dropped out of widespread use.....others still floated around but not used much and it seems not viewed as fully canonical.... USEFUL but not canonical. It was not as "neat" or simple as our friends speculate.

+ While the claim is that Protestantism "ripped" out books (neither friend will tell us WHO did this and WHAT books were ripped out) is false, our friends seem to both know and deny that Luther INCLUDED more books than Andrew accepts but far fewer ones than Nathan does - but he personally regarded them as DEUTEROcanonical. Luther - a PROTESTANT did not rip out any book (well, the Epistle to the Leodiceans- neither of which our friends seem to accept), he INCLUDED exactly the identical same books that Catholics used in Germany in his day... the Anglican Church did the same thing a bit later, INCLUDING all the Deuterocanonical books that Catholics used in England (several more than in Germany) that single denomination INCLUDED them. So our friends claim that some mysterious person or denomiantion " ripped out" their own unique opinions of what should be in a Bible is a falsehood. What Luther did and the Chruch of England did (in that statement Nathan accepts) is noted these are DEUTEROcanonical rather than fully so.

+ Nathan seems to confuse his own Assemblies of God denomination with all of Protestantism.... He keeps talking about PROTESTANTISM/PROTESTANS and only recently mentioned his own new single denomination. It MAY be (he's never claimed so) that his fairly new denomination forbids its members and clergy to read anything beyond the 66 books ... and to own any tome that has anything in them other than those 66 books. But what his fairly new denomination (a tiny percentage of Protestants) does has no relevance to Protestantism. He seems to confuse the two. He also seems to confuse what he found in some YouTube saying with what is truth and verifiable; his position seems to be that if a video says it, that is the definition of truth and needs no substantiation only his own agreement. TRUTH: If you want to buy a Bible with 73 or 74 or 81 or 83 or 89 books in it, you CAN. IF you want to read the Didache or Letter to the Leodiceans, you CAN. Protestants can. Catholics can. Muslims can. The claim that they are unavailable or legally forbidden is just not true. Why our friends chose to not purpose such a tome is a point they've not answered but they COULD and CAN. Lutherans and Anglicans sometimes include some additional books in their lectionaries .... the only study I've ever seen on them is published by a LUTHERAN publishing house (Lutherans are generally considered Protestant although Nathan does not seem to know that) and the only class I took on them was NOT when I was Catholic but after I became Lutheran, taught by our pastor in the Sunday Class. The claim that Protestantism disallows them is just not true. It may be Nathan's Assemblies of God parish does but his church is not Protestantism. A YouTube is not thereby truth... the Assemblies of God is not thereby Protestantism.




.

 

[Andrew]

The "problem" is that the word "canon" is now used in two ways..... the word can "the body of sacred writings". Trent DID refer to about HALF the books Nathan defends as such, in that way. But the word typically means "rule, norm" (norma normans as it is called in epistemology). When something is called DEUTEROcanonical, that means it's UNDER or below or subject to the canonical - not equal. The word "deutero" means secondary or submissive. Trent DID declare 7 books as part of "the canon" (seems to be the meaning of "part of sacred scripture") but seems to have avoided calling them "canonical" or "deuterocanonical" (typically Catholics then - and often still today - call them DEUTEROcanonical). TODAY, while Catholics often still call these 7 books "DEUTEROcanonical" and while the RCC still has not officially stated anything about this, it is very clear to me that Catholicism has come to accept it's UNIQUE Bible as all equal and all canonical. Nathan rejects the Catholic embrace (he holds to the 1563 position of the Church of England) but it seems Andrew is settling on a different set, that unique one established by only the Catholic Church at Trent about the same time.


And it's confusing because our two friends raise several different issues, all mixed up:

+ What books must be legally required in all nations to be included in any tome a publishing house markets with the word "BIBLE" appearing on the cover (they both seem opposed to other things being there - maps, notes, cross-references): What MUST be in every tome marketed with the word BIBLE on the cover.

+ They claim that Protestants are forbidden to read anything beyond the 66 books found in a lot of biblical tomes. Protestant clergy will be defrocked if they quote from anything other than the 66.

+ Both our friends note that for the first 400-500 years, there were people with different opinions on what is and is not "scripture" . Our friends think they're right IF they agree with them but wrong if they don't... so what individual Christians thought is irrelevant, what they think is = and if they can find someone who agrees with them, then that early Christian is right about THAT (but to be ignored when they also accept books they don't). Nathan accepts a UNIQUE set of 15 books - the ones the Church of England embraced in 1563 and declared are NOT canonical and termed "Apocrypha" - that's the set he says all Christians must accept as canonical (not as the Church of England), whereas Andrew only accepts 7 that the Catholic Church accepted around the same time. The fact that the two brothers don't agree on this seems irrlevant, only if we don't agree with them (as they don't agree with each other).


Here's the counterpoint:...

+ While the TRADITION about 66 books as canonical is amazingly solid, it is a reality that another 7-20 or so additional books around the OT and another 4-7 or so around the NT that were read, used, quoted, sometimes appearing in lectionaries, and we can fine a FEW individual Christians express their opinion that some of them are "scripture" No one denies this. So the issue of books BEYOND the 39 OT and 27 NT books is not denied. It was a bit fluid.... and the issue of STATUS was fluid too (there seems to have been LEVELS of canonicity). Some books just largely dropped out of widespread use.....others still floated around but not used much and it seems not viewed as fully canonical.... USEFUL but not canonical. It was not as "neat" or simple as our friends speculate.

+ While the claim is that Protestantism "ripped" out books (neither friend will tell us WHO did this and WHAT books were ripped out) is false, our friends seem to both know and deny that Luther INCLUDED more books than Andrew accepts but far fewer ones than Nathan does - but he personally regarded them as DEUTEROcanonical. Luther - a PROTESTANT did not rip out any book (well, the Epistle to the Leodiceans- neither of which our friends seem to accept), he INCLUDED exactly the identical same books that Catholics used in Germany in his day... the Anglican Church did the same thing a bit later, INCLUDING all the Deuterocanonical books that Catholics used in England (several more than in Germany) that single denomination INCLUDED them. So our friends claim that some mysterious person or denomiantion " ripped out" their own unique opinions of what should be in a Bible is a falsehood. What Luther did and the Chruch of England did (in that statement Nathan accepts) is noted these are DEUTEROcanonical rather than fully so.

+ Nathan seems to confuse his own Assemblies of God denomination with all of Protestantism.... He keeps talking about PROTESTANTISM/PROTESTANS and only recently mentioned his own new single denomination. It MAY be (he's never claimed so) that his fairly new denomination forbids its members and clergy to read anything beyond the 66 books ... and to own any tome that has anything in them other than those 66 books. But what his fairly new denomination (a tiny percentage of Protestants) does has no relevance to Protestantism. He seems to confuse the two. He also seems to confuse what he found in some YouTube saying with what is truth and verifiable; his position seems to be that if a video says it, that is the definition of truth and needs no substantiation only his own agreement. TRUTH: If you want to buy a Bible with 73 or 74 or 81 or 83 or 89 books in it, you CAN. IF you want to read the Didache or Letter to the Leodiceans, you CAN. Protestants can. Catholics can. Muslims can. The claim that they are unavailable or legally forbidden is just not true. Why our friends chose to not purpose such a tome is a point they've not answered but they COULD and CAN. Lutherans and Anglicans sometimes include some additional books in their lectionaries .... the only study I've ever seen on them is published by a LUTHERAN publishing house (Lutherans are generally considered Protestant although Nathan does not seem to know that) and the only class I took on them was NOT when I was Catholic but after I became Lutheran, taught by our pastor in the Sunday Class. The claim that Protestantism disallows them is just not true. It may be Nathan's Assemblies of God parish does but his church is not Protestantism. A YouTube is not thereby truth... the Assemblies of God is not thereby Protestantism.




.

The term "canon" only changed among the protestants to mean "these books and only these books are considered Holy Scripture to the Church", this is FALSE as history has shown that all known HOLY BIBLES up until the 19th Century contained many more SCRIPTURE than what we have in our Holy Bibles today. They were in our HOLY BIBLES and accepted in the churches as Ecclesiastical SCRIPTURE for "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"

The American Bible Society omitted those Scripture in the 19th Century and it's run solely by Protestants, the Catholic Church actually has to request and fund the society to press the Catholic "Good News" Bible to include the deuterocanonical so that they can buy their Catholic Bibles.

You go around in circles Josiah, "they were never taken out but added", well Christian Biblical history contradicts your claim entirely.
ALL Christian Bibles that we can honestly account for BEFORE the 19th Century had OVER 66 BOOKS and there is NO EVIDENCE of a Christian Bible that predates all others that only had 66 books, THEY WERE TAKEN OUT OF THE CHRISTIAN HOLY BIBLES BY PROTESTANTS.

These are bold faced FACTS that you continue to willingly ignore.

 

[Josiah]

history has shown that all known HOLY BIBLES up until the 19th Century contained many more SCRIPTURE than what we have in our Holy Bibles today.

1. But not necessarily as canonical (ie, the inerrant, divinely-inscripturated RULE and NORM for dogma and practice). As not just Holy Scripture but DIVINE Scripture. Bibles have OFTEN contained more than just canonical books.... as I've noted, perhaps HALF of the material in my Bible is not regarded as canonical AT ALL (deutero or otherwise). And there are Bibles with just the NT in them. I have a Bible with the NT and just the Psalms also in it (not the full OT). It is false to claim that WHATEVER appears or does not appear in a tome some publishing house markets IS the declaration of Christianity as to what is the inerrant, FULLY and equally canonical, DIVINELY-inscripturated words of God and thus the norm/rule for faith (and perhaps practice). IF that were the case, all those pretty color maps in my tome would be canonical.

2. Actually, there were Bibles since the mid-16th Century with just 66 books in them. Not many, but they existed. I have no idea what your point is, but it's factually wrong.

3. Actually, Bibles VARIED. They still do. The Greek Orthodox Bible is not the same as the Anglican Bible which is not the same as the post-Trent Roman Catholic Bible which is not the same as Luther's Bible which is not the same as Calvin's Bible which is not the same as the Coptic Bible and so on. NEVER in all Christian history have all tomes with the word "BIBLE" on the cover been the same. Still isn't true. And even when the content is the same, that doesn't mean the status is the same (there have often been LEVELS of canonicity among works considered "scripture" and put with other books).

"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"

We disagree on your interpretation of this. You are defining "Scripture" as anything written . I think St. Paul is referring to canonical Scripture, written BY GOD and regarded as inerrant, fully normative, inscripturated words of God. By your definition, the Koran and the Book of Mormon are fully canonical. We disagree. He doesn't LIST those books but I think that's what he's referring to, not simply anything written down.

I also don't think he could have meant ANYTHING regarded as good by ANYONE. By that, we'd be forced to accept Psalm 151, 152, 153 as fully canonical (because some did... and they were in some Bibles)...the Didache, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Epistle to the Leodicians, 1 and 2 Clement, the Revelation of Peter and MANY, MANY others - all "scriptures" that at least some regarded as canonical and certainly were in biblical tomes. And of course, we'd then have to condemn the Catholic Church and the Anglican Church because they don't accept all scriptures that at one time were in bibles and regarded by at least some. No. I disagree. I think Paul is referring to what is fully canonical.... of course, he doesn't specify EXACTLY that corpus.... perhaps because the Jews had not yet done so and most of the NT hadn't yet been written.

The American Bible Society omitted those Scripture in the 19th Century

1. WHAT "scriptures?" Could you list them specifically by name? First Clement? The Didache? Psalm 151? The Revelation of Peter? The Prayer of Manesseh? The Epistle to the Leodiceans (the book Luther omitted)?

2. If something is taken OUT it first must be shown it was put IN. You and Nathan always persistently ignore that very simple, very obvious reality. I can't take my Subaru back to the dealer and accuse them of removing the 8 Tract Tape Player Subaru put IN my car if I have no evidence it ever did; friend, no one can take something OUT unless it's first been put IN. Give the Ruling Body for all Protestantism that did this? At what authoritative meeting of that Body? Verbatim quote the resolution that listed the books it put IN. THEN you can note that someone or something violated that ruling by taking OUT something that was put IN. I'd need to show my Subie dealer the car once had an Eight Tract Tape Player before I can accuse them of taking it out.

3. The American Bible Society is not Christianity. It's not Protestantism. It's not even a denomination or church. Surely you know this.

4. Concordia Publishing House publishes and markets the Deutercanonical books that were used in Germany in Luther's time and therefore he INCLUDED in his Bible (one MORE than the modern, post-Trent Catholic Church has in their unique collection that no other denomination now - or ever has - also embraced). And it publishes and markets an excellent study of those books (I participated in a class with that). CPH is owned by The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod (which is a PROTESTANT denomination ran entirely by Protestants). The ABS isn't even one Protestant denomination, nor it is even owned by one. It's not Protestantism or Protestants. At all.

Josiah, "they were never taken out but added",

I've never said that ANYTHING was ADDED to anything. You misquote me.

THEY WERE TAKEN OUT OF THE CHRISTIAN HOLY BIBLES BY PROTESTANTS.

What "they?" What "Protestants?" True, Luther omitted ONE book that typically was in Catholic Bibles in Germany - the Epistle to the Leodiceans - but this was just one book by just one man, and was not done with any comment or repudiation, he SIMPLY didn't translate it and thus didn't put it in his German book of books he translated into German. He DID include all the DEUTEROcanonical books that were used in Germany in his day (one MORE than Catholics now put in their tomes). But Luther was ONE Protestant, not all of them. And it was ONE book. an "it" and not a "them." So list the books that were put IN by some authoritative Christian body.... that PROTESTANTS (there are about 300 million of them) took OUT. Name 'em. And name the PROTESTANTS who did this.

The American Bible Society omitted those Scripture in the 19th Century and it's run solely by Protestants, the Catholic Church actually has to request and fund the society to press the Catholic "Good News" Bible to include the deuterocanonical so that they can buy their Catholic Bibles.

So, the ABS (which is not a Protestant, not a denomination) does publish a Bible with the unique set of DEUTEROcanonical books that that single individual denomination now accepts. I'm not following how this proves that the ABS (a society - not Protestantism,, not Protestants, not even a church) put something in.... then ripped it out. In any case, this society (which you seem to confuse with Protestantism) publishes a tome WITH the UNIQUE Catholic set of DEUTEROcanonical books. Kinda disproves your point.... even if the ABS was the Authoritative Ruling Body of all Protestantism. BTW, Concordia Publishing House has ALWAYS published those books (well, one MORE than you claim the ABS does) ... and it's owned and run by Lutherans (who usually are regarded as Protestants)




.

 

[Andrew]

1. But not necessarily as canonical (ie, the inerrant, divinely-inscripturated RULE and NORM for dogma and practice). As not just Holy Scripture but DIVINE Scripture. Bibles have OFTEN contained more than just canonical books.... as I've noted, perhaps HALF of the material in my Bible is not regarded as canonical AT ALL (deutero or otherwise). And there are Bibles with just the NT in them. I have a Bible with the NT and just the Psalms also in it (not the full OT). It is false to claim that WHATEVER appears or does not appear in a tome some publishing house markets IS the declaration of Christianity as to what is the inerrant, FULLY and equally canonical, DIVINELY-inscripturated words of God and thus the norm/rule for faith (and perhaps practice). IF that were the case, all those pretty color maps in my tome would be canonical.

2. Actually, there were Bibles since the mid-16th Century with just 66 books in them. Not many, but they existed. I have no idea what your point is, but it's factually wrong.

3. Actually, Bibles VARIED. They still do. The Greek Orthodox Bible is not the same as the Anglican Bible which is not the same as the post-Trent Roman Catholic Bible which is not the same as Luther's Bible which is not the same as Calvin's Bible which is not the same as the Coptic Bible and so on. NEVER in all Christian history have all tomes with the word "BIBLE" on the cover been the same. Still isn't true. And even when the content is the same, that doesn't mean the status is the same (there have often been LEVELS of canonicity among works considered "scripture" and put with other books).





We disagree on your interpretation of this. You are defining "Scripture" as anything written . I think St. Paul is referring to canonical Scripture, written BY GOD and regarded as inerrant, fully normative, inscripturated words of God. By your definition, the Koran and the Book of Mormon are fully canonical. We disagree.

I also don't think he could have meant ANYTHING regarded as good by ANYONE. By that, we'd be forced to accept Psalm 151, 152, 153 as fully canonical (because some did... and they were in some Bibles)...the Didache, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Epistle to the Leodicians, 1 and 2 Clement, the Revelation of Peter and MANY, MANY others - all "scriptures" that at least some regarded as canonical and certainly were in biblical tomes. And of course, we'd then have to condemn the Catholic Church and the Anglican Church because they don't accept all scriptures that at one time were in bibles and regarded by at least some. No. I disagree. I think Paul is referring to what is fully canonical.... of course, he doesn't specify EXACTLY that corpus.... perhaps because the Jews had not yet done so and most of the NT hadn't yet been written.






1. WHAT "scriptures?" Could you list them by name? First Clement? The Didache? Psalm 151? The Revelation of Peter? The Prayer of Manesseh? The Epistle to the Leodiceans (the book Luther omitted)?

2. If something is taken OUT it first must be shown it was put IN. You and Nathan always persistently ignore that very simple, very obvious reality. I can't take my Subaru back to the dealer and accuse them of removing the 8 Tract Tape Player if I have no evidence it ever had one; friend, no one can take something OUT unless it's first been put IN. Give the Ruling Body for all Protestantism that did this? At what authoritative meeting of that Body? Verbatim quote the resolution that listed the books it put IN. THEN you can note that someone or something violated that ruling by taking OUT something that was put IN. I'd need to show my Subie dealer the car once had an Eight Tract Tape Player before I can accuse them of taking it out.

3. The American Bible Society is not Christianity. It's not Protestantism. It's not even a denomination or church!

4. Concordia Publishing House publishes and markets the Deutercanonical books that were used in Germany in Luther's time and therefore he INCLUDED in his Bible (one MORE than the modern, post-Trent Catholic Church has in their unique collection that no other denomination now - or ever has - also embraced). And it publishes and markets an excellent study of those books (I participated in a class with that). CPH is owned by The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod (which is a PROTESTANT denomination ran entirely by Protestants). the Catholic Church actually has to request and fund the society to press the Catholic "Good News" Bible to include the deuterocanonical so that they can buy their Catholic Bibles.






Quote me saying that. I've never said that ANYTHING was ADDED to anything.






What "they?" What "Protestants?" True, Luther omitted ONE book that typically was in Catholic Bibles in Germany - the Epistle to the Leodiceans - but this was just one book by just one man, and was not done with any comment or repudiation, he SIMPLY didn't translate it and thus didn't put it in his German book of books he translated into German. He DID include all the DEUTEROcanonical books that were used in Germany in his day (one MORE than Catholics now put in their tomes). But Luther was ONE Protestant, not all of them. And it was ONE book. an "it" and not a "them." So list the books that were put IN by some authoritative Christian body.... that PROTESTANTS (there are about 300 million of them) took OUT. Name 'em. And name the PROTESTANTS who did this.






So, the ABS (which is not a Protestant, not a denomination) does publish a Bible with the unique set of DEUTEROcanonical books that that single denomination now accepts. I'm not following how this proves that the ABS (a society - not Protestantism,, not Protestants, not even a church) put something in.... then ripped it out. In any case, this society (which you seem to confuse with Protestantism) publishes a tome WITH the UNIQUE Catholic set of DEUTEROcanonical books. Kinda disproves your point.... even if the ABS was the Authoritative Ruling Body of all Protestantism. BTW, Concordia Publishing House has ALWAYS published those books (well, one MORE than you claim the ABS does) ... and it's owned and run by Lutherans (who usually are regarded as Protestants)




.

The ABS is 100% Protestant, one of it's main goals was to keep America protestant, they saw the Catholic Church as a false form of Christianity that was growing rapidly across America and decided to press only the 66 books of the protestant Bible to counter the Catholic spread of influence. It wasn't until later did they make the decision to basically charge the Catholic churches to print their canon of which they also had them buy. "The Good News Bible" has on the cover "with the deuterocanonical/Apocrypha" so that the protestants know them as "Apocrypha" even though it's a Catholic Bible who prefer "deuterocanonical".

It's also in Luther's format, with the extra books in between the old and new testament.

Truth is whenever the church fathers DO refer to them by name they give the name "Ecclesiastical" NOT "Apocrypha" which were heretical books condemned to be read in the churches.

The only thing the RCC added was the new label "deuterocanonical", so for the denominationaly homeless such as myself I have to either side with the Catholics "deuterocanonical" or the Protestants "Apocrypha", I choose the traditional "ecclesiastical".

I find the reason why the ecclesiastical writings were not for establishing doctrine (opposed to canon) was that during the time between Malachi and John the faithful Jewish believers were ACTING ON established doctrines, which is why when you read from the ecclesiastical writings you find the true examples of the evidence and result of doctrine. They are the graduates of Israel who looked forward to the prophet who would resurrect the dead, and they expected him at any moment and held their belief unto torture.
In their stories and writings and wisdom we find prophetic likeness and pointers to things to come.

We find a bolder and more profound version of the "suffering servant" in Wisdom chapter 2 that the NT even paraphrased (Wisdom 2:17-18 I believe).. Wisdom Chapter 2 is insight on the Son of God who rebukes the wickedness of the self righteous for their mishandling of the laws and in return they torture him to death to see if God would save him if he truly is the son of God, even to the detail that cared not for eternal judgment of their soul (which was not mentioned in the NT)

Maccabees shows us the martyrs of faith of the resurrection, dying in torture by their persecutors.

Maccabees shows us how the faithful believers ran out the wicked from the Temple just as Jesus would do (mind you the OT contained a lot of combat)

Tobit gives us tons of symbolism although at the same time they are literal events, the cleansing of the home from devils unto holiness as they accepted in faith the sacrificial offering up of incense and prayer in their homes, driving out of demons, healing the blind, entertaining an angel of God who introduces for the first time the 7 angels who stand at the throne of God.

 

[Andrew]

The faithful Tobias washes himself as the beastly fish from the water strikes his heel.
The Angel directs Tobias to pull the fish unto shore where it becomes helpless and dies in torture deprived of oxygen. Tobias then takes of the fish and portions the remains for healing and cleansing.. the Fish will eventually become the symbol for early Christians to mark their homes as a church for other Christians, a Holy place of worship.

Charity toward strangers is expressed, humbleness of the poor is expressed

The ecclesiasticals were reserved for converts to Christianity to express evidence of the faithful, Paul uses the same method, many early Church fathers use them in this way precisely.

However these books are not used for witnessing to unbelievers notably the unbelieving Jews as they rejected them along with the Gospels (the ultimate evidence of fulfillment of the law), the books used for witnessing to unbelieving Jews are those that they accept as canonical (for establishing doctrine/teaching)

So why do Lutherans reject Luther's section of the so called apocrypha books in their Bibles?

He kept them under no authority but his own, he and all the churches at that time had those books (there was no protestant church at that time)

 

[NathanH83]

I thought the council of Trent specifically called the deutero books canonical

From EWTN

They are the following:

Of the Old Testament, the five books of Moses, namely, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first and second of Esdras, the latter of which is called Nehemias, Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidic Psalter of 150 Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel, the twelve minor Prophets, namely, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of Machabees, the first and second.

Of the New Testament, the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen Epistles of Paul the Apostle, to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the Apostle, three of John the Apostle, one of James the Apostle, one of Jude the Apostle, and the Apocalypse of John the Apostle.

If anyone does not accept as sacred and canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their parts, as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate Edition, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, let him be anathema.

What day of the week was it when they did this?

 

[NathanH83]

1. But not necessarily as canonical (ie, the inerrant, divinely-inscripturated RULE and NORM for dogma and practice). As not just Holy Scripture but DIVINE Scripture. Bibles have OFTEN contained more than just canonical books.... as I've noted, perhaps HALF of the material in my Bible is not regarded as canonical AT ALL (deutero or otherwise). And there are Bibles with just the NT in them. I have a Bible with the NT and just the Psalms also in it (not the full OT). It is false to claim that WHATEVER appears or does not appear in a tome some publishing house markets IS the declaration of Christianity as to what is the inerrant, FULLY and equally canonical, DIVINELY-inscripturated words of God and thus the norm/rule for faith (and perhaps practice). IF that were the case, all those pretty color maps in my tome would be canonical.

2. Actually, there were Bibles since the mid-16th Century with just 66 books in them. Not many, but they existed. I have no idea what your point is, but it's factually wrong.

3. Actually, Bibles VARIED. They still do. The Greek Orthodox Bible is not the same as the Anglican Bible which is not the same as the post-Trent Roman Catholic Bible which is not the same as Luther's Bible which is not the same as Calvin's Bible which is not the same as the Coptic Bible and so on. NEVER in all Christian history have all tomes with the word "BIBLE" on the cover been the same. Still isn't true. And even when the content is the same, that doesn't mean the status is the same (there have often been LEVELS of canonicity among works considered "scripture" and put with other books).






We disagree on your interpretation of this. You are defining "Scripture" as anything written . I think St. Paul is referring to canonical Scripture, written BY GOD and regarded as inerrant, fully normative, inscripturated words of God. By your definition, the Koran and the Book of Mormon are fully canonical. We disagree. He doesn't LIST those books but I think that's what he's referring to, not simply anything written down.

I also don't think he could have meant ANYTHING regarded as good by ANYONE. By that, we'd be forced to accept Psalm 151, 152, 153 as fully canonical (because some did... and they were in some Bibles)...the Didache, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Epistle to the Leodicians, 1 and 2 Clement, the Revelation of Peter and MANY, MANY others - all "scriptures" that at least some regarded as canonical and certainly were in biblical tomes. And of course, we'd then have to condemn the Catholic Church and the Anglican Church because they don't accept all scriptures that at one time were in bibles and regarded by at least some. No. I disagree. I think Paul is referring to what is fully canonical.... of course, he doesn't specify EXACTLY that corpus.... perhaps because the Jews had not yet done so and most of the NT hadn't yet been written.






1. WHAT "scriptures?" Could you list them specifically by name? First Clement? The Didache? Psalm 151? The Revelation of Peter? The Prayer of Manesseh? The Epistle to the Leodiceans (the book Luther omitted)?

2. If something is taken OUT it first must be shown it was put IN. You and Nathan always persistently ignore that very simple, very obvious reality. I can't take my Subaru back to the dealer and accuse them of removing the 8 Tract Tape Player Subaru put IN my car if I have no evidence it ever did; friend, no one can take something OUT unless it's first been put IN. Give the Ruling Body for all Protestantism that did this? At what authoritative meeting of that Body? Verbatim quote the resolution that listed the books it put IN. THEN you can note that someone or something violated that ruling by taking OUT something that was put IN. I'd need to show my Subie dealer the car once had an Eight Tract Tape Player before I can accuse them of taking it out.

3. The American Bible Society is not Christianity. It's not Protestantism. It's not even a denomination or church. Surely you know this.

4. Concordia Publishing House publishes and markets the Deutercanonical books that were used in Germany in Luther's time and therefore he INCLUDED in his Bible (one MORE than the modern, post-Trent Catholic Church has in their unique collection that no other denomination now - or ever has - also embraced). And it publishes and markets an excellent study of those books (I participated in a class with that). CPH is owned by The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod (which is a PROTESTANT denomination ran entirely by Protestants). The ABS isn't even one Protestant denomination, nor it is even owned by one. It's not Protestantism or Protestants. At all.






I've never said that ANYTHING was ADDED to anything. You misquote me.







What "they?" What "Protestants?" True, Luther omitted ONE book that typically was in Catholic Bibles in Germany - the Epistle to the Leodiceans - but this was just one book by just one man, and was not done with any comment or repudiation, he SIMPLY didn't translate it and thus didn't put it in his German book of books he translated into German. He DID include all the DEUTEROcanonical books that were used in Germany in his day (one MORE than Catholics now put in their tomes). But Luther was ONE Protestant, not all of them. And it was ONE book. an "it" and not a "them." So list the books that were put IN by some authoritative Christian body.... that PROTESTANTS (there are about 300 million of them) took OUT. Name 'em. And name the PROTESTANTS who did this.







So, the ABS (which is not a Protestant, not a denomination) does publish a Bible with the unique set of DEUTEROcanonical books that that single individual denomination now accepts. I'm not following how this proves that the ABS (a society - not Protestantism,, not Protestants, not even a church) put something in.... then ripped it out. In any case, this society (which you seem to confuse with Protestantism) publishes a tome WITH the UNIQUE Catholic set of DEUTEROcanonical books. Kinda disproves your point.... even if the ABS was the Authoritative Ruling Body of all Protestantism. BTW, Concordia Publishing House has ALWAYS published those books (well, one MORE than you claim the ABS does) ... and it's owned and run by Lutherans (who usually are regarded as Protestants)




.

What day of the week was it when all Bibles were the same?

Like, for example: Luther.

 

[Josiah]

What day of the week was it when all Bibles were the same?

It's never been true.

So why do Lutherans reject Luther's section of the so called apocrypha books in their Bibles?

What evidence do you have that the 72 million Lutherans in the world disagree with Luther INCLUDING the DEUTEROcanonical books commonly used in Germany at the time in his German translation?

As you know (because you've been told many times), LutheranISM does not declare what are the canonical books OR the deuterocanonical books, the Lutheran Confessions are silent on this point. As you know (because you've been told many times) Luther was repeatedly requested to do just that but he refused, insisting the Bible was not given by God to HIM or ANY individual person or denomination but to US, the whole church on earth, and so such an official/formal/binding declaration would need to come from a true Ecumenical Council (the last one around 800 AD). But Luther chose to INCLUDE the common ones in Germany in his tome.... the ONLY book he did NOT include that was common in Bibles of his day was the Epistle to the Leodiceans, which he did not reject, he simply didn't translate and include it (and noted his reasons). The Anglican Church (whose position Nathan takes) did much the same - INCLUDING the DEUTEROcanoncial books commonly used in England (considerably more than in Germany) in its Bible but in the case of the Church of England, this was officially/formally declared to be THE CANON (well, for that single denomination - it made no such declaration for any other). So Luther's was a personal choice, the Church of England made it binding for that single denomination in Article 6 of its Thirty Nine Articles (the specific,unique list in Article 6 being what Nathan accepts). The Reformed church listed only the 66 (without any mention of any others - not rejecting or embracing them at all, not recommending their use or forbidding it. Together, Lutherans, Reformed and Anglican Protestants are perhaps 75% of Protestants. None of them discourage the use of any DEUTEROcanonical writing, Luther included 8 of them in his tome (one MORE than modern Catholics) and the Church of England (and Nathan) 15.



.

 

[Josiah]

The ABS is 100% Protestant

ANDREW...


See post 63. All this is addressed there.

The ABS is not Protestantism. The ABS is not even a church or denomination. The ABS isn't even owned by any Protestant church or denomination - much less all 10,000 of them. It might have all Protestants on it's board of directors but then I image that's true for thousands of corporations and many publishing houses (including those that DO publish tomes with deuterocanonical books in them - and perhaps also maps, cross references, concordances, notes, etc.) - CPH does and it's board of directors are all Lutherans and it's owned by the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod.

And according to you, the ABS DOES publish a tome with all the unique set of Catholic deuterocanonical books in it, thus kinda contradicting your point.

See post 63




.

 

[Andrew]

ANDREW...


See post 63. All this is addressed there.

The ABS is not Protestantism. The ABS is not even a church or denomination. The ABS isn't even owned by any Protestant church or denomination - much less all 10,000 of them. It might have all Protestants on it's board of directors but then I image that's true for thousands of corporations and many publishing houses (including those that DO publish tomes with deuterocanonical books in them - and perhaps also maps, cross references, concordances, notes, etc.) - CPH does and it's board of directors are all Lutherans and it's owned by the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod.

And according to you, the ABS DOES publish a tome with all the unique set of Catholic deuterocanonical books in it, thus kinda contradicting your point.

See post 63




.

The ABS was founded by a society of Protestant leaders for the sole purpose of pressing the common Bible, they believed that pressing the "deuterocanonical/apocrypha" in the common Bible would make it "no longer God's word".

So according to the ABS "the word of God" arrived in the 19th century.

The UBS (Universal Bible Society) had to resolve the issue by having councils with the ABS and Catholic Bishops to find an agreement.

Make the Catholic church beg that their request be granted and then TAX them IF granted.

The ABS wanted no hand in the section, My Good News Bible lists the Old Testament and the New Testament as published by the ABS, the Deuterocanonical/Apocrypha section is a Catholic board of sponsors and the head publisher being the UBS, the ABS did not even want the actual publishing rights, just the money.

Have a read of "The Bible Cause: The History of the American Bible Society"

They admit that their hatred for the Apocrypha stems from the disagreement they have with Catholics in regards to their belief of Salvation, it's petty for a Protestant organization to treat Ecclesiastical books from the ancient church and throughout Christian history as HARMFUL because of a disagreement that had nothing to do with the books in the first place.

 

[Josiah]

The ABS

Is not Protestantism. Is not Christianity. It is not a church or denomination ( Protestant or otherwise).

And according to you, it DOES market a Bible with some Deuterocanonical books in it. Not the exactly 15 that Nathan holds must be legally required but some.



.

 

[Andrew]

Is not Protestantism. Is not Christianity. It is not a church or denomination ( Protestant or otherwise).

And according to you, it DOES market a Bible with some Deuterocanonical books in it. Not the exactly 15 that Nathan holds must be legally required but some.



.

It's as real as Protestantism gets, it's full on PROTESTantism against Catholicism with full on FORCED protestant canon dogma that took apart the CHRISTIAN HOLY BIBLE THAT CHRISTIAN'S HAVE BEEN USING FOR CENTURIES.