Loving this Lutheran Study of the Apocrypha books

[Andrew]

This is a wonderful approach to the study of the "Apocrypha" from a protestant/Lutheran perspective.
Has so many study notes, timelines, who's who, History, commentary, I encourage my friends here to read it.

 

[Lamb]

Looks like it says the same thing @Josiah and I have stated that it's not canon but can be good for reading.

 

[Andrew]

Looks like it says the same thing @Josiah and I have stated that it's not canon but can be good for reading.

The history notes say that the early church fathers treated them no different than the rest of the Old Testament until the Jews sometime after Christ created a canon that didn't include them... this book does not diminish that fact nor does it replace NT references/allusions to them with "it's not referencing any of the books from the Apocrypha" lol
Just saying...

This study accepts the references the same way the older bibles did, even Luther notes that he basically has no say in whether they are Holy or not, that it's entirely up to the pious reader.

I don't blame him one bit for sectioning them off as not to be used for doctrine because of what the RCC did with Maccabees, taking it out of context to promote false dogma (i.e. indulgences)

But he, unlike the bible societies, did not want to take them out of the Bible as they are still of importance to the Christian church as has been the tradition.

This book sounds more like the original Lutheran view, I believe it's changed greatly, many Lutheran apologists have said that they are down right dangerous and teach heresy.

 

[Lamb]

The history notes say that the early church fathers treated them no different than the rest of the Old Testament until the Jews sometime after Christ created a canon that didn't include them... this book does not diminish that fact nor does it replace NT references/allusions to them with "it's not referencing any of the books from the Apocrypha" lol
Just saying...

This study accepts the references the same way the older bibles did, even Luther notes that he basically has no say in whether they are Holy or not, that it's entirely up to the pious reader.

I don't blame him one bit for sectioning them off as not to be used for doctrine because of what the RCC did with Maccabees, taking it out of context to promote false dogma (i.e. indulgences)

But he, unlike the bible societies, did not want to take them out of the Bible as they are still of importance to the Christian church as has been the tradition.

This book sounds more like the original Lutheran view, I believe it's changed greatly, many Lutheran apologists have said that they are down right dangerous and teach heresy.

You'll find there are Lutherans on both sides. You'll also find that there are other Protestants on both sides as well.

 

[Josiah]

I have this tome...

The LCMS publishing house, Concordia, has an excellent and popular study of the books (which my church did about 3-4 years ago). Very interesting and helpful.



.

 

[Josiah]

The history notes say that the early church fathers treated them no different than the rest of the Old Testament

I'd like to see the quote that specifically states that.

Luther notes that he basically has no say in whether they are Holy or not, that it's entirely up to the pious reader.

Luther gives his personal OPINION - one that was very common and popular at the time. One that the Anglican Church would later officially embrace. That there are additional books (NO agreement on WHAT additional books) that have never been officially embraced but are informational and inspirational and good to read but should NOT use canonically.


Luther's personal OPINION was left as such. Luther lacked the extreme ego that we see from the Catholic Church and John Calvin, that the opinion of self is thus the declaration of God and the whole church on earth. Luther held that any declaration of what is and is not inerrant, fully canonical, divinely inscripturated words of God is a decision for CHRISTIANITY, not any single man (such as Calvin or Luther) or any single denomination (such as The Catholic or Anglican Church or The Assembly of God church) and certainly not any one diocese (such as Hippo or Carthage or Rome). Luther noted that (imperfect) TRADITION embraced 66 books... another corpus (of anywhere from 7 to perhaps 20) were accepted variously in various places but often not as canonical but only as informational and helpful. Luther suggested this might be taken up by an Eighth Ecumenical Council (the last ended around 800 AD) but of course he knew such a Council was impossible (the Catholic Church had made such a MESS of things that official agreement cannot be attempted).

But he, unlike the bible societies, did not want to take them out of the Bible as they are still of importance to the Christian church as has been the tradition.

Andrew....

AGAIN.... "BIBLE" refers to a tome, a book. As far as I know, there has NEVER been any universal law among all the nations on Earth as to what books and material may and may not be included in any tome marketed by some publishing house or society that has the word "BIBLE" written on the cover. My study tome has LOTS of stuff in it that NO ONE considers to be inerrant, fully-canonical, verbally inspired inscripturated words of God. LOTS! And I have a tome that only has 27 books in it (the NT) and nothing else (well, a title page and table of contents). There's no law about this! Publishing Houses and various societies tend to publish what people will buy... they are NOT Christianity, they are NOT Ecumenical Councils. Franky, my friend and brother, I continue to be amazed that this reality seems to allude you. I don't know why.

And AGAIN, if you want to buy a tome with The Gospel of Thomas and/or First Clement and/or the Didache, you may! NO nation on earth outlaws this. And I know of no denomination (or diocese thereof) that forbids you to read such.

Andrew, the issue is not what a publishing company chooses to put between the covers of a tome it markets that has the word "BIBLE" printed on the front cover in genuine imitation gold letters. The issue is what CHRISTIANITY (all 2 billion today and also perhaps another 5 billion now in heaven) accept as FULLY CANONICAL (used to form and norm DOGMA,not just supply helpful information), inerrant, verbally inspired inscripturated words of God and (more to the point) has OFFICIALLY declared so (not some dude, not some denomination, not some diocese).



Blessings on your Lenten observation...


Josiah








.

 

[Andrew]

I'd like to see the quote that specifically states that.






Luther gives his personal OPINION - one that was very common and popular at the time. One that the Anglican Church would later officially embrace. That there are additional books (NO agreement on WHAT additional books) that have never been officially embraced but are informational and inspirational and good to read but should NOT use canonically.


Luther's personal OPINION was left as such. Luther lacked the extreme ego that we see from the Catholic Church and John Calvin, that the opinion of self is thus the declaration of God and the whole church on earth. Luther held that any declaration of what is and is not inerrant, fully canonical, divinely inscripturated words of God is a decision for CHRISTIANITY, not any single man (such as Calvin or Luther) or any single denomination (which as The Catholic or Anglican Churches) and certainly not any one diocese (such as Hippo or Carthage or Rome). Luther noted that TRADITION clearly embraced 66 books... another corpus (of anywhere from 7 to perhaps 20) were accepted variously in various places but often not as canonical but only as informational and helpful. Luther suggested this might be taken up by an Eighth Ecumenical Council (the last ended around 800 AD) but of course he knew such a Council was impossible (the Catholic Church had made such a MESS of things that official agreement cannot be attempted).







Andrew.... AGAIN.... "BIBLE" refers to a tome, a book. As far as I know, there has NEVER been any universal law among all the nations on Earth as to what books and material may and may not be included in any tome marked by some publishing house or society that has the word "BIBLE" written on the cover. My study tome has LOTS of stuff in it that NO ONE considers to be inerrant, fully-canonical, verbally inspired inscripturated words of God. LOTS! And I have a tome that only has 27 books in it (the NT) and nothing else (well, a title page and table of contents). There's no law about this! Publishing Houses and various societies tend to publish what people will buy... they are NOT Christianity, they are NOT Ecumenical Councils. Franky, my friend and brother, I continue to be amazed that this reality seems to allude you. I don't know why.

The issue is not what a publishing company chooses to put between the covers of a tome that has the word "BIBLE" printed on the front cover in genuine imitation gold letters. The issue is what CHRISTIANITY (all 2 billion today and also perhaps another 5 billion now in heaven) accept as FULLY CANONICAL (used to form and norm DOGMA), inerrant, verbally inspired inscripturated words of God and (more to the point) has OFFICIALLY declared so (not some dude, not some denomination, not some diocese).



Blessings on your Lenten observation...


Josiah








.

1. The statement is at the bottom of the page of one of the photos.

2. I know it was Luthers opinion

3. The greek tongue was the common language, there was no tanakh before Christ, the scrolls were translated to greek, the early church used the greek translations of hebrew sacred text which included the books they often mention.

Re-read what I just said before you start getting defensive and notice that I never mention the word canon. It is what it is.

Regardless of "canon" which protestants have never declared any official canon, the books are church tradition for edification, but you always belittle them comparing them to modern printed books.

These were hand written and duplicated and used by the churches, that kind of makes them important.

 

[Josiah]

The history notes say that the early church fathers treated them no different than the rest of the Old Testament

No. It does not say that.

Not the "history notes" but the FOREWORD article written by Paul Maier notes this: "The books of the Apocrypha were widely used by the early Christians." NOTHING about all the "church fathers." NOTHING about "no different than the rest of the Old Testament."

Later, the FOREWORD says "many" (you forgot that word) of the ECF quote from the LXX (it does not say "from the Apocrypha"), and (more to the point) it does not say "no differently than the Old Testament."

And you should read on! Paul Maier goes on to note that there was NO CONSENSUS here, there was NOT some universal, ecumenical, binding, authoritative declaration of Christianity on the books that cannot be identified, there was a wide DIVISION - not only on which books but how they are to be regarded.


No one denies that people read and quoted from the Didache, from First Clement, from The Epistle of Barnabas and MANY other books. No one denies that the Gospel of Thomas existed or was read. What you seem to confuse is what was read and what Christianity declared to be CANONCIAL (to be used to form and norm DOGMA), what was declared by Christianity to be fully canonical, inerrant, verbally inspired words of God. You seem to confuse what some Christians READ with what Christianity declared to be fully canonical, inerrant, verbally inspired words of God. Andrew, today BILLIONS of Christians read and quote from MILLIONS of books - even in sermons, even in theological works. You quoted from Paul Maier's article, that does not mean ergo his article must be fully canonical and must have been declared so by Christianity.



Blessings on your Lenten observation...


Josiah



.

 

[Andrew]

No. It does not say that.

Not the "history notes" but the FOREWORD article written by Paul Maier notes this: "The books of the Apocrypha were widely used by the early Christians." NOTHING about all the "church fathers." NOTHING about "no different than the rest of the Old Testament."

Later, the FOREWORD says "many" (you forgot that word) of the ECF quote from the LXX (it does not say "from the Apocrypha"), and (more to the point) it does not say "no differently than the Old Testament."

And you should read on! Paul Maier goes on to note that there was NO CONSENSUS here, there was NOT some universal, ecumenical, binding, authoritative declaration of Christianity on the books that cannot be identified, there was a wide DIVISION - not only on which books but how they are to be regarded.


No one denies that people read and quoted from the Didache, from First Clement, from The Epistle of Barnabas and MANY other books. No one denies that the Gospel of Thomas existed or was read. What you seem to confuse is what was read and what Christianity declared to be CANONCIAL (to be used to form and norm DOGMA), what was declared by Christianity to be fully canonical, inerrant, verbally inspired words of God. You seem to confuse what some Christians READ with what Christianity declared to be fully canonical, inerrant, verbally inspired words of God. Andrew, today BILLIONS of Christians read and quote from MILLIONS of books - even in sermons, even in theological works. You quoted from Paul Maier's article, that does not mean ergo his article must be fully canonical and must have been declared so by Christianity.



Blessings on your Lenten observation...


Josiah



.

Yeah there are a lot of books now, but the Hebrew books that were translated to Greek but were rejected from Jewish canon were still considered traditional scripture for the Christian churches, any literature being passed off as scripture written in the NT era were considered Apocrypha and were NOT allowed into the church, Paul had told the church not to allow NEW writings into the church.. all Doctrine was established by the time Paul wrote that. The church settled the NT canon to rid the church of false doctrines, Jerome was the one soul who falsely labeled traditional OT books as "Apocrypha", the church had called them Holy scripture until then..even after his apostasy from Pauls church tradition the Church still held on to them, it wasn't until later that the RCC began drawing out false doctrines from canonical and non canonical books that Luther segregated them into it's own section.
Protestants followed were unphased by Luthers decision, they were still put to good use! It was the tribal minds of the radical Bible societies that altered the original King James Bible by ripping out ecclesiastical traditional writ from modern Bibles, the Catholics began boycotting the revisionist version of the King James and the American Bible Society could care less.. they wanted the west to be entirely protestant, Catholics had to beg for the books back and now it's taboo and weird for people to accept the "apocrypha" as traditional ecclesiastical scripture as Holy for the Christian Church but not for doctrinal use.
Now Josiah, PLEASE give me ONE example of OT based DOCTRINE that ALL Trinitarians follow?

There are none.

Those books were never meant to be removed nor are they to be compared to any Christian books created during and after the time of Pauls letters.

 

[Josiah]

Yeah there are a lot of books now,

It seems you are evading the point: What you claimed the article in the CPH publication states is... well.... not so.

but the Hebrew books that were translated to Greek but were rejected from Jewish canon were still considered traditional scripture for the Christian churches

Which books? List the exact corpus you are speaking of.

Then prove that all Christian churches have always declared that exact list of books to be inerrant, FULLY-canonical, inscripturated words of God that legally must appear in any tome up for sale that has the word "BIBLE" on the cover. We both know you can do neither, which, my friend, is why you and Nathan are so careful to speak in vague generalities.

You brought up this tome published by Concordia Publishing House. But what you stated it says is pretty much the opposite of what it actually states.

The church settled the NT canon

You and Nathan usually avoid the issue of the NT and speak of some mysterious, unstated corpus of books NO ONE EVER has claimed are part of the NT or even the NT Apocrypha.

But here too, you are simply wrong. The church has never done anything about the NT canon. Sorry, but study the Seven Ecumenical Councils, they are the ONLY official proclamations of the church (at most... some claim only the first 3 or 4 are such), and NONE of those "settled" the issue of the NT canon. Yes, you can find a handful of INDIVIDUAL MEN who stated THEIR opinion.... you can find 3 or 4 diocesan meetings that stated what it so regarded, but the Church is more than one man or one diocese of one Christian denomination or one translation.


You brought up this tome published by Concordia Publishing House and an article within it. But what you stated it says is pretty much the opposite of what it does state. It says there was no consensus about books you allude to (but won't name), there was "division" and disagreement.

the church had called them Holy scripture

Nope.

And again (I've asked you for this for well over a year now), what "THEM?"
And WHERE did some Ruling Body of all Christianity declare that exact corpus of writing to be "HOLY SCRIPTURE?"



You brought up a tome published by Concordia Publishing House to quote an article in it and stated that it claimed something.... but as I showed, it DOES NOT at all state that... indeed, it goes on to make the opposite point of yours. What you stated is simply not the case.

they were still put to good use!

Again, what "THEY?" Luther's list? The one from the Anglican Church? The one from The Council of Trent by the RCC? The Greek Orthodox corpus? The Coptic Church corpus? What "THEY"

The Didache is put to good use, too. Some writings of some ECF's were and are put to good use. MILLIONS of writings are put to good use. How does that indicate that the therefore all of them are therefore the inerrant, fully canonical, inscripturated words of God that must appear in any tome published that has the word "BIBLE" on the front cover (and only such)? USING is not the same thing as DECLARING such to be inerrant, fully canonical, inscripturated words of God. And USING or not USING them has nothing to do with forbidding a publishing house from including and not including them in a tome it sells.

ripping out

It is impossible to "rip out" what was not put in.

I have a tome with "BIBLE" on the cover that only has 27 NT books included between the covers. So, does that prove that ergo Christianity "ripped out" 39 or 44 or 46 or 50 or 52 books (and perhaps 4 psalms) from what the Ruling Body of all Christianity had declared at some meeting you won't identify? Or does it mean that a publishing house decided to sell a tome with just 27 books in it? That publishing house NOT being the Ruling Body of All Christianity making an official, binding declaration for Christianity? Consider that.

now it's taboo and weird for people to accept the "apocrypha" as traditional ecclesiastical scripture as Holy for the Christian Church

Which people? What declared this "taboo?" Catholics? Anglicans? Lutherans? The Fourth Ecumenical Council?

I know of NONE who state that it's "weird" and "taboo" to regard the mysterious corpus of writings you won't identify to regard this "them" to be Holy in Christianity. What I think is very common is to not accept that this mysterious group of stuff has been declared by some Ruling Body of all Christianity to be inerrant, fully canonical, inscripturated words of God that every publishing house in the world must include in any tome it sells that has the word "BIBLE" on the cover. And perhaps they disagree with you that all Christians regarded "these" to be equal to "the Old Testament." I think it's your claims they'd disagree with.

And again, yet again, I'll ask: Please list for us all the denominations (there's perhaps 50,000 - 100,000 0f them) that have declared that you are forbidden to read anything in this mysterious "them?" Who has declared such to be "taboo?" List for us the denominations that have so stated. Now Nathan suggested by HIS individual parish (a member of the Assemblies of God) appears to not encourage it (a claim I would not challenge) but one parish out of perhaps 3,000.000 in the world.... APPEARING to not ENCOURAGE reading them is not the equal of Christianity "ripping" them out of tomes. I'd perhaps be able to argue that the Book of Jude is not widely used in every one of the 3,000,000 parishes of modern Christianity but that hardly indicates that Christians are forbidden or regarded as "weird" to read it.

Those books were never meant to be removed

What "those?"

It's impossible for any person, parish, denomination or Ruling Body of all Christianity to remove something it didn't put in. No one, no thing can "rip out" what isn't there. FIRST you need to prove that Christianity "put in" the mysterious corpus of "them" you speak of ... give the list.... give the date and place where CHRISTIANITY officially declared that exact corpus to be inerrant, fully canonical, inscripturated words of God. Just list the place, the date, and the exact declaration. NOT of some individual person, NOT of some individual diocese, NOT of some individual translation but CHRISTIANITY, the CHURCH. When you prove "them" were put in, you THEN can begin to discuss if some "ripped out" part of them.

Again, my friend, if YOU want to "use" Psalm 151... I know of NONE (no person, no parish, no denomination, no business, no Declaration of the Ruling Body of Christianity that forbids you from doing so. The same goes for 4 Maccabees, The Epistle of Barnabas, Luther's Small Catechism, some writing of some Early Church Father, or even some secular history book. A publishing house MAY not included EVERY BOOK you are welcome to USE in every tome it sells with the word "BIBLE" on the cover - I'll concede that - but that's not the same as "ripping them out" of such tomes. And it's not the same as declaring the use of them as "weird" and "taboo."



Friend, WHATEVER your point is (and that of Nathan).... it seems to me you are WAY overstating things and making claims that clearly aren't true. Even misstating articles you yourself bring up, stating they state something they obviously don't. Nathan seems very angry that it seems the leaders of his individual parish of the Assemblies of God didn't introduce him to this "them". Okay. Doesn't surprise me. But all the HUGE, unfounded LEAPS he makes (and you appear to echo) from this likelihood are simply false. This "them" was never officially put IN by Christianity... and no one entered his church on a Saturday night, gathered up all the pew bibles, and RIPPED OUT the "them."




You are correct that there are books ONCE more widely USED than today... a point no one challenges, but that's entirely unrelated to all your constant, baseless claims about "in" and "out" and "the Christian Church," "Holy Scripture," etc., etc., etc., etc. ...



But to the thread: You claimed this article said something that it CLEARLY does not. Sorry.




Blessings.


- Josiah




.

 

[Andrew]

It seems you are evading the point: What you claimed the article in the CPH publication states is... well.... not so.








Which books? List the exact corpus you are speaking of.

Then prove that all Christian churches have always declared that exact list of books to be inerrant, FULLY-canonical, inscripturated words of God that legally must appear in any tome up for sale that has the word "BIBLE" on the cover. We both know you can do neither, which, my friend, is why you and Nathan are so careful to speak in vague generalities.

You brought up this tome published by Concordia Publishing House. But what you stated it says is pretty much the opposite of what it actually states.






You and Nathan usually avoid the issue of the NT and speak of some mysterious, unstated corpus of books NO ONE EVER has claimed are part of the NT or even the NT Apocrypha.

But here too, you are simply wrong. The church has never done anything about the NT canon. Sorry, but study the Seven Ecumenical Councils, they are the ONLY official proclamations of the church (at most... some claim only the first 3 or 4 are such), and NONE of those "settled" the issue of the NT canon. Yes, you can find a handful of INDIVIDUAL MEN who stated THEIR opinion.... you can find 3 or 4 diocesan meetings that stated what it so regarded, but the Church is more than one man or one diocese of one Christian denomination or one translation.


You brought up this tome published by Concordia Publishing House and an article within it. But what you stated it says is pretty much the opposite of what it does state. It says there was no consensus about books you allude to (but won't name), there was "division" and disagreement.







Nope.

And again (I've asked you for this for well over a year now), what "THEM?"
And WHERE did some Ruling Body of all Christianity declare that exact corpus of writing to be "HOLY SCRIPTURE?"



You brought up a tome published by Concordia Publishing House to quote an article in it and stated that it claimed something.... but as I showed, it DOES NOT at all state that... indeed, it goes on to make the opposite point of yours. What you stated is simply not the case.







Again, what "THEY?" Luther's list? The one from the Anglican Church? The one from The Council of Trent by the RCC? The Greek Orthodox corpus? The Coptic Church corpus? What "THEY"

The Didache is put to good use, too. Some writings of some ECF's were and are put to good use. MILLIONS of writings are put to good use. How does that indicate that the therefore all of them are therefore the inerrant, fully canonical, inscripturated words of God that must appear in any tome published that has the word "BIBLE" on the front cover (and only such)? USING is not the same thing as DECLARING such to be inerrant, fully canonical, inscripturated words of God. And USING or not USING them has nothing to do with forbidding a publishing house from including and not including them in a tome it sells.







It is impossible to "rip out" what was not put in.

I have a tome with "BIBLE" on the cover that only has 27 NT books included between the covers. So, does that prove that ergo Christianity "ripped out" 39 or 44 or 46 or 50 or 52 books (and perhaps 4 psalms) from what the Ruling Body of all Christianity had declared at some meeting you won't identify? Or does it mean that a publishing house decided to sell a tome with just 27 books in it? That publishing house NOT being the Ruling Body of All Christianity making an official, binding declaration for Christianity? Consider that.







Which people? What declared this "taboo?" Catholics? Anglicans? Lutherans? The Fourth Ecumenical Council?

I know of NONE who state that it's "weird" and "taboo" to regard the mysterious corpus of writings you won't identify to regard this "them" to be Holy in Christianity. What I think is very common is to not accept that this mysterious group of stuff has been declared by some Ruling Body of all Christianity to be inerrant, fully canonical, inscripturated words of God that every publishing house in the world must include in any tome it sells that has the word "BIBLE" on the cover. And perhaps they disagree with you that all Christians regarded "these" to be equal to "the Old Testament." I think it's your claims they'd disagree with.

And again, yet again, I'll ask: Please list for us all the denominations (there's perhaps 50,000 - 100,000 0f them) that have declared that you are forbidden to read anything in this mysterious "them?" Who has declared such to be "taboo?" List for us the denominations that have so stated. Now Nathan suggested by HIS individual parish (a member of the Assemblies of God) appears to not encourage it (a claim I would not challenge) but one parish out of perhaps 3,000.000 in the world.... APPEARING to not ENCOURAGE reading them is not the equal of Christianity "ripping" them out of tomes. I'd perhaps be able to argue that the Book of Jude is not widely used in every one of the 3,000,000 parishes of modern Christianity but that hardly indicates that Christians are forbidden or regarded as "weird" to read it.






What "those?"

It's impossible for any person, parish, denomination or Ruling Body of all Christianity to remove something it didn't put in. No one, no thing can "rip out" what isn't there. FIRST you need to prove that Christianity "put in" the mysterious corpus of "them" you speak of ... give the list.... give the date and place where CHRISTIANITY officially declared that exact corpus to be inerrant, fully canonical, inscripturated words of God. Just list the place, the date, and the exact declaration. NOT of some individual person, NOT of some individual diocese, NOT of some individual translation but CHRISTIANITY, the CHURCH. When you prove "them" were put in, you THEN can begin to discuss if some "ripped out" part of them.

Again, my friend, if YOU want to "use" Psalm 151... I know of NONE (no person, no parish, no denomination, no business, no Declaration of the Ruling Body of Christianity that forbids you from doing so. The same goes for 4 Maccabees, The Epistle of Barnabas, Luther's Small Catechism, some writing of some Early Church Father, or even some secular history book. A publishing house MAY not included EVERY BOOK you are welcome to USE in every tome it sells with the word "BIBLE" on the cover - I'll concede that - but that's not the same as "ripping them out" of such tomes. And it's not the same as declaring the use of them as "weird" and "taboo."



Friend, WHATEVER your point is (and that of Nathan).... it seems to me you are WAY overstating things and making claims that clearly aren't true. Even misstating articles you yourself bring up, stating they state something they obviously don't. Nathan seems very angry that it seems the leaders of his individual parish of the Assemblies of God didn't introduce him to this "them". Okay. Doesn't surprise me. But all the HUGE, unfounded LEAPS he makes (and you appear to echo) from this likelihood are simply false. This "them" was never officially put IN by Christianity... and no one entered his church on a Saturday night, gathered up all the pew bibles, and RIPPED OUT the "them."




You are correct that there are books ONCE more widely USED than today... a point no one challenges, but that's entirely unrelated to all your constant, baseless claims about "in" and "out" and "the Christian Church," "Holy Scripture," etc., etc., etc., etc. ...



But to the thread: You claimed this article said something that it CLEARLY does not. Sorry.




Blessings.


- Josiah




.

We've already been through this, the books removed from the KJV 1611, and when I quote from an early church father who calls any particular one "scripture" before they quote from that particular book, you excuse it as "scripture" just meaning any literature.

Church tradition included those books in the Bible for atleast 1,500 years up until the 19th century.

 

[Josiah]

We've already been through this

Yes. You made claims about what this article in this book from Concordia Publishing House states.... and what you claimed it says, well... it doesn't. Indeed, it pretty much says the opposite of what you claim it does.




.