TOBIT -by NathanH83

[Josiah]

Jews conspiring?? How absurd!

You didn't say it was absurd or smart but rather TRUE. You just offered NOTHING to substantiate that.

At one point, you suggested the reason why "the Jews" (never named, some mysterious group you can't identify, kind of like the "them" of which you constantly speak), why they RIPPED OUT books in the LXX like Psalm 151 is because Christians were using those (never named!) books to support the Christian Gospel but of course they left in Isaiah because ... well... I guess the opposite, no Christian used that book. Friend, every one of your mysterious, vague conspiracy theories are senseless - and again, NEVER substantiated.

Bible Societies being Anti-Catholic? Ridiculous!

I never remotely said this claim was "ridiculous." In fact, I said it's very likely the American Bible Society was such 200 years ago. But you AGAIN are evading the entire point: The American Bible Society is not Protestantism. It's not the authoritative Ruling Body of Protestantism. I doubt the vast majority of Protestants in the world have ever even heard of it! IT does not have the authority to control what the world's Protestants are permitted and forbidden to read, it does not have control over what every book store sells. It probably WAS "anti-Catholic" 200 years ago, but that doesn't prove that IT is responsible (in something it evidently did TWO HUNDRED YEARS AGO) for why your pastor didn't tell you that First Macabees has some useful information in it.

There were never ever ever ever any Bible ever that included any book outside divine scripture!!

NO ONE HERE said that. As everyone knows.... you are again just trying to evade any substantiation for your claims.

OF COURSE Christians read, used, quoted, and held in high esteem MORE books than the 66. I've said that repeatedly. No one denies that. But that reality does NOT prove....

+ All those Jewish Conspiracy claims...

+ That the Apostles declared what is and is not canonical Scripture.

+ All books found in all Bibles are equal....

+ "The Church", "Christianity" "Christians" authoritatively declared what is and is not canonical Scripture.

+ "Protestantism" declared what is and is not canonical Scripture...

+ There is ONE set of "Apocrypha" books

+ That every Bible among Christians contained EXACTLY THE SAME material from 300-1800....

+ Protestantism "ripped out" some unidentified books ....

+ That Lutherans especially discourage the reading of "them"....

+ I'm (Josiah) THE "prime example" of one who discourages the reading of "them".

Never identifying any Jewish Ruling Body doing anything - for any reason

Never even one notation from even one Apostle about what books are and are not Scripture and what legally must be in books with BIBLE on the cover.

Not one statement from anything saying all the books of all the bibles on earth are EQUAL.

Not one statement from even one Ecumenical Council declaring what is and is not canonical and can and cannot appear in tomes with BIBLE on the cover.

No proof that EVERY Bible from Egypt to England was exactly the same - same books (no less, no more)

No proof that Protestantism did anything (and your attempt to say that the American Bible Society IS Protestantism, IS The Authoritative Ruling Body of Protestantism (it's just that most Protestants have never heard of it and it didn't exist for much of Protestant history) IS laughable.

No proof that Lutheranism ESPECIALLY discourages reading "them" (you just ignored all the evidence to the contrary because, well, "I just couldn't care less" NOTHING from any Ruling Body of Lutheranism, not one word from any Lutheran denomination, not one quote from me.



Again, MY Bible has nearly 2800 pages in it, the table of contents lists over 300 things. INCLUDING 8 books beyond the 66. LOTS of things can be sharing the cover of a book with Scriptures.... LOTS of things can be read by people... LOTS of things can be used and quoted (ever heard a preacher quote some book beyond the 66 or even show a clip from a movie?). I hold Luther's Small Catechism in esteem (and have said so) THAT does not prove that some mysterious unidentified Jewish Ruling Body put it IN the Bible and some mysterious unidentified Christian Ruling Body ripped it out and then some Lutheran Ruling Body put it in. It proves this: It's in some tomes with BIBLE written on the cover, millions read it, use it, quote it.

OH THANK YOU dearest Josiah, man of such great saintly patience! FOR OPENING MY EYES

Sure, give credit to Origen, Albion and others, too.



Again, brother, IF... IF... IF you and Nathan said, "Look, for much of Christian history and in many cases still today, some Christians have read and used several books beyond "the 66" - even holding them in great esteem and at times listing them with Scripture and including them in biblical tomes... and at times some of these are often seen (even today) as very useful, helpful, informational and inspirational, at times included in lectionaries and to support teachings (as Luther did). And it would be good if today we were more often encouraged to read these." IF, IF, IF you had said THAT, most here at CH would have said "AMEN!" I could have noted how Luther so often quoted from 8 of them and how he included those in his translation, how Lutherans have entire lectionaries that fully embrace them and conduct studies of them.... Ablion would note Article 6 of the 39 Articles of the Church of England and how Anglican churches include it's set of them in the lectionary and not infrequently use them as sermon texts...

But that's not what you've claimed. The issue is the claims you've made. The huge pile of baseless, unsubstantiated, remarkable claims. And how you've not once even attempted them to be true ("I could care less"). For people who think truth matters, THAT'S the problem.





.

 

[Josiah]

MoreCoffee


In response to post #80, then you too find Andy's claims (well, at least the latest) to be not only unsubstantiated but rather silly. Of course, you are right: There is no authoritative Ruling Body of Lutheranism, no organization that CAN speak for Lutheranism because there is not such Ruling Body. Never has been. Still isn't. So his claim about "Lutheranism" is wrong.

He could, of course, quote official statements from the over 300 Lutheran denomination in the world - but he hasn't quoted even one.

And he could, of course, quote from the 72,000,000 Lutherans in the world - but he hasn't even quoted from even one.

And since I'M the "prime example" of a Protestant that discourages people from reading "them" (whatever "them" are), well that one should be very easy but he hasn't even tried to do that. Instead "I could care less."


Everyone knows that your denomination officially embraced 7 books beyond the 66 (having a unique set no other does). And that's not been disputed or even rebuked, it's what your one individual denomination did. I've never claimed otherwise. And it certainly can do that - just as the Anglican Church did, the Reformed Church did, the LDS did (albeit, none following your church). My Catholic teachers taught us this was done in 1546, only by The Catholic Church and for The Catholic Church (which could explain why no other denomination has the same Bible) BUT that this codified something in Western Latin tradition that can be seen as early as 400 AD or so. I agree with those Catholic teachers. And many Catholics believe that EVERYTHING your denomination does was taught by the Apostles but no one claims this can be substantiated - it's an article of faith, not history.

See post 81


More Coffee,


I'm NOT at all contesting the value and worth of at least some of "them" (your 7 is fine with me). I've NEVER said they should not be between the covers of a tome called "BIBLE." I have no issue with the Catholic Church placing them in the OT (and not seperately). I have no issue with Luther using them to support teachings (but not source or norm them)... no problem with Luther putting one MORE of them in his translation that Trent numerated.... no problem with Lutherans having a lectionary of daily reading of them or placing them into the Sunday lectionary... no problem with Lutheran publishing houses producing and selling studies of them or books of them with detailed notes and references to OT and NT, no problem with my Lutheran pastor leading a six month study of them on Sunday mornings.

The issue here in these MANY threads of Andy and Nathan is NOT the value of these, but all the remarkable, amazing CLAIMS they've made, the conspiracy theories, the things that appear to have ZERO basis in history and for which they've offered nothing to substantiate as true (instead, the claim just gets repeated - endlessly - and joined to other entirely baseless, unsubstantiated claims). While you and I have disagreed on a few points, I've never considered you to be among those where truth doesn't matter, history doesn't matter, substantiation is irrelevant.

Beware of the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."



A blessed Easter season to you and yours...


- Josiah

.

 

[MoreCoffee]

@Josiah, please drop the overly dramatic rhetoric and please do not put support for your claims into your interpretation of my posts. To make matters clear:

• I do not support a 66 book bible canon
• nor do I support calling 7 books of the canonical scriptures 'apocrypha'
• nor do I support the theory about Hebrew autographs being the sure fire sign that a book in the old testament of Judaism is legitimate but one composed in Greek is not legitimate.
• and I do support the inspiration and canonicity of Esther and Daniel with the contents that those books have in Catholic bibles.

 

[Josiah]

To make matters clear:

• I do not support a 66 book bible canon

I never said you did.

I KNOW your church has a 73 book canon (as I said).

I indicated you evidently don't support a claim being discussed. And I agreed with you.

• nor do I support calling 7 books of the canonical scriptures 'apocrypha'

I never said you did.
I never said I did.

• nor do I support the theory about Hebrew autographs being the sure fire sign that a book in the old testament of Judaism is legitimate but one composed in Greek is not legitimate.

Never said you did.
Never said I did.

• and I do support the inspiration and canonicity of Esther and Daniel with the contents that those books have in Catholic bibles.

I never said otherwise. Indeed, in my posts to you, I never even mentioned Esther or Daniel.


Try reading post 82. Read the words there instead of ignoring them and substituting words I never said. It would help.



.

 

[Andrew]

You didn't say it was absurd or smart but rather TRUE. You just offered NOTHING to substantiate any of your conspiracy theories.

At one point, you suggested the reason why "the Jews" (never named, some mysterious group you can't identify, kind of like the "them" of which you constantly speak), why they RIPPED OUT books in the LXX like Psalm 151 is because Christians were using those (never named!) books to support the Christian Gospel but of course they left in Isaiah because ... well... I guess the opposite, no Christian used that book. Friend, every one of your mysterious, vague conspiracy theories are senseless - and again, NEVER substantiated.






I never remotely said this claim was "ridiculous." In fact, I said it's very likely the American Bible Society was such 200 years ago. But you AGAIN are evading the entire point: The American Bible Society is not Protestantism. It's not the authoritative Ruling Body of Protestantism. I doubt the vast majority of Protestants in the world have ever even heard of it! IT does not have the authority to control what the world's Protestants are permitted and forbidden to read, it does not have control over what every book store sells. It probably WAS "anti-Catholic" 200 years ago, but that doesn't prove that IT is responsible (in something it evidently did TWO HUNDRED YEARS AGO) for why your pastor didn't tell you that First Macabees has some useful information in it.






NO ONE HERE said that. As everyone knows.... you are again just trying to evade any substantiation for your claims.

OF COURSE Christians read, used, quoted, and held in high esteem MORE books than the 66. I've said that repeatedly. No one denies that. But that reality does NOT prove....

+ All those Jewish Conspiracy claims...

+ That the Apostles declared what is and is not canonical Scripture.

+ All books found in all Bibles are equal....

+ "The Church", "Christianity" "Christians" authoritatively declared what is and is not canonical Scripture.

+ "Protestantism" declared what is and is not canonical Scripture...

+ There is ONE set of "Apocrypha" books

+ That every Bible among Christians contained EXACTLY THE SAME material from 300-1800....

+ Protestantism "ripped out" some unidentified books ....

+ That Lutherans especially discourage the reading of "them"....

+ I'm (Josiah) THE "prime example" of one who discourages the reading of "them".

Never identifying any Jewish Ruling Body doing anything - for any reason

Never even one notation from even one Apostle about what books are and are not Scripture and what legally must be in books with BIBLE on the cover.

Not one statement from anything saying all the books of all the bibles on earth are EQUAL.

Not one statement from even one Ecumenical Council declaring what is and is not canonical and can and cannot appear in tomes with BIBLE on the cover.

No proof that EVERY Bible from Egypt to England was exactly the same - same books (no less, no more)

No proof that Protestantism did anything (and your attempt to say that the American Bible Society IS Protestantism, IS The Authoritative Ruling Body of Protestantism (it's just that most Protestants have never heard of it and it didn't exist for much of Protestant history) IS laughable.

No proof that Lutheranism ESPECIALLY discourages reading "them" (you just ignored all the evidence to the contrary because, well, "I just couldn't care less" NOTHING from any Ruling Body of Lutheranism, not one word from any Lutheran denomination, not one quote from me.



Again, MY Bible has nearly 2800 pages in it, the table of contents lists over 300 things. INCLUDING 8 books beyond the 66. LOTS of things can be sharing the cover of a book with Scriptures.... LOTS of things can be read by people... LOTS of things can be used and quoted (ever heard a preacher quote some book beyond the 66 or even show a clip from a movie?). I hold Luther's Small Catechism in esteem (and have said so) THAT does not prove that some mysterious unidentified Jewish Ruling Body put it IN the Bible and some mysterious unidentified Christian Ruling Body ripped it out and then some Lutheran Ruling Body put it in. It proves this: It's in some tomes with BIBLE written on the cover, millions read it, use it, quote it.






Sure, give credit to Origen, Albion and others, too.



Again, brother, IF... IF... IF you and Nathan said, "Look, for much of Christian history and in many cases still today, some Christians have read and used several books beyond "the 66" - even holding them in great esteem and at times listing them with Scripture and including them in biblical tomes... and at times some of these are often seen (even today) as very useful, helpful, informational and inspirational, at times included in lectionaries and to support teachings (as Luther did). And it would be good if today we were more often encouraged to read these." IF, IF, IF you had said THAT, most here at CH would have said "AMEN!" I could have noted how Luther so often quoted from 8 of them and how he included those in his translation, how Lutherans have entire lectionaries that fully embrace them and conduct studies of them.... Ablion would note Article 6 of the 39 Articles of the Church of England and how Anglican churches include it's set of them in the lectionary and not infrequently use them as sermon texts...

But that's not what you've claimed. The issue is the claims you've made. The huge pile of baseless, unsubstantiated, remarkable claims. And how you've not once even attempted them to be true ("I could care less"). For people who think truth matters, THAT'S the problem.





.

In earlier threads I have named the main Rabbi that Jerome studied under, I even named the place and date. However, I do not keep a copy/pasta folder with all of the details of everything you have ever asked me, although I have in the past, I would jump when you said to, I would post it, and then you would respond with something like "THAT STILL DOES NOT PROVE ERGO IPSO FACTO TOME CANON.".. and then round and round we go until you ask me again.

Look it up yourself. Probably start with googling Jerome... I believe in you.

 

[Andrew]

Of course, you are right: There is no authoritative Ruling Body of Lutheranism, no organization that CAN speak for I've NEVER said they should not be between the covers of a tome called "BIBLE." I have no issue with the Catholic Church placing them in the OT (and not seperately). I have no issue with Luther using them to support teachings (but not source or norm them)

Then you agree, Luther used the Ecclesiasticals in the proper use according to traditional!
Canon - Establishing Doctrine
Ecclesiasticals- Support Doctrine

Regardless of your view of Catholics including them in their Bibles, so should Lutherans by following the Luther Bible which Martin Luther held to for supporting doctine, again as was tradition (or else the Church would have never accepted them and they would be lost in time) for the sake of "theme" lets just include from what Luther used to defend his 95 theses.
This is the Early churcn method of dual use of The Scriptures and to the Catholics for the sake of being in accordance officiay declared both the Canon for Establishing Docrtine and Canon for Supporting Doctrines of faith (like "Hebrew" using Maccabean martyrs as examples of faith supported in Scripture)

So by the Tradition of the Apostles and of the Catholic Church and of the first or early Protestants (Who were once Catholic themselves)... Modern Protestants who reject the placement of Appcrypha in the Bible in the back or in the middle in its own section even (i.e. the original 1611 King James) should still include them lest the Reformation had been Reformed by those who outlawed books from Tradition, likely because they were ignorant of it yet were so anti Catholic as well as hungry for money, they became the pushers of incomplete Bibles.

You don't agree even though you just did but by declaring that a Catholic Monk used them the way the Tradition was claimed and carried by the first Christions, The Catholics and Protestants.

 

[Albion]

So by the Tradition of the Apostles and of the Catholic Church and of the first or early Protestants (Who were once Catholic themselves)... Modern Protestants who reject the placement of Appcrypha in the Bible in the back or in the middle in its own section even (i.e. the original 1611 King James) should still include them lest the Reformation had been Reformed by those who outlawed books from Tradition, likely because they were ignorant of it yet were so anti Catholic as well as hungry for money, they became the pushers of incomplete Bibles.

You don't agree even though you just did but by declaring that a Catholic Monk used them the way the Tradition was claimed and carried by the first Christions, The Catholics and Protestants.

As long as you continue to misunderstand and misuse the term Tradition, you will not likely ever understand the issue here.

It does not establish anything by "Tradition" to have people merely claiming something happened in history. It does not amount to "Tradition" if Jerome or Clement or Augustine or any handful of individuals scattered throughout past centuries held some view or other.

And it does not represent "Tradition" in the theological sense just to be talking about custom!

Your entire approach is your own, not the Catholic OR the Protestant way that any doctrinal issue is approached.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Some more food for thought

 

[Andrew]

As long as you continue to misunderstand and misuse the term Tradition, you will not likely ever understand the issue here.

It does not establish anything by "Tradition" to have people merely claiming something happened in history. It does not amount to "Tradition" if Jerome or Clement or Augustine or any handful of individuals scattered throughout past centuries held some view or other.

And it does not represent "Tradition" in the theological sense just to be talking about custom!

Your entire approach is your own, not the Catholic OR the Protestant way that any doctrinal issue is approached.

When the first Christian writings quote only the Greek Translation and quote these books over 400 times, accepted into the Bible, read and sung in churches... its Tradition, I highly doubt that the majority of early Church Fathers went against the Apostles for using some of the books in the Greek Translation that were rejected later by Jews by their first official Hebrew Canon.

 

[Andrew]

Some more food for thought

Just watched it! I got to find those quotes from the Protestants who were fighting against the mutilation of the Bible of all Protestants by the Bible Societies.

 

[Josiah]

In earlier threads I have named the main Rabbi that Jerome studied under,

I do recall.... but you didn't substantiate any Jewish Conspiracy. You mentioned ONE individual and some vague, unclear concept that you think he might have conveyed to Jerome.

Look it up yourself

Brother, it's not OUR responsiblity to prove your MANY remarkable claims to be true. That's your job. It's just how it works. If Bob makes the claim, "There are 6.82 million flying purple people eaters living on Venus" it's not anyone's responsibility to prove that wrong (and of course, it cannot be), it's Bob's responsibility to substantiate it as true. You know that. We all know that. And insisting, "But it's possible!" or "I can find 3 people in the world with that opinion so it's true!" isn't substantiation. You know that. We all know that.


Here are just a few - only a few - claims made on this topic. So far, NOTHING has been shown to substantiate them as true.


+ All those Jewish Conspiracy claims...

+ The Apostles declared what is and is not canonical Scripture.

+ All books found in all Bibles are equal....

+ "The Church", "Christianity" "Christians" authoritatively declared what is and is not canonical Scripture.

+ "Protestantism" declared what is and is not canonical Scripture...

+ There is ONE set of "Apocrypha" books, everyone's "them" is the same list.

+ That every Bible among Christians contained EXACTLY THE SAME material from 300-1800....

+ Protestantism "ripped out" some unidentified books ....

+ Lutherans especially discourage the reading of "them"....

+ I'm (Josiah) THE "prime example" of one who discourages the reading of "them".


Now, I think you've done adequate work to show that ONE individual, largely unknown, non-authoritative Bible society had anti-Catholic leanings. No surprise there, nothing remarkable in that claim, and I think probably is true. But what you've NOT shown is that the ABS IS Prorestantism, the authoritative Ruling Body of Protestantism, or even that it's singular action TWO HUNDRED YEARS AGO is why your pastor didn't tell you that First Maccabees contains some helpful info to understand a verse in Hebrews. There's been the claim that the Apostles (12-14) wrote a list of what books must be included in any tome called "The Bible" and what books must not be but you've never quoted any of them saying anything remotely related to that, you seem to think that if ONE individual, singular man who never met any of them shared an OPINION related to that. If Bob can find one person (out of 7.8 billion) who says "Yeah, there are some critters on Venus" that someone substantiates his claim.

And I've suggested you focus on (by far) the easiest of your claims to confirm: That I'm the prime example (the best out of 72 million) of Lutherans who discourage reading the Bible. I've called on you to substantiate that claim - and you won't, you refuse to, because, well - I hate to use the "L" word but I'm sure everyone here knows it applies. Brother, it's a pattern with you! A very, very powerful pattern. But only on this topic (I'm constantly puzzled by that!). It's disturbing. And to be frank, this posting style should not be present from a staffer.





.

 

[Josiah]

When the first Christian writings quote only the Greek Translation and quote these books over 400 times

Yes, people tend to read Scriptures in a language they can read. I'm not sure WHY that's such a remarkable and shocking thing to you, how it proves ANY of your many, many remarkable claims.

Yes, if a Christian can read English... and thus reads Scriptures translated into English... they are likely to quote that Scripture in English rather than Japanese or Danish. Okay. I'll buy that. Now why that is so shocking, SO remarkable, how it proves ANY of your many, many remarkable claims on this topic, well - you sure lost me.

It certainly does NOT prove that some mysterious, unknown, unidentified Ruling Body of Judaism declared that Psalm 151 (in the LXX) is inerrant, fully canonical, divinely inspired words of God and made some grand law that it must appear in any book with the word "BIBLE" on the cover (never mind that there were no books and the word "bible" was never used by the Jews). And it doesn't prove that Christians must abide by this unknown Jewish Ruling Body's decision (that you can't show ever happened) and by this law about what Jews say must appear in books (when books hadn't been invented yet).

I highly doubt that the majority of early Church Fathers went against the Apostles

Look up "circular reasoning."

You've never substantiated your claim the 12-14 Apostles declared what is and is not inerrant, fully canonical, inscripturated words of God and declared some law about what may and may not be in tomes called "BIBLE." So your claim here that some Fathers you didn't identify "went against that." You never confirmed the "that."

Jews by their first official Hebrew Canon.

Look up "circular reasoning."

You've never substantitated this "OFFICIAL HEBREW CANON." You've been asked to substantiate that MANY times, you've always ignored it (and we all know why). Reality: Judaism NEVER has declared a canon. NEVER. For centuries, it was commonly claimed (mostly by Christians) that the JUDAISM did this at its meeting at Jamnia in 90 AD, you CAN find that claim - a LOT - from many. And some Christian scholars still think so. But recent scholarship suggests that while this meeting DID speak of some books universally now accepted by Jews, actually it never said they were canonical and only those... and its status as authoritative is now questioned... So, there's no evidence of ANY official canon in Judaism. A first one or a second or third or fourth or fifth one.

This is just another of your many, many claims that's entirely, completely, wholly unsubstantiated. Do you think truth matters?





.

 

[Josiah]

Then you agree, Luther used the Ecclesiasticals in the proper use according to traditional!

Your claim that I'M (Josiah) is THE "prime example" of Lutheranism that "especially discourages people from reading them" (whatever "them" is) is claim you've never even attempted to substantiated... just like all your many, many remarkable claims you've made on these claims.

I have - often - expressed the common Lutheran view and Luther's own view. Obviously, you've never read those posts.

Canon - Establishing Doctrine
Ecclesiasticals- Support Doctrine

Again, yet again, still one more time, Luther's individual PERSONAL OPINION (not Lutheranism, not Protestantism), not official, not formal, not denominational.... no Ruling Body.... was that there are many books and writings that are important in teaching and evaluating, NONE of which has EVER been officially declared anything by the Apostles or The Church or even before his birth, any denomination. But they are helpful, useful, informational, inspirational. He never defined which "them" but he quoted and used 8 of "them" (one more than the Catholic Church embraced in 1546).

But NOT all were seen as EQUAL (your claim there is just not true)...

For the OT, 39 books (by our count) were embraced quite high although subject to the NT. The Jews then (and often now) had a 3-4 tier embrace (Pentateuch highest, then history and prophets, then under those the wisdom literature, and under that books you might call "apocrypha"). It seems (no substantiation is possible) Christians embraced the same, likely with the same 3-4 tier embrace. Luther read, used and quoted from many of these - not just those now found in Jewish tomes. Nothing official, nothing formal, very likely not universally. Custom - and not perfect or universal.

For the NT, many books were used early on - some no longer used but once widely so, even called "scripture" and "apostolic" and "catholic" by some. These include our 27 plus also the Didache, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabas, the letters of Clement, The Gospel of the Hebrews, Revelation of Peter, many of which were known to Luther. Some Catholic Bibles included the Epistle to the Leodiceans. Lots of books used. read, quoted. And of course Christians often quoted from "The Fathers" as well, often as much as from any book in any Bible. Luther used and quoted from most of these... very extensively from many Church Fathers, from Church Councils, from Church Canons (rulings), often side-by-side without distinction. As did everyone else. BUT not equally. Since the Third Century, there was a DISTINCTION - multiple "tiers" if you will, similar to Judaism.

The top tier is called "Homologooumena" (the word means "agreed") and custom was these were: The 4 Gospels plus Acts, Paul's 13 letters, 1 Peter, 1 John. In a sense, what is here "trumped" what was lesser. It's why Luther argued that what was clearly stated in Romans simply is more important than what seems to be the case in James.

The second tier is called "Antilegegomema" (The word means "against") Still fully canonical, still inerrant, still inspired, but embraced on a lower level. These were: Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2-3 John, Jude, James, Revelation of John, Barnabas, Hermas, Didache, the Gospel of the Hebrews. Some would add the Epistle to the Leodiceans. Of course, as we move into the middle ages, about half of those just dropped out in common use (although the Epistle to the Leodiceans was often found in Catholic Bibles in Germany in Luther's time).


Andy.... NONE of this, NONE of it... was a matter of some memo from Jesus or email from the 12-14 Apostles. NONE of it was the result of some Ecumenical Council or some declaration of some authoritative Ruling Body. It was CUSTOM. And that custom was far from universal (just check out a Coptic Bible) or perfect. AND this "tier" embrace largely disappeared in Western Christianity (not Judaism!) in the last 400 years or so, among both Catholics and Protestants. The CUSTOM now is that all books embraced ARE seem as generally equal (although the OT is seem as subject to the NT) but this is a quite new development (since Luther and Calvin) and again, CUSTOM - not the result of any Ecumenical Council (there haven't been any for over 800 years).


Luther - by custom, not in submission to some memo from Jesus or email from the Apostles or 3 meetings it seems he'd never heard of (he never mentions any of them), Luther continues the custom. He accepts 66 books (by our current Protestant count) as fully canonical (although not necessarily equal), but he certainly embraces others as useful (again, not equally). He clearly quotes from 8 books that some called "Apocrypha", even more he quoted from Early Church Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils and Creeds, and not infrequently from Catholic Canon (rulings) - not to SOURCE or FORM doctrine (he only used 66 books for that) but to SUPPORT or understand those doctrines.

Andy - it's just silly to assume that because Luther quoted from some writing from Augustine (he quoted his writings a LOT) ergo he considered his writings to be Scripture, inerrant, fully canonical, divinely inscripturated. Especially when Luther said he ONLY considered the 66 to be such. Every Christian teacher and pastor known to me quotes stuff outside the 66. ALL of them. A LOT. It's just silly to say, THEREFORE, this proves that some mysterious authortative, ecumenical, Ruling Body of Christianity declared every one of those to be inerrant, fully canonical, divinely inspired Scripture. It's just silly.

Luther's German Translation (and then the MANY translations of that into other languages) included 8 books beyond the 66. One MORE than in post 1546 Catholic tomes. This was only for one reason: They were commonly used in Germany and he was translating a book for Germans. NOT because he had some memo from Jesus or email from all the Apostles or because of some meeting in 397 that he evidently had never heard of. And Luther shares a common view: These are UNDER the rest, not on the same level as the rest, indeed, NOT to be used to source or form dogma, not at all, not just less than some but not at all. YES, he encouraged people to read them but his own personal, individual advise (NEVER adopted by Lutheranism) is that these 8 are useful but not canonical. Later, the Anglican Church would adopt that common view that Luther expressed as the view of that denomination.

Regardless of your view of Catholics including them in their Bibles

I've never given my view....

You seem to constantly state what my view is.... but NEVER with a quote from me. And we all know why.... I never said it.

should Lutherans by following the Luther Bible

I don't know what you mean by "following." Lutherans do not consider Luther to be an infallible/unaccountable Pope. We don't follow him at all. Ever. In anything.

AGAIN, my Bible - published by the LUTHERAN Concordia Publishing House does have those 8 books in it. And a daily lectionary for the reading of those 8. And cross-references to NT and OT verses. And notes on them. AND it includes Luther's own personal view that they are good to read but not to source or form dogma. Of course, it includes a lot of other things, too. Over 300 items are listed in the Table of Contents.


Andy - I'm still waiting for the substantiation of your latest in your long, long, long list of remarkable claims - NONE of them substantiated - the claim that I'M (Josiah) I'M "The PRIME EXAMPLE" of one who discourages the reading of "them"... and that Lutherans ESPECIALLY (among the worlds 2 billion Christians) DISCOURAGE the reading of these." I've been asking for you substantiation for these - MANY TIMES - but like all the rest, you won't. You just dodge, evade, avoid and instead pile on even more unsubstantiated claims.

So by the Tradition of the Apostles

You've claimed the Apostles told everyone what books must and must not be in tomes with "BIBLE" on the cover.... but here too, heres another example, NOTHING to support it as true. You have, yes, given the name of ONE individual person who shares his faith (NOTHING given by him that it's true) that this list dates back to them. Okay. But that doesn't confirm THUS they send out this email that no one has ever found.

Look up circular reasoning.

Modern Protestants who reject the placement of Appcrypha in the Bible

What Protestants? What books?

And if that's true, how does that confirm all your claims....


+ All those Jewish Conspiracy claims...

+ The Apostles declared what is and is not canonical Scripture.

+ All books found in all Bibles are equal....

+ "The Church", "Christianity" "Christians" authoritatively declared what is and is not canonical Scripture.

+ "Protestantism" declared what is and is not canonical Scripture...

+ There is ONE set of "Apocrypha" books, everyone's "them" is the same list.

+ That every Bible among Christians contained EXACTLY THE SAME material from 300-1800....

+ Protestantism "ripped out" some unidentified books ....

+ Lutherans especially discourage the reading of "them"....

+ I'm (Josiah) THE "prime example" of one who discourages the reading of "them".



.

 

[Andrew]

Yes, people tend to read Scriptures in a language they can read. I'm not sure WHY that's such a remarkable and shocking thing to you, how it proves ANY of your many, many remarkable claims.

Yes, if a Christian can read English... and thus reads Scriptures translated into English... they are likely to quote that Scripture in English rather than Japanese or Danish. Okay. I'll buy that. Now why that is so shocking, SO remarkable, how it proves ANY of your many, many remarkable claims on this topic, well - you sure lost me.

It certainly does NOT prove that some mysterious, unknown, unidentified Ruling Body of Judaism declared that Psalm 151 (in the LXX) is inerrant, fully canonical, divinely inspired words of God and made some grand law that it must appear in any book with the word "BIBLE" on the cover (never mind that there were no books and the word "bible" was never used by the Jews). And it doesn't prove that Christians must abide by this unknown Jewish Ruling Body's decision (that you can't show ever happened) and by this law about what Jews say must appear in books (when books hadn't been invented yet).






Look up "circular reasoning."

You've never substantiated your claim the 12-14 Apostles declared what is and is not inerrant, fully canonical, inscripturated words of God and declared some law about what may and may not be in tomes called "BIBLE." So your claim here that some Fathers you didn't identify "went against that." You never confirmed the "that."





Look up "circular reasoning."

You've never substantitated this "OFFICIAL HEBREW CANON." You've been asked to substantiate that MANY times, you've always ignored it (and we all know why). Reality: Judaism NEVER has declared a canon. NEVER. For centuries, it was commonly claimed (mostly by Christians) that the JUDAISM did this at its meeting at Jamnia in 90 AD, you CAN find that claim - a LOT - from many. And some Christian scholars still think so. But recent scholarship suggests that while this meeting DID speak of some books universally now accepted by Jews, actually it never said they were canonical and only those... and its status as authoritative is now questioned... So, there's no evidence of ANY official canon in Judaism. A first one or a second or third or fourth or fifth one.

This is just another of your many, many claims that's entirely, completely, wholly unsubstantiated. Do you think truth matters?





.

Watch this finale on how your Protestant Bible was stolen.

Concerning the conspiracy, Nathan did a great video on it which proves that compared to other Hebrew sources, the Masoretic had been altered, in the video you see a Rabbi using the manipulated portions to prove Jesus could not be the new High Priest.
Some early Church Fathers also accused the Jews of altering the text and removing certain scrolls from their Synagogues.
A book entitled "Rebooting the Bible" also explains it. Rufinus named Jerome's Rabbi as "Barabbas" and charged the Jews for decieving the Church.
Luther defended these books as Biblical Text by keeping them in his translation.

It was not a matter of canon for Luther but that the Bible for Protestants did include more than the 66. You defend the incomplete Bible of which according to the Gary was illegal for them to... I have to rewatch the video myself.. anyway gotta go.

 

[Albion]

When the first Christian writings quote only the Greek Translation and quote these books over 400 times, accepted into the Bible, read and sung in churches... its Tradition,

I'm sorry, but that's tradition in the secular and casual sense of the word, meaning something handed down across time without a written agreement and not necessarily continuously.

BUT in Christian theology, Tradition, AKA Sacred Tradition or Holy Tradition, has a precise meaning and is identified by specific conditions I referred to earlier. It refers to a process by which the Catholic type denominations come up with the idea that under these narrow rules, a dogma can be created even if it is not referred to in Holy Scripture.

What you've been referring to is the first use of the word, although you've been attempting to have it work as an example of the second use and determine divine revelation!

 

[Josiah]

Luther defended these books as Biblical Text by keeping them in his translation.

Read post 93.


No, Luther NEVER declared the 8 additional books in his German translation to be "biblical" It's just a (well, we know) He included those 8 because they were used in Germany and often appeared in German Bibles. That's it. That's all.

YES, Luther quoted and used LOTS of stuff beyond the 66. Most of all, quotes from some Church Fathers (Augustine most of all). He quoted from the 7 Ecumenical Councils and the Creeds, he quoted from Catholic Canon (official RCC rulings). He quoted from Greek philosophers, secular rulers, etc. That does NOT mean that ERGO some authoritative Ruling Body of Judaism and/or Christianity and/or Protestantism declared all that to be inerrant, fully canonical, divinely inspired Scripture and passed a law saying that all tomes called "BIBLE" must have all that between it's covers. THINK.

You defend the incomplete Bible of which according to the Gary was illegal for them to...

Where? Quote me.

This is a favorite ploy of yours.... and as a staffer, it really disturbs me. You ACCUSE me of stating something then don't quote me to show that I never did.

Tell us, when and where did the Ruling Body of Lutheranism or the Ruling Body of Protestantism declare that it's "illegal" for any printer, publishing house, society or book store to have tomes with BIBLE on the cover that contains anything other than "the 66." Your claim is baseless.

As for this video, YES one can find very isolated cases of a tiny number of people doing something. Heck, Christmas was declared illegal by some puritans in some areas (Mass. for example). That does not prove that THEREFORE there is some grand Conspiracy by Christianity and Protestantism (and Lutherans especially) to do away with Christmas. THINK.

The Bible for Protestants did include more than the 66.

What Bible?

My Bible has over 300 things in it, including First Maccabees and Luther's Small Catechism. And was published and sold by a LUTHERAN company.

What authoritative Ruling Body of all Protestantism declared "THE BIBLE?" Why didn't Luther or Anglicans get that memo? Give the name of this all powerful Ruling Body. Give the date and place where it meet. Quote it declaring "THIS IS THE PROTESTANT BIBLE." And give the date and place where it issued the Law that no printer, publishing house, Bible society or book store may make available any tome that has anything other than that stuff in it (meaning Concordia Publishing House violated the law when it sold me my Bible). Give the name of this Ruling Body. Give the day and date when it did this. Ever heard of circular reasoning?

YES, by custom, the tomes many Protestants use today have MUCH in them beyond the 66 but typically not any of the 7-15 books some Christians call "Apocrypha" or "Deuterocanonical." No one has ever challenged that or said otherwise. That is a reality, and I (and others) have lamented that (still waiting for your proof that therefore I'm THE PRIME EXAMPLE of one who discourages reading them). But that does not substantiate ANY of your claims. Not one of them. Your long, long list of remarkable claims have NOTHING to show they are true. Indeed, they seem shockingly unhistorical and even impossible.




.

 

[Josiah]

Andy -


Where (pray tell) did you ever get the crazy, absurd idea that if something is found between the covers of a tome with "BIBLE" on the cover, therefore some mysterious, unknown, unidentifiable Ruling Body declared all of it to be Scripture and passed an international law mandating it be in all such tomes? WHERE did you get that?

My administrative assistant is a very strong, dedicated Christian who attends an Assembly of God church. Yesterday, I shared this crazy assumption of yours and Nathan's. She showed me her Bible, from her desktop. It says "HOLY BIBLE" on it, in genuine imitation gold letters. It's very beautiful (and well worn!), leather bound. Between those covers are introduction notes, introductions to all the books, lots of cross references, many notes, the dates for things mentioned, a concordance that 255 pages long, and 8 pages of maps. NO DISTINCTION ever given as to what is "Biblical" "canonical" "normative" "just helpful" just IN THE TOME that says "BIBLE" on the cover. So, prove that Oxford University Press (the publisher) violated some Law issued by some mysterious Protestant Ruling Body. Prove that it's illegal for a Protestant to sell such a tome because there's stuff in it BEYOND the 66. Quote Luther saying "All Bibles printed, published or sold MUST contain everything in my German Translation - nothing less, nothing more - and this is international law, put a map in there or a quote from St. Augustine in the notes and you will be shot!" Come on, Andy! Come on!

Not only have you not substantiated even ONE of your many, many remarkable (and at times impossible) claims, but your whole premise is ... well... absurd. The very fact that you HAVE read 1 Maccabees PROVES it's not illegal to read or publish or sell that book.

NONE of your claims substantiated...
Your premise absurd.



.

 

[Andrew]

Andy -


Where (pray tell) did you ever get the crazy, absurd idea that if something is found between the covers of a tome with "BIBLE" on the cover, therefore some mysterious, unknown, unidentifiable Ruling Body declared all of it to be Scripture and passed an international law mandating it be in all such tomes? WHERE did you get that?

My administrative assistant is a very strong, dedicated Christian who attends an Assembly of God church. Yesterday, I shared this crazy assumption of yours and Nathan's. She showed me her Bible, from her desktop. It says "HOLY BIBLE" on it, in genuine imitation gold letters. It's very beautiful (and well worn!), leather bound. Between those covers are introduction notes, introductions to all the books, lots of cross references, many notes, the dates for things mentioned, a concordance that 255 pages long, and 8 pages of maps. NO DISTINCTION ever given as to what is "Biblical" "canonical" "normative" "just helpful" just IN THE TOME that says "BIBLE" on the cover. So, prove that Oxford University Press (the publisher) violated some Law issued by some mysterious Protestant Ruling Body. Prove that it's illegal for a Protestant to sell such a tome because there's stuff in it BEYOND the 66. Quote Luther saying "All Bibles printed, published or sold MUST contain everything in my German Translation - nothing less, nothing more - and this is international law, put a map in there or a quote from St. Augustine in the notes and you will be shot!" Come on, Andy! Come on!

Not only have you not substantiated even ONE of your many, many remarkable (and at times impossible) claims, but your whole premise is ... well... absurd. The very fact that you HAVE read 1 Maccabees PROVES it's not illegal to read or publish or sell that book.

NONE of your claims substantiated...
Your premise absurd.



.

Yeah sure, I slap "Holy Bible" stickers on my Where's Waldo books and hand them out to passers-by when street preaching

 

[NathanH83]

Andy -


Where (pray tell) did you ever get the crazy, absurd idea that if something is found between the covers of a tome with "BIBLE" on the cover, therefore some mysterious, unknown, unidentifiable Ruling Body declared all of it to be Scripture and passed an international law mandating it be in all such tomes? WHERE did you get that?

My administrative assistant is a very strong, dedicated Christian who attends an Assembly of God church. Yesterday, I shared this crazy assumption of yours and Nathan's. She showed me her Bible, from her desktop. It says "HOLY BIBLE" on it, in genuine imitation gold letters. It's very beautiful (and well worn!), leather bound. Between those covers are introduction notes, introductions to all the books, lots of cross references, many notes, the dates for things mentioned, a concordance that 255 pages long, and 8 pages of maps. NO DISTINCTION ever given as to what is "Biblical" "canonical" "normative" "just helpful" just IN THE TOME that says "BIBLE" on the cover. So, prove that Oxford University Press (the publisher) violated some Law issued by some mysterious Protestant Ruling Body. Prove that it's illegal for a Protestant to sell such a tome because there's stuff in it BEYOND the 66. Quote Luther saying "All Bibles printed, published or sold MUST contain everything in my German Translation - nothing less, nothing more - and this is international law, put a map in there or a quote from St. Augustine in the notes and you will be shot!" Come on, Andy! Come on!

Not only have you not substantiated even ONE of your many, many remarkable (and at times impossible) claims, but your whole premise is ... well... absurd. The very fact that you HAVE read 1 Maccabees PROVES it's not illegal to read or publish or sell that book.

NONE of your claims substantiated...
Your premise absurd.



.

You’re not even TRYING to understand what me or Andrew are saying. All you’re doing is MOCKING, all while completely mis-representing what Andrew is saying. And in my opinion, you’re insulting Andrew, which this forum calls flaming. It’s very disrespectful. I think you know what our argument is, and you want to continue to pretend like you don’t understand what we’re talking about. It’s very disingenuous and makes people just not even want to listen to anything you say.

 

[Josiah]

All you’re doing is MOCKING

@NathanH83


Nope. I'm noting claims he's made.... and that we're waiting for at least one of them to be substantiated. Some of us think that truth matters.

It’s very disrespectful.

Yes. Some of these claims are about ME. None of them substantiated, none of them even attempted to be substantiated, some of the fly in the face of clear things I've posted to the contrary.

Yes, it's very disrespectful, yes it could be considered flaming but more likely, just bearing false witness.

I think you know what our argument is

We all know you've admitted to not always reading things, so you probably don't know what we've been saying, but again, yet again, still another time..
.
IF, IF, IF you had been saying, "Look, there are a number of books beyond "the 66" that many Christians have cherished, used, quoted, even placed into collections with "the 66" ... historical and important and helpful books... but works that have largely been forgotten among some Christians today, especially modern American "Evangelicals," and we would be blessed to embrace them again, encouraged to read them." IF, IF, IF you and Andy had said THAT, I would have fully agreed and championed that - quoting Luther and my own parish pastor, noting how some Lutheran Lectionaries include readings from them, how Lutherans have a lectionary exclusively for them (readings for each day of the year from them), how my parish had a 6 month study of them. And I know Albion, Lanman87, Origen and others too would have noted their value.

But that's not what you've said in these many, many threads and posts on the topic of "those books." What we've gotten (more from Andy than you) are...


Lots of Jewish Conspiracy claims...

The Apostles declared what is and is not canonical Scripture...

All books found in all Bibles are equal....

"The Church" "Christianity" "Christians" declared what is and is not canonical Scripture...

"Protestantism" declared what is and is not canonical Scripture...

There is ONE set of "Apocrypha" books (always the same corpus)....

Every Bible among Christians contained EXACTLY THE SAME material from 300-1800....

Protestantism "ripped out" some unidentified books ....

The American Bible Society is The Authoritative Ruling Body for Protestantism...

Lutherans especially discourage the reading of "them"....

I'm (Josiah) THE "prime example" of one who discourages the reading of "them"..

I (Josiah) rejects the Bible of Luther (although he has and uses one)...

I (Josiah) am a "neo-Lutheran" who is apathetic toward the movement of the" Protestant Deformation" (Whatever that gobbledygook means)

and many more... never substantiated.



NO ONE here has debated that the Apocrypha (whatever books are so considered) are helpful to read and it's unfortunate that so many modern American "Evangelicals" don't even know they exist. The debate as been over the claims made concerning such books. I suspect that if you actually read what was posted, you'd know that.



.