What is the main reason why the Apocrypha doesn’t belong in the Bible?

[Josiah]

Then "Canon" = Dogma

Ah, no. "Canon" is a Greek word meaning a measuring stick, rather like the word "ruler" (and thus the English equal of 'rule'). If one claims a wall built by a Greek is 6 meters high, how is it determined if it is indeed that high? You use a measuring tape, a ruler, a measuring stick, or as it is called in Greek (as well as in theology and in philosophy), a "canon." So, there is a teaching that paying money to the Temple results in the remission of sins, is that true? We use a canon - the rule, the "norma normans" (to use the Latin Epistemological term - literally, the norm that norms) to see if it "measures up."


The word Apocrypha literally means "hidden" and has been used for 500 years in English to refer to a corpus of books that are embraced IN SOME SENSE but NOT as canonical, NOT to be used as the rule, measuring stick, norma normans, the CANON for faith and practice. The theological word "DEUTEROcanonical" (used since the earliest days of Christianity and a much more universal term in many languages than "Apocrypha") means "secondary" or "under" or :"subject to", "lesser." It refers to something that is embraced in some sense but LESSER than or "SECONDARY" or "SUBJECT TO" another corpus. Thus, a Deuterocanoncal book is not fully canonical (by definition),it is one accepted for some purpose (say informational or inspirational) but not for others (such as canon), not to be used for the norming of doctrine or practice (perhaps to confirm what a canonical book states but subject to it, not standing equal to such). When one calls a book or collection of such as "APOCRYPHA" they are declaring these are NOT canonical, they are DEUTEROcanonical. When one notes that a book is deuterocanoncal, they are declaring it to be a book of Apocrypha.


So, yes, they are largely interchangable ways of declaring them NOT Scripture, NOT the words of God, NOT canon, NOT to be used as a norma normans for doctrine or practice, it is UNDER and SUBJECT TO canonical books, NOT inerrant, NOT norma normans.


The entire topic before us is WHICH books are DEUTEROCANONICAL/APOCRYPHA (not Scripture, not canon, not to be used as the source or norm for doctrine and practice). So far, no one has even attempted to state WHICH books those are..... and if we are to accept them for some OTHER lesser, under, subject to use (and if so, what)?





.

.

 

[Andrew]

Ah, no. "Canon" is a Greek word meaning a measuring stick, rather like the word "ruler" (and thus the English equal of 'rule'). If one claims a wall built by a Greek is 6 meters high, how is it determined if it is indeed that high? You use a measuring tape, a ruler, a measuring stick, or as it is called in Greek (as well as in theology and in philosophy), a "canon." So, there is a teaching that paying money to the Temple results in the remission of sins, is that true? We use a canon - the rule, the "norma normans" (to use the Latin Epistemological term - literally, the norm that norms) to see if it "measures up."


The word Apocrypha literally means "hidden" and has been used for 500 years in English to refer to a corpus of books that are embraced IN SOME SENSE but NOT as canonical, NOT to be used as the rule, measuring stick, norma normans, the CANON for faith and practice. The theological word "DEUTEROcanonical" (used since the earliest days of Christianity and a much more universal term in many languages than "Apocrypha") means "secondary" or "under" or :"subject to", "lesser." It refers to something that is embraced in some sense but LESSER than or "SECONDARY" or "SUBJECT TO" another corpus. Thus, a Deuterocanoncal book is not fully canonical (by definition),it is one accepted for some purpose (say informational or inspirational) but not for others (such as canon), not to be used for the norming of doctrine or practice (perhaps to confirm what a canonical book states but subject to it, not standing equal to such). When one calls a book or collection of such as "APOCRYPHA" they are declaring these are NOT canonical, they are DEUTEROcanonical. When one notes that a book is deuterocanoncal, they are declaring it to be a book of Apocrypha.


So, yes, they are largely interchangable ways of declaring them NOT Scripture, NOT the words of God, NOT canon, NOT to be used as a norma normans for doctrine or practice, it is UNDER and SUBJECT TO canonical books, NOT inerrant, NOT norma normans.


The entire topic before us is WHICH books are DEUTEROCANONICAL/APOCRYPHA (not Scripture, not canon, not to be used as the source or norm for doctrine and practice). So far, no one has even attempted to state WHICH books those are..... and if we are to accept them for some OTHER lesser, under, subject to use (and if so, what)?





.

.

Who declared them to be "hidden"? Who named them "Apocrypha" and at what time (roughly)? Nathan has listed "those" books for you as well have I in previous threads.. This controversy is nothing new, the ECF quoted these books over 300 times and were well aware that the Jews were rejecting them just as soon as the churches were settled.
We obviously know better than these ECF, it's terrible how misinformed our Church Fathers were for mentioning these uninspired books as if they were inspired.. such heretics they were!
Friend, I know what Canon and Dogma mean I just find it odd how books could be so called inspired according to ECF but then later uninspired through councils.. This is the OT we are talking about, not the NT, the councils never questioned the OT but were designed to discern against Christian gnostics and they did an amazing job at it. Jerome called the books that anti Christian Jews threw out -the Apocrypha..

 

[NathanH83]

If I discuss the problems of Maccabees as part of the NT, then I am corrected that it is part of the OT and if I discuss the problems with Maccabees as part of the OT then I am directed to the New Testament. This is not an honest discussion.

How can a book not written by a prophet of God that contradicts the Law of God be a true “God breathed” pre-cursor for the New Testament?
Do you honestly believe that the dead get a second chance to accept the Gospel?
Either way, I am finished with this conversation that is going nowhere.
Accept any false writings that your heart desires, just do not ask me to accept them.

You said that a sacrifice in the present cannot atone for the sins of men who died in the past.

So Jesus didn’t die for the sins of the people who lived before him?

 

[Josiah]

Who declared them to be "hidden"? Who named them "Apocrypha" and at what time (roughly)?

The usual and historic term is deuterocanonical. The word "deutero" means "secondary, under, subject to" The term actually goes back earlier than Christianity. The word "Apocrypha" means "hidden" and is a term often used in English to refer to the same thing; the words are largely interchangeable.


Since the earliest days of Christianity, books held to be important were NOT NECESSARILY held to be equal in authority or use. There were books among the "66" that were considered "spoken in favor" and those considered "spoken against" but regarded as canonical - just not to the same degree. Then there were books lower than that but still often used, St. Jerome noted this point pretty early. So this concept of DUETEROcanonical is quite historic. This "range" of authority disappeared in the 16th Century... we just don't speak of this the way Christians did (Luther and Calvin BOTH spoke of this and used this; Luther is often quoted noting that James was "spoken against" for example). But this concept disappeared in modern times.


Only one denomination has officially declared anything to be deuterocanonical/apocrypha. The Anglican Church did so in the 16th Century to refer to 14 books (a unique "set"). Martin Luther PERSONALLY, in his own personal opinion, expressed his view that 8 books are deuterocanonical - the common view in Germany at the time, but this was by no means official or the view of any church (then or now), Lutheranism has no official position here but Luther's translation includes those 8 to this day. The Catholic Church officially embraced 7 books at the Council of Trent in the 16th Century but as canonical, not deuterocanonical (it embraces no books at deuterocanonical/apocrypha). John Calvin held to the opinion that 66 books are canonical and NONE are duetercanonical - and this opinion (very new at the time) was made official and put into the Reformed Confessions. All these things happened in the 16th Century. The Eastern Orthodox Churches (there are many) have various embraces of books beyond the universal 66 but none of them has ever declared anything officially on this, it's always a matter of custom/tradition but the EOC's also have a tradition that the books in their unique tomes are not necessarily equal in authority/status so there is an informal canoncal/deuterocanoncal embrace - just unofficial; the EOC's have anywhere from 9-15 extra book, sometimes more.

the ECF quoted these books over 300 times

Please list which ECF.... quoting WHICH books.... and did they do so as the inerrant, canonical, verbally-inspired inscriptured words of God? You'll find Christians quoting from MILLIONS of books - doesn't necessarily mean that whole book THEREFORE is the inerrant, canonical, verbally-inspired inscriptured words of God, it means nothing more than it's quoted.

I just find it odd how books could be so called inspired according to ECF but then later uninspired through councils.

What books were declared to be inerrant, canonical, verbally-inspired inscriptured words of God in the personal opinion of what Christians?

There has never been an Ecumenical Council on this topic. NEVER. A handful of individual denominations have decided this FOR THEMSELVES individually - the Catholic Church and Anglican Church and Reformed Churches in the 16th Century, the LDS did so in the 19th Century, but there has NEVER been anything from the whole church. Christainity has no equal to the Jewish Council of Jamnia. We have a solid, historic, ecumenical TRADITION/CUSTOM/CONSENSUS around 66-73 but that's all and that's just by custom, no "council" nothing formal or official or ecumenical.





.

 

[hjhsjnsshdjdh]

Why ? Because GOD doesn't want it as part of HIS WORD. If HE did, it would be included.

 

[atpollard]

You said that a sacrifice in the present cannot atone for the sins of men who died in the past.

So Jesus didn’t die for the sins of the people who lived before him?

Was Jesus an OT animal sacrifice performed by a Levitical Priest according to the Law of Moses?
That was the topic in Maccabees.
(Apples to Oranges = Old Covenant to New Covenant = blood of animals to death of Christ)

 

[Andrew]

The usual and historic term is deuterocanonical. The word "deutero" means "secondary, under, subject to" The term actually goes back earlier than Christianity. The word "Apocrypha" means "hidden" and is a term often used in English to refer to the same thing; the words are largely interchangeable.


Since the earliest days of Christianity, books held to be important were NOT NECESSARILY held to be equal in authority or use. There were books among the "66" that were considered "spoken in favor" and those considered "spoken against" but regarded as canonical - just not to the same degree. Then there were books lower than that but still often used, St. Jerome noted this point pretty early. So this concept of DUETEROcanonical is quite historic. This "range" of authority disappeared in the 16th Century... we just don't speak of this the way Christians did (Luther and Calvin BOTH spoke of this and used this; Luther is often quoted noting that James was "spoken against" for example). But this concept disappeared in modern times.


Only one denomination has officially declared anything to be deuterocanonical/apocrypha. The Anglican Church did so in the 16th Century to refer to 14 books (a unique "set"). Martin Luther PERSONALLY, in his own personal opinion, expressed his view that 8 books are deuterocanonical - the common view in Germany at the time, but this was by no means official or the view of any church (then or now), Lutheranism has no official position here but Luther's translation includes those 8 to this day. The Catholic Church officially embraced 7 books at the Council of Trent in the 16th Century but as canonical, not deuterocanonical (it embraces no books at deuterocanonical/apocrypha). John Calvin held to the opinion that 66 books are canonical and NONE are duetercanonical - and this opinion (very new at the time) was made official and put into the Reformed Confessions. All these things happened in the 16th Century. The Eastern Orthodox Churches (there are many) have various embraces of books beyond the universal 66 but none of them has ever declared anything officially on this, it's always a matter of custom/tradition but the EOC's also have a tradition that the books in their unique tomes are not necessarily equal in authority/status so there is an informal canoncal/deuterocanoncal embrace - just unofficial; the EOC's have anywhere from 9-15 extra book, sometimes more.






Please list which ECF.... quoting WHICH books.... and did they do so as the inerrant, canonical, verbally-inspired inscriptured words of God? You'll find Christians quoting from MILLIONS of books - doesn't necessarily mean that whole book THEREFORE is the inerrant, canonical, verbally-inspired inscriptured words of God, it means nothing more than it's quoted.






What books were declared to be inerrant, canonical, verbally-inspired inscriptured words of God in the personal opinion of what Christians?

There has never been an Ecumenical Council on this topic. NEVER. A handful of individual denominations have decided this FOR THEMSELVES individually - the Catholic Church and Anglican Church and Reformed Churches in the 16th Century, the LDS did so in the 19th Century, but there has NEVER been anything from the whole church. Christainity has no equal to the Jewish Council of Jamnia. We have a solid, historic, ecumenical TRADITION/CUSTOM/CONSENSUS around 66-73 but that's all and that's just by custom, no "council" nothing formal or official or ecumenical.





.

Post 67 list a few with their quotes, but I'll have to list them out when I get the chance, notice how they quote them side by side with other OT scriptures, Clement of Rome even calls Judith "blessed by God"

 

[Andrew]

This is also a bit interesting..

 

[NathanH83]

Was Jesus an OT animal sacrifice performed by a Levitical Priest according to the Law of Moses?
That was the topic in Maccabees.
(Apples to Oranges = Old Covenant to New Covenant = blood of animals to death of Christ)

So you DO acknowledge that Jesus’ sacrifice atoned for the sins of men who died in the past! Why didn’t you just say so?

 

[Josiah]

Post 67 list a few with their quotes

Post 67 appears to be a picture of some mysterious, unidentified book.... but I see no quotes that state they are quoting from some book that some denomination regards as Deuterocanonical/Apocrypha but they state is rather the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and thus the canon/rule/norma normans for doctrine.

But I think you indicated that all the ECF quoted some "them" and noted them as CANON. Some 300 times.

I'll have to list them out when I get the chance, notice how they quote them side by side with other OT scriptures, Clement of Rome even calls Judith "blessed by God"

Thanks. But quoting from a book - even if they are stating they are quoting from a book - is irrelevant to whether they regard such as canon. Millions of Christians have quoted from millions of books... even at times to support or illustrate a teaching; it does not mean they regard such as canon, I'm sure you agree. The quotes that would be meaningful is one that says, "God says in the Book of __________ ..." Or This quote from ____________ is the words of the Lord." Something of that nature. But of course,that would be one persons opinion.... I think your point is that ALL the ECF, several hundred times, said thus about all the "them".


And of course the issue here is not whether some books beyond the 66 were used.... it seems perhaps 20-30 such books were.... but were they universally accepted specifically as SCRIPTURE and CANON or perhaps as something lesser than that? We know that the Epistle to the Leodiceans was in thousands of biblical tomes for over 1000 years and quoted from a LOT and included in lectionaries and used for sermons but it's not clear it was ever seen as SCRIPTURE and CANON or simply as a godly, wise book good to read. In any case, after Trent, it slowly, slowly feel from use. But if we use the standard of "appears in LOTS of biblical tomes for many centuries and was in the lectionary and often used as texts for sermons and quoted side-by-side to the "66" then we'd prove this book WAS Scripture/Canon but the RCC at Trent removed it. But I wonder about this rubric.

 

[Andrew]

Post 67 appears to be a picture of some mysterious, unidentified book.... but I see no quotes that state they are quoting from some book that some denomination regards as Deuterocanonical/Apocrypha but they state is rather the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and thus the canon/rule/norma normans for doctrine.

But I think you indicated that all the ECF quoted some "them" and noted them as CANON. Some 300 times.






Thanks. But quoting from a book - even if they are stating they are quoting from a book - is irrelevant to whether they regard such as canon. Millions of Christians have quoted from millions of books... even at times to support or illustrate a teaching; it does not mean they regard such as canon, I'm sure you agree. The quotes that would be meaningful is one that says, "God says in the Book of __________ ..." Or This quote from ____________ is the words of the Lord." Something of that nature. But of course,that would be one persons opinion.... I think your point is that ALL the ECF, several hundred times, said thus about all the "them".


And of course the issue here is not whether some books beyond the 66 were used.... it seems perhaps 20-30 such books were.... but were they universally accepted specifically as SCRIPTURE and CANON or perhaps as something lesser than that? We know that the Epistle to the Leodiceans was in thousands of biblical tomes for over 1000 years and quoted from a LOT and included in lectionaries and used for sermons but it's not clear it was ever seen as SCRIPTURE and CANON or simply as a godly, wise book good to read. In any case, after Trent, it slowly, slowly feel from use. But if we use the standard of "appears in LOTS of biblical tomes for many centuries and was in the lectionary and often used as texts for sermons and quoted side-by-side to the "66" then we'd prove this book WAS Scripture/Canon but the RCC at Trent removed it. But I wonder about this rubric.

There is a library of volumes you can buy for several thousand dollars that include all of the ante Nicene, Nicene and post Nicene writings of early Christians.. the "mysterious, unidentified" book is the "The Dictionary to Early Christian beliefs" and it's a compilation of the "ante-Nicene" volumes of that library, they are arranged by topics.. David Bercot the editor -when he was first studying the volumes -became very agitated how they kept quoting the so called "Apocrypha" books because he too grew up with a bias and dislike to claims that these books were actually inspired.. what he found was that they mention them just as often as the rest of our OT..

This book is a window to Early Christian understanding word for word as they wrote it, he took notes on topics they discussed, over 700 topics.

No mystery book, it's like a compact version of a very expensive library

 

[Andrew]

.

 

[Josiah]

Post 67 appears to be a picture of some mysterious, unidentified book.... but I see no quotes that state they are quoting from some book that some denomination regards as Deuterocanonical/Apocrypha but they state is rather the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and thus the canon/rule/norma normans for doctrine.

But I think you indicated that all the ECF quoted some "them" and noted them as CANON. Some 300 times.






Thanks. But quoting from a book - even if they are stating they are quoting from a book - is irrelevant to whether they regard such as canon. Millions of Christians have quoted from millions of books... even at times to support or illustrate a teaching; it does not mean they regard such as canon, I'm sure you agree. The quotes that would be meaningful is one that says, "God says in the Book of __________ ..." Or This quote from ____________ is the words of the Lord." Something of that nature. But of course,that would be one persons opinion.... I think your point is that ALL the ECF, several hundred times, said thus about all the "them" and that all congregations and denominations officially and authoritatively declared "them" to be canonical.


And of course the issue here is not whether some books beyond the 66 were used.... it seems perhaps 20-30 such books were.... but were they universally accepted specifically as SCRIPTURE and CANON or perhaps as something lesser than that? We know that the Epistle to the Leodiceans was in thousands of biblical tomes for over 1000 years and quoted from a LOT and included in lectionaries and used for sermons but it's not clear it was ever seen as SCRIPTURE and CANON or simply as a godly, wise book good to read. In any case, after Trent, it slowly, slowly feel from use. But if we use the standard of "appears in LOTS of biblical tomes for many centuries and was in the lectionary and often used as texts for sermons and quoted side-by-side to the "66" then we'd prove this book WAS Scripture/Canon but the RCC at Trent removed it. But I wonder about this rubric.


.

"The Dictionary to Early Christian beliefs"

Thanks for identifying your source. But quoting from a book (a secondary source) - even if it says some "they" are quoting from some book - is irrelevant to whether "they" regard such as canon. Millions of Christians have quoted from millions of books... even at times to support or illustrate a teaching; it does not mean they regard such as canon, I'm sure you agree. The quotes that would be meaningful is one that says, "God says in the Book of __________ ..." Or This quote from ____________ is the words of the Lord." Something of that nature. But of course,that would be one persons opinion.... I think your point is that ALL the ECF, several hundred times, said thus about all the "them".

David Bercot the editor ... he grew up with a bias and dislike to claims that these books were actually inspired.

... so the editor states he has a bias. He grew up with one and then reacted with the opposite. Okay.... but that doesn't supply any substantiation that all the ECF accepted some mysterious corpus of books (not in our 66) as the inerrant, verbally-inspired, divinely inscripturated words of God and thus the canon/rule/norma normans for doctrine. Perhaps SOME seem to quote from SOME books for SOME reason but then yesterday my pastor quoted from a Christmas carol - doesn't prove that that specific carol is thus is the inerrant, verbally-inspired, divinely inscripturated words of God and thus the canon/rule/norma normans for doctrine and that every Christian agrees with that and every parish and denomination has officially and authoritatively declared so. IMO.



A blessed Christmas season to you and yours....


Josiah

 

[Andrew]

Thanks for identifying your source. But quoting from a book (a secondary source) - even if it says some "they" are quoting from some book - is irrelevant to whether "they" regard such as canon. Millions of Christians have quoted from millions of books... even at times to support or illustrate a teaching; it does not mean they regard such as canon, I'm sure you agree. The quotes that would be meaningful is one that says, "God says in the Book of __________ ..." Or This quote from ____________ is the words of the Lord." Something of that nature. But of course,that would be one persons opinion.... I think your point is that ALL the ECF, several hundred times, said thus about all the "them".







... so the editor states he has a bias. He grew up with one and then reacted with the opposite. Okay.... but that doesn't supply any substantiation that all the ECF accepted some mysterious corpus of books (not in our 66) as the inerrant, verbally-inspired, divinely inscripturated words of God and thus the canon/rule/norma normans for doctrine. Perhaps SOME seem to quote from SOME books for SOME reason but then yesterday my pastor quoted from a Christmas carol - doesn't prove that that specific carol is thus is the inerrant, verbally-inspired, divinely inscripturated words of God and thus the canon/rule/norma normans for doctrine and that every Christian agrees with that and every parish and denomination has officially and authoritatively declared so. IMO.



A blessed Christmas season to you and yours....


Josiah

The editor does not state that... He DID have a bias that he was not aware of when he was 35 when he started reading the volumes of writings left by early Church fathers.. He grew up Jehovah's Witness and was always taught that the these books were made up and added by the Catholic church.
It really upset him when he kept reading these references and it eventually turned him away from JW and he is now an Anglican Christian.

You insists that the writings are false testimony regarding what the universal belief among early Christians were.
They use a clear language and message when discussing those who are "blessed" especially side by side with other familiar OT books, because they were one in the same.. These were men who were disciples of the Apostles who mention these stories and characters in a Christian language.

Jews still tell the story of Maccabees during Hanukkah according to rUgrAts

https://youtu.be/WqsAYX3S-Lg
https://youtu.be/Ry3De1WiofE

 

[Albion]

You insists that the writings are false testimony regarding what the universal belief among early Christians were.
They use a clear language and message when discussing those who are "blessed" especially side by side with other familiar OT books, because they were one in the same.. These were men who were disciples of the Apostles who mention these stories and characters in a Christian language.

Jews still tell the story of Maccabees during Hanukkah according to rUgrAts

One thing that needs to be kept in mind--

It is not as though a person either thinks that the Apocrypha is inspired and should be part of the Bible....OR that these books are bogus and of no value.

 

[Josiah]

It really upset him when he kept reading these references and it eventually turned him away from JW and he is now an Anglican Christian.

1. "Upset" usually leads to bias.

2. The Anglican Church accepts NONE of these books as Scripture, as canonical.... it accepts a UNIQUE SET of "them" (exactly 14, a number no other denomination embraces in any way) as DEUTEROcanonical, as good to read for information and inspiration but NOT as the source or norm for faith and practice, NOT as the rule/norm/canon for theology and morality.

You insists that the writings are false testimony regarding what the universal belief among early Christians were.

I'm frustrated when people bluntly post I "said"or "posted" or "insist" something ... when of course I never stated any such thing (which is why they don't quote me). I don't think I've even used the word "false" for anything in any post in this thread about anything.

They use a clear language and message when discussing those who are "blessed" especially side by side with other familiar OT books, because they were one in the same.. These were men who were disciples of the Apostles who mention these stories and characters in a Christian language.

1. Who is "they?"

2. Does "blessed" equal "an inerrant, verbally-inspired, divinely-inscripturated words of God and ergo the rule/norm/canon for doctrine and morality?" I think the song "Silent Night" is blessed. I think my son is blessed. I think the USA is blessed.

3. Does quoting from a book (with reference) equal a formal declaration of the church universal that such book is ergo an book exclusively of inerrant, verbally-inspired, divinely-inscripturated words of God and ergo the rule/norm/canon for doctrine and morality? I suspect that it's common for Christians today to quote from literally millions of books.

4. Remember: The Anglican Church officially, formally declares a unique set of books beyond the 66 as DEUTEROcanonical, as APOCRYPHA, not as Scripture, not as canonical, not as equal to the "66" so looking to the Anglican Church to support it's own unique set of books beyond the 66 as canonical is not appropriate; it specifically REJECTS that position.

Jews still tell the story of Maccabees during Hanukkah according to rUgrAts

So what? My parish sings Silent Night at least once during Christmas. There are millions of books that contain accurate history but are not ergo the inerrant, verbally-inspired, divinely-inscripturated words of God and ergo the rule/norm/canon for doctrine and morality. Don't you agree?



A blessed Christmas Season to you and yours..



- Josiah



.

 

[Andrew]

1. "Upset" usually leads to bias.

2. The Anglican Church accepts NONE of these books as Scripture, as canonical.... it accepts a UNIQUE SET of "them" (exactly 14, a number no other denomination embraces in any way) as DEUTEROcanonical, as good to read for information and inspiration but NOT as the source or norm for faith and practice, NOT as the rule/norm/canon for theology and morality.







I'm frustrated when people bluntly post I "said"or "posted" or "insist" something ... when of course I never stated any such thing (which is why they don't quote me). I don't think I've even used the word "false" for anything in any post in this thread about anything.







1. Who is "they?"

2. Does "blessed" equal "an inerrant, verbally-inspired, divinely-inscripturated words of God and ergo the rule/norm/canon for doctrine and morality?" I think the song "Silent Night" is blessed. I think my son is blessed. I think the USA is blessed.

3. Does quoting from a book (with reference) equal a formal declaration of the church universal that such book is ergo an book exclusively of inerrant, verbally-inspired, divinely-inscripturated words of God and ergo the rule/norm/canon for doctrine and morality? I suspect that it's common for Christians today to quote from literally millions of books.

4. Remember: The Anglican Church officially, formally declares a unique set of books beyond the 66 as DEUTEROcanonical, as APOCRYPHA, not as Scripture, not as canonical, not as equal to the "66" so looking to the Anglican Church to support it's own unique set of books beyond the 66 as canonical is not appropriate; it specifically REJECTS that position.







So what? My parish sings Silent Night at least once during Christmas. There are millions of books that contain accurate history but are not ergo the inerrant, verbally-inspired, divinely-inscripturated words of God and ergo the rule/norm/canon for doctrine and morality. Don't you agree?



A blessed Christmas Season to you and yours..



- Josiah



.

Bercot states that whenever you start a study you should enter in with no bias and start from the ground up.. he wasn't expecting to go into study about the apocrypha or the Septuagint, so he admits that he came into it under the bias that these so called "Apocrypha" books were not inspired, added by the church and were "made up/mythical".. So you ARE correct that he had bias, just as you do, towards the "Apocrypha"..
Also I doubt he joined the Anglican church over any view considering the canon, he could have easily been EOC but I never meant to insist that he became Anglican because of their views on the Apocrypha or anything like that.
He studies these massive volumes of ECF writings to get an idea of what the earliest Christians believed, starting with the first disciples of the Apostles, he was absolutely blown away with 300 plus quotations from the "Apocrypha" along with the other books of the OT.. For the sake of simplicity I am not going to list or post the book for you, you can read it for yourself so please don't take my word for it.
You can purchase the massive volumes off ebay for a discount price of $1000.00 or just buy David Bercot's "Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs" for under $30 on ebay.
Now if you find it unappealing that a bunch of early Christian dudes wrote a bunch of stuff that means diddly squat to you, just remember that a bunch of Christian dudes also created Canons and councils..
A bunch of Christians also created translations, denominations and reforms.
David does not just study the apocrypha quotes, he studies many many subjects of what Early Christians believed, it doesn't mean that we should all become "Early Christians" or anything lol, but in regards to what they received and held true, they all universally accepted (yes I said ACCEPTED) certain books that were dropped from Judaism and then from Christianity as "breathed from God".

Josiah in 2015 you mentioned that your congregation were reading through the "Apocrypha" for edification, how exactly could these books edify you? What did you learn from it?
Difficult passages I'm sure, probably some geological or historical errors here and there, but no more than the difficult passages and issues with geology or history that we already see in the OT.. I'm sure you have scratched your head and searched for peer reviews a ew times throughout passages in the OT.. What I want to know is how did your church regard these books as edifying? And did it actually edify anything for you?

 

[Andrew]

[MENTION=13]Josiah[/MENTION]
http://christianityhaven.com/showthread.php?p=59544

 

[Josiah]

http://christianityhaven.com/showthread.php?p=59544

Yup.


Yes, Martin Luther PERSONALLY included exactly EIGHT books beyond the 66 in his German translation (yet another UNIQUE "set" - not the RCC's, not the EOC's, not the OOC's, not the Anglicans, not the LXX, unique) because those exactly 8 books were typically included in the tomes found in Germany at the time.

But Martin Luther shared his PERSONAL OPINION that these specific, exactly 8 books were not canonical, not Scripture, not the inerrant divinely inscripturated words of God and thus the rule/norm for theology but rather good to read for information and inspiration (and nothing more), he included them in his tome, his translation but only as DEUTEROcanonical. This was the typical opinion in his day (among Catholics, too), he reflected nothing new or different or unusual. But it must be noted that while the Anglican Church would later dogmatize that view (officially declaring it's unique "set" of such, 14 in number) officially declaring that exact set of 14 to be DEUTEROcanonical (NOT canonical), Lutherans never have. The Lutheran Confessions say NOTHING about this.


That does not change anything I've said in this thread. Nor does it support anything you've said or anything you've noted some book you have says.


What did I learn from a study of Luther's unique "set" of DEUTEROcanonical books he personally chose to include in his tome? I don't recall a lot.... These are fully canonical in post-Trent Catholic Bibles (well, all but one) but in my Catholic days, they were never really taught or used. Some of the books seemed really weird to me.... but I found 1 and 2 Maccabees to be historically interesting since they relate a period in Jewish history that most Christians don't know and I hardly knew. Nearly all non-fiction books contain information, some of which is often interesting and perhaps even useful. But in my opinion, THAT reality doesn't mean that THEREFORE the book MUST be the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and ergo the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice; if that was the case, the Bible would contain millions of books. Last night, I spent a bit of time reading a book about the history of cars.... VERY interesting! Learned a lot! Doesn't mean that book must be accepted by all as canonical Scripture, the norm/rule for faith and practice. Just because some book is interesting or has some helpful information in it is not an indication of it being divinely canonical for Christian faith and practice, IMO.



A blessed Epiphany Season to you and yours...



- Josiah





.

 

[Andrew]

Yup.


Yes, Martin Luther PERSONALLY included exactly EIGHT books beyond the 66 in his German translation (yet another UNIQUE "set" - not the RCC's, not the EOC's, not the OOC's, not the Anglicans, not the LXX, unique) because those exactly 8 books were typically included in the tomes found in Germany at the time.

But Martin Luther shared his PERSONAL OPINION that these specific, exactly 8 books were not canonical, not Scripture, not the inerrant divinely inscripturated words of God and thus the rule/norm for theology but rather good to read for information and inspiration (and nothing more), he included them in his tome, his translation but only as DEUTEROcanonical. This was the typical opinion in his day (among Catholics, too), he reflected nothing new or different or unusual. But it must be noted that while the Anglican Church would later dogmatize that view (officially declaring it's unique "set" of such, 14 in number) officially declaring that exact set of 14 to be DEUTEROcanonical (NOT canonical), Lutherans never have. The Lutheran Confessions say NOTHING about this.


That does not change anything I've said in this thread. Nor does it support anything you've said or anything you've noted some book you have says.


What did I learn from a study of Luther's unique "set" of DEUTEROcanonical books he personally chose to include in his tome? I don't recall a lot.... These are fully canonical in post-Trent Catholic Bibles (well, all but one) but in my Catholic days, they were never really taught or used. Some of the books seemed really weird to me.... but I found 1 and 2 Maccabees to be historically interesting since they relate a period in Jewish history that most Christians don't know and I hardly knew. Nearly all non-fiction books contain information, some of which is often interesting and perhaps even useful. But in my opinion, THAT reality doesn't mean that THEREFORE the book MUST be the inerrant, verbally inspired, inscripturated words of God and ergo the canon/rule/norm for faith and practice; if that was the case, the Bible would contain millions of books. Last night, I spent a bit of time reading a book about the history of cars.... VERY interesting! Learned a lot! Doesn't mean that book must be accepted by all as canonical Scripture, the norm/rule for faith and practice. Just because some book is interesting or has some helpful information in it is not an indication of it being divinely canonical for Christian faith and practice, IMO.



A blessed Epiphany Season to you and yours...



- Josiah





.

He does say 1rst Maccabees fulfils prophesy in Daniel 11 though, so it wasn't just "good to read", it's prophesy fulfilled in a book that was well recognized among Jews and Christians alike as Holy text centuries before "canon"..