What year was it when Protestants first started to remove books from the Holy Bible?

[Origen]

You love the Septuagint? Then why are you so bent against the extra books it contains?

First, I never stated a preference one way or the other. My goal was to point out you have no primary sources or manuscript evidence to support your claims. Which I did many times, and you still don't (see your comment below). Second, just because you love something does not mean you have to agree with it 100% of the time.

But the evidence I’ve seen is that church fathers who knew the disciples personally accepted these “extra” books as scripture, because they had them in their copies of the Septuagint, and that this tradition was passed on, generation after generation.

I guess I have to point out the facts again. There is no evidence for your claim. There are no primary sources which make that claim and no manuscript evidence to support that claim.

 

[NathanH83]

First, I never stated a preference one way or the other. My goal was to point out you have no primary sources or manuscript evidence to support your claims. Which I did many times, and you still don't (see your comment below). Second, just because you love something does not mean you have to agree with it 100% of the time.


I guess I have to point out the facts again. There is no evidence for your claim. There are no primary sources which make that claim and no manuscript evidence to support that claim.

What about Clement? Have you read his letter to the Corinthians?
Also, have you listened to David Bercot’s audio teaching on the Apocrypha? He shares tons of evidence. So just because you get on here and say “there’s no evidence” -that doesn’t convince me. All it tells me is that you’re not educated on a lot of facts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Origen]

Have you read his letter to the Corinthians?

Yes.

Also, have you listened to David Bercot’s audio teaching on the Apocrypha? He shares tons of evidence.

Then by all means feel free cite the primary source which claims "the disciples personally accepted these extra books as scripture." Cite the primary source which stated the "tradition was passed on." Provde the manuscript evidence.

So just because you get on here and say “there’s no evidence” -that doesn’t convince me.

Then cite the primary source which claims "the disciples personally accepted these extra books as scripture." Cite the primary source which state the "tradition was passed on." Provide the manuscript evidence.

All it tells me is that you’re not educated on a lot of facts.

Educated enough to know better than to make claims for which there is zero evidence.

Again, cite the primary source which claims "the disciples personally accepted these extra books as scripture." Cite the primary source which state the "tradition was passed on." Provide the manuscript evidence.

 

[Josiah]

Call him up and ask him.
Or email him or something.

YOU are making the claims;..... YOU are a part of this community.... YOU are posting here. I totally understand why you feel a need to run and divert all attention (certainly any accountability) but when YOU state a claim then YOU are accountable for it, don't HIDE behind someone else.


Since you came here about a year ago, you have gone on and on and on about how some collection of books (which you persistently refuse to identify), something you call "apocrypha" (as if there is some defined content of such) are and always have been CANONICAL SCRIPTURE for every Christian. You assume this and then with pure circular reasoning, state it's true because it's true so it's true. But you have given NOTHING beyond your assumption and circular reasoning. NOTHING. You want a DATE and PLACE for some Pan-Christian (or pan-Protestant) official authoritative meeting that took OUT your (never identified) books...while refusing to give the DATE and PLACE for such a meeting that put "them" IN. How silly! How absurd! Where, pray tell, are you getting this silly stuff? Why copy/paste it to here without THINKING and then having to evade all responsibility/accountability for it?


Brother, there are LOTS and LOTS of writings that you can show at least 2 or 3 Christians between 33-313 AD read, used, quoted and even called "Scripture". LOTS. And typically, YOU don't regard them as "Scripture" so your point "But this dude quotes from it - ERGO there MUST have been some official/binding statement from some Ruling Body declaring it so and EVERY Christian obeyed that ruling" is a whole apologetic YOU don't accept. So why keep insisted WE accept what obviously YOU obviously do NOT? How silly! No wonder you dodge responsibility.


And you keep noting 3 obscure regional church council meetings, ignoring that they only impacted ONE diocese and were not pan-Christian, but the absurd part is that YOU don't accept ANY church council meeting - not even the 3-7 Ecumenical ones, so your whole premise (All Christians must abide by all church council decisions) is one YOU reject, but insist WE accept. How silly (and hypocritical). Where do you get this stuff? Why do you copy/paste this stuff without THINKING, without even considering if YOU agree with the apologetic? No wonder you deflect all responsibility and accountability for what you post.



I like you, I'm glad you are here. I'm just inviting you to THINK... and yes, to take responsibility/accountability for the bold claims you've been making here for the past year. "Iron sharpens iron." Truth MATTERS! False teachings are to be rebuked. Brother, we're trying to help you.





.

 

[Origen]

YOU are making the claims;..... YOU are a part of this community.... YOU are posting here. I totally understand why you feel a need to run and divert all attention (certainly any accountability) but when YOU state a claim then YOU are accountable for it, don't HIDE behind someone else.

Thank you. He seems to believe it is always someone else's responsibility and not his to support his claims.

 

[NathanH83]

Yes.


Then by all means feel free cite the primary source which claims "the disciples personally accepted these extra books as scripture." Cite the primary source which stated the "tradition was passed on." Provde the manuscript evidence.


Then cite the primary source which claims "the disciples personally accepted these extra books as scripture." Cite the primary source which state the "tradition was passed on." Provide the manuscript evidence.


Educated enough to know better than to make claims for which there is zero evidence.

Again, cite the primary source which claims "the disciples personally accepted these extra books as scripture." Cite the primary source which state the "tradition was passed on." Provide the manuscript evidence.

I’ll give you the links to David Bercot’s teaching on the Apocrypha. You can ask him for his primary sources, and then get back to us on what he got wrong.


“The Apocrypha: Separating Myth from Fact” by David Bercot.
Part 1:

Part 2:

 

[Origen]

I’ll give you the links to David Bercot’s teaching on the Apocrypha. You can ask him for his primary sources, and then get back to us on what he got wrong.

Your comment could not be more clear. In other words YOU have NO primary source or manuscript evidence to support your claims.

 

[NathanH83]

YOU are making the claims;..... YOU are a part of this community.... YOU are posting here. I totally understand why you feel a need to run and divert all attention (certainly any accountability) but when YOU state a claim then YOU are accountable for it, don't HIDE behind someone else.


Since you came here about a year ago, you have gone on and on and on about how some collection of books (which you persistently refuse to identify), something you call "apocrypha" (as if there is some defined content of such) are and always have been CANONICAL SCRIPTURE for every Christian. You assume this and then with pure circular reasoning, state it's true because it's true so it's true. But you have given NOTHING beyond your assumption and circular reasoning. NOTHING. You want a DATE and PLACE for some Pan-Christian (or pan-Protestant) official authoritative meeting that took OUT your (never identified) books...while refusing to give the DATE and PLACE for such a meeting that put "them" IN. How silly! How absurd! Where, pray tell, are you getting this silly stuff? Why copy/paste it to here without THINKING and then having to evade all responsibility/accountability for it?


Brother, there are LOTS and LOTS of writings that you can show at least 2 or 3 Christians between 33-313 AD read, used, quoted and even called "Scripture". LOTS. And typically, YOU don't regard them as "Scripture" so your point "But this dude quotes from it - ERGO there MUST have been some official/binding statement from some Ruling Body declaring it so and EVERY Christian obeyed that ruling" is a whole apologetic YOU don't accept. So why keep insisted WE accept what obviously YOU obviously do NOT? How silly! No wonder you dodge responsibility.


And you keep noting 3 obscure regional church council meetings, ignoring that they only impacted ONE diocese and were not pan-Christian, but the absurd part is that YOU don't accept ANY church council meeting - not even the 3-7 Ecumenical ones, so your whole premise (All Christians must abide by all church council decisions) is one YOU reject, but insist WE accept. How silly (and hypocritical). Where do you get this stuff? Why do you copy/paste this stuff without THINKING, without even considering if YOU agree with the apologetic? No wonder you deflect all responsibility and accountability for what you post.



I like you, I'm glad you are here. I'm just inviting you to THINK... and yes, to take responsibility/accountability for the bold claims you've been making here for the past year. "Iron sharpens iron." Truth MATTERS! False teachings are to be rebuked. Brother, we're trying to help you.





.

YOU have a brain.
YOU have the ability to do research.
And I’m not going to spoon feed you.

I have NOT read the entire volume of ante-nicene fathers. David Bercot has. And he has shared his insights of what he learned from them. I find a lot of what he says to be convincing, and that the Apocryphal works very probably are part of the Bible.

BUT when you ask for PRIMARY sources, the best person to talk to would be David Bercot who has read the whole entire volume.

In other words, I’m not going to spoon feed you. YOU want primary sources? Go get them for yourself.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NathanH83]

Thank you. He seems to believe it is always someone else's responsibility and not his to support his claims.

You are the one who is hiding and not being accountable or responsible.
When I ask you to prove to me that the apocrypha doesn’t belong in the Bible, you just hide behind the statement “I never made that claim,” or “ I’m not making any claims.”

That’s called hiding. You refuse to share what your beliefs are on the subject, because if you do then you won’t be able to back them up. You know you can’t. So you hide.

If you want primary sources, then listen to David Bercot’s teaching on the Apocrypha. Ask him for primary sources. And when you find what he got wrong, get back to us. We’d like to hear it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Origen]

YOU have a brain.
YOU have the ability to do research.
And I’m not going to spoon feed you.

You made the claim. All you have to do is cite the primary sources. Cite the primary source which claims "the disciples personally accepted these extra books as scripture." Cite the primary source which state the "tradition was passed on." Provide the manuscript evidence.

I have NOT read the entire volume of ante-nicene fathers. David Bercot has. And he has shared his insights of what he learned from them. I find a lot of what he says to be convincing, and that the Apocryphal works very probably are part of the Bible.

You must not have been pay attention when watching Bercot since you recall them.

BUT when you ask for PRIMARY sources, the best person to talk to would be David Bercot who has read the whole entire volume.

Thank you for confirmation you have no primary sources for your claims.

 

[NathanH83]

By the way, how is Daniel 8 not a primary source?
This chapter clearly prophesies about events that take place in Maccabees. And yet you’re saying Maccabees doesn’t belong in the Bible?

Sorry, but that doesn’t make sense to me. It makes sense to me that Maccabees belongs in the Bible. And if you cannot understand that, then I’d say you’re lacking understanding.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Origen]

By the way, how is Daniel 8 not a primary source?

Trying to change the subject again I see.

Let's see what was I discussing? OH, I know.

Cite the primary source which claims "the disciples personally accepted these extra books as scripture." Cite the primary source which state the "tradition was passed on." Provide the manuscript evidence.

 

[NathanH83]

You made the claim. All you have to do is cite the primary sources. Cite the primary source which claims "the disciples personally accepted these extra books as scripture." Cite the primary source which state the "tradition was passed on." Provide the manuscript evidence.


You must not have been pay attention when watching Bercot since you recall them.


Thank you for confirmation you have no primary sources for your claims.

What are your claims?
Have you read the whole volume of Ante-Nicene fathers like David Bercot has?
Can you disprove him?
Why are it wasting time on here?
Go call him up.
Go listen to his teaching.
Prove him wrong.
Get off of here and do your homework.
Stop expecting me and Andrew to do all your work for you. We’re not going to spoon feed you. Feed yourself.
Prove David Bercot wrong.
Get out of here and go do it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Josiah]

YOU have the ability to do research.

It is NOT my responsibility to prove YOUR claims to be correct.

YOU make the claims. YOU have the responsibility/accountability.

I totally understand WHY you want to repeatedly make bold claims here - and then RUN as fast as you can from any responsibility for it, any accountability for it, any apologetics. But that's now how truth works. And you don't treat others that way.

David Bercot claimed nothing here. He is not a participant here. YOU did. YOU are. It's find to note that some dude on the internet agrees with your claim.... even okay to say "he explains this better than I can" but that does NOT exempt you from truthfulness or responsibility or accountability, you cannot HIDE behind some unknown dude with a website, HE is not here making the claim, YOU are.

If YOU have nothing to support YOUR claim (and it's obvious you do not) then at least be honest enough to admit you don't.

And brother, just a word of advice, just because something is stated on the internet doesn't make it true. That may burst your bubble but at some point, you need to realize that. Just because you can copy/paste something from a website doesn't exempt you for any accountabiilty for it.

Can you disprove him?

How incredibly ABSURD!!! I'm stunned you'd even post this!

"There are flying purple people eaters on Venus!" Prove that wrong, my brother. You can't! Does that PROVE ergo there ARE? Of course not. THINK! McFly, THINK!





.

.

 

[NathanH83]

It is NOT my responsibility to prove YOUR claims to be correct.

YOU make the claims. YOU have the responsibility/accountability.

I totally understand WHY you want to repeatedly make bold claims here - and then RUN as fast as you can from any responsibility for it, any accountability for it, any apologetics. But that's now how truth works. And you don't treat others that way.

David Bercot claimed nothing here. He is not a participant here. YOU did. YOU are. It's find to note that some dude on the internet agrees with your claim.... even okay to say "he explains this better than I can" but that does NOT exempt you from truthfulness or responsibility or accountability, you cannot HIDE behind some unknown dude with a website, HE is not here making the claim, YOU are.

If YOU have nothing to support YOUR claim (and it's obvious you do not) then at least be honest enough to admit you don't.

And brother, just a word of advice, just because something is stated on the internet doesn't make it true. That may burst your bubble but at some point, you need to realize that. Just because you can copy/paste something from a website doesn't exempt you for any accountabiilty for it.





.

You have the responsibility to do your own research.
Go listen to David Bercot’s teaching and prove him wrong.
Bye.
Let us know what you find.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Origen]

What are your claims?

That you have no primary sources or manuscript evidence to support your claims.

Prove David Bercot wrong.

No need. You have provided no objective evidence to prove he is correct. It is asinine to believe anyone needs to prove him wrong when there are zero primary sources and no manuscript evidence to support your claims.

 

[NathanH83]

That you have no primary sources or manuscript evidence to support your claims.


No need. You have provided no objective evidence to prove he is correct. It is asinine to believe anyone needs to prove him wrong when there is zero primary sources and no manuscript evidence to support your claims.

The entire volume of ante-nicene fathers doesn’t count?
Who died and put you in charge?
The early church fathers is HUGE evidence.
And again, how is Daniel 8 not a primary source?
I suggest you listen to what David Bercot says.
If you don’t listen to his teaching, then I’ll be convinced that you’re closed-minded.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NathanH83]

Clement’s letter to the Corinthians is also a primary source.
So, if that’s not primary enough for you, then you really need to get off of here and go do research on your own.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Andrew]

That you have no primary sources or manuscript evidence to support your claims.


No need. You have provided no objective evidence to prove he is correct. It is asinine to believe anyone needs to prove him wrong when there is zero primary sources and no manuscript evidence to support his claims.

Do you want to know WHY the Jews say "those" books are not part of their canon?

Because they HAD no canon, at least not until after the fact sometime in the 1rst or 2nd century AD.
How do I know this? Because there is absolutely zero evidence of a BC era CANON list, when they DID finally make the canon they rejected "those" books, thus they can say "they were never part of the Jewish canon" without actually lying.

 

[NathanH83]

Do you want to know WHY the Jews say "those" books are not part of their canon?

Because they HAD no canon, at least not until after the fact sometime in the 1rst or 2nd century AD.
How donI know this? Because there is absolutely zero evidence of a BC era CANON list, when they DID finally make the canon they rejected "those" books, thus they can say "they were never part of the Jewish canon" without actually lying.

Show me a PRIMARY source that there was a BC canon list!

Oh, wait, there isn’t one.

Hmmmm…looks like Origen and Josiah have no primary sources.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk