Why the Apocryphal Books Rejected as Scripture.

[Reasonably Sane]

That was actually part of the debate on the canonicity of Jude. There were those who argued against it because of just that. But canonicity was based on five elements not just one. It is the ONLY reference in 27 books that reference the Apocryphal writings. Not one of the others is ever mentioned in the New Testament and the Scripture they had at the time of the writing of Timothy (90ad) included the Hebrew Old Testament, which did NOT have the Apocryphal books either.

one quote in 27 books is not proof of anything my friend. You cannot intelligently assign canonization to multiple books based off a single quotation in the entirety of the New Testament.

To accept the Apocryphal as canonized scripture (assign Divinity), you would then have the determine the errors found in the books as errors in scripture and that the Holy Spirit is not perfect.

I am not willing to do that.

I'm not trying to canonize anything. I'm saying that 2 timothy 3 said that ALL scripture is... At that time, "All scripture" was the LXX. So it's worth reading.

What I'm really trying to say is not that non-canonized books should be made "more special", like canonized books. Rather, that maybe canonized books should not be treated quite so special. That's what I mean when I say that I don't believe the bible is the word of God. Rather, I believe it CONTAINS the word of God. And I trust God to give me the wisdom to know when I'm reading the more divine parts of the bible vs the more human parts. After all, who decided they were the ones to choose for me which ones are to be treated as literally the words of God? I understand the removal of the gospel of Thomas, among others. But I don't worship the bible. I worship Yahweh, my Creator. And His most direct way of speaking to me is through prayer and personal contact. The bible helps, but it is not necessary. Belief and faith are what is necessary.

That's why I don't get hung up on discrepancies in the bible, e.g. did the rooster crow once or twice, and was legion one guy or two? And what was Paul's hang up about women and men's hair length?

BTW, often when I find that I (or someone else) believe a thing but don't know why, I ask this question: Who told you that and why did you believe them? By what authority did they tell us what they did?

 

[hislegacy]

I'm not trying to canonize anything. I'm saying that 2 timothy 3 said that ALL scripture is... At that time, "All scripture" was the LXX. So it's worth reading.

What I'm really trying to say is not that non-canonized books should be made "more special", like canonized books. Rather, that maybe canonized books should not be treated quite so special. That's what I mean when I say that I don't believe the bible is the word of God. Rather, I believe it CONTAINS the word of God. And I trust God to give me the wisdom to know when I'm reading the more divine parts of the bible vs the more human parts. After all, who decided they were the ones to choose for me which ones are to be treated as literally the words of God? I understand the removal of the gospel of Thomas, among others. But I don't worship the bible. I worship Yahweh, my Creator. And His most direct way of speaking to me is through prayer and personal contact. The bible helps, but it is not necessary. Belief and faith are what is necessary.

That's why I don't get hung up on discrepancies in the bible, e.g. did the rooster crow once or twice, and was legion one guy or two? And what was Paul's hang up about women and men's hair length?

BTW, often when I find that I (or someone else) believe a thing but don't know why, I ask this question: Who told you that and why did you believe them? By what authority did they tell us what they did?

First: No - the LXX was not scripture at the time of Timothy's writing - the Hebrew scriptures - which did NOT include the Apocrypha was - so it's a moot point.

Second - How can you possibly believe 2 Tim 3 :16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

And then contradict Timothy and say you do not believe the Bible is the Word of God?

 

[Reasonably Sane]

First: No - the LXX was not scripture at the time of Timothy's writing - the Hebrew scriptures - which did NOT include the Apocrypha was - so it's a moot point.

Second - How can you possibly believe 2 Tim 3 :16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

And then contradict Timothy and say you do not believe the Bible is the Word of God?

I think it is a general statement. Kinda like, "raise your child in the way of the Lord and he shall not depart from it." It is a general rule, not an absolute law. Lots of kids are raised in "the way of the Lord" and do, in fact, depart from it. But it is a generally accurate rule. I see most of the bible that way, the more I read it.

I also believe that the LXX was to the folks of Jesus time and vicinity, what the NIV was at the end of the 20th century was to Americans, and the KJV in the century before that. That's why the new testament writers quoted, verbatum - in greek - the LXX. It is what most were reading.

Of course, none of us can be 100% sure of any of this, nor are any of us 100% correct, since none of us were there. That's one reason I'm careful not to claim to be "absolutely sure" about any of this stuff, except for the death and resurrection of the Christ - and its impact on the life of the believer. The miracles I've experienced in my own life definitely confirm the promise. My faith is not blind.