Why the Apocryphal Books Rejected as Scripture.

[ozso]

As it should be, because who else can judge the Church on Earth but God? No group of people can judge what God created, and he created the Church.

The CCC wasn't written by God.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The CCC wasn't written by God.

Parts were.

 

[ozso]

Parts were.

The parts that quote scripture?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The parts that quote scripture?

Yes, those and others.

 

[Valletta]

That's something Catholicism came up with to address the unbiblical traditions Catholicism came up with. Basically Catholicism giving Catholicism a certificate of approval.

Realize the Catholic Church was there before one word of the New Testament was written. What the Apostles and the rest of Catholics had was passed down from Jesus. The Bible came later, the process of the Catholic Church choosing the books of the Bible spanned centuries and there was no Bible until the late 300s. No Catholic Church--no Bible. Even the Bible says were are to stand fast by what was passed down whether oral or written. What is not in the Bible is sola scriptura, that is an unbiblical tradition.

 

[ozso]

Realize the Catholic Church was there before one word of the New Testament was written. What the Apostles and the rest of Catholics had was passed down from Jesus. The Bible came later, the process of the Catholic Church choosing the books of the Bible spanned centuries and there was no Bible until the late 300s. No Catholic Church--no Bible. Even the Bible says were are to stand fast by what was passed down whether oral or written. What is not in the Bible is sola scriptura, that is an unbiblical tradition.

The "ecclesia" meaning "church" didn't start using the term "catholic" which means "universal" until around 110 AD. The book of Matthew was written around 85 AD. Paul started writing his epistles around 52 AD.

 

[ozso]

Yes, those and others.

What others?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The "ecclesia" meaning "church" didn't start using the term "catholic" which means "universal" until around 110 AD.

The letters of saint Ignatius of Antioch, a martyr, use "Catholic Church" (in Greek), but it would be an error to believe that he was the first to use the word "catholic" when speaking of the Church, so 110 AD is definitely after the term was in use.

 

[ozso]

The letters of saint Ignatius of Antioch, a martyr, use "Catholic Church" (in Greek), but it would be an error to believe that he was the first to use the word "catholic" when speaking of the Church, so 110 AD is definitely after the term was in use.

The term "catholic church" ("universal church") was first used by Ignatius in his Letter to the Smyrnaeans circa 110 AD.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The term "catholic church" ("universal church") was first used by Ignatius in his Letter to the Smyrnaeans circa 110 AD.

That is guesswork. The oldest preserved written use of "catholic church" is from Ignatius of Antioch, which is what I stated in my previous post, but the use of "catholic church" in spoken words without doubt preceded the written letter of saint Ignatius of Antioch, that was preserved.

 

[ozso]

That is guesswork. The oldest preserved written use of "catholic church" is from Ignatius of Antioch, which is what I stated in my previous post, but the use of "catholic church" in spoken words without doubt preceded the written letter of saint Ignatius of Antioch, that was preserved.

The only way to put established dates as to which came first, the "catholic church" or the new testament, there's Paul's epistles first written circa 52 AD, the book of Mark circa 70 AD and the term "universal church" used by Ignatius circa 110 AD.

But that's all irrelevant because the church was sola scriptura up to the 4th century. If the Protestant reformers had lived in the 4th century, they wouldn't have had any complaints.

 

[Valletta]

The "ecclesia" meaning "church" didn't start using the term "catholic" which means "universal" until around 110 AD. The book of Matthew was written around 85 AD. Paul started writing his epistles around 52 AD

Yes, at some point, I'm sure because various heresies arose, it makes sense that it was important to distinguish new religions from Christ's universal Church. Documents are scant from the first century, obviously Saint Ignatius of Antioch felt his audience in his 110 A.D. Letter to the Smyrnaens were familiar enough with the word "catholic" that they would understand the meaning. When the word first became popular we do not know. While the Gospels were well accepted throughout Christianity, some of the other texts read at mass differed from area to area. The Catholic Church wanted only God-breathed texts for mass readings. It wasn't until the latter part of the 300s that the Catholic Church decided upon the books of the Bible.

 

[ozso]

Yes, at some point, I'm sure because various heresies arose, it makes sense that it was important to distinguish new religions from Christ's universal Church. Documents are scant from the first century, obviously Saint Ignatius of Antioch felt his audience in his 110 A.D. Letter to the Smyrnaens were familiar enough with the word "catholic" that they would understand the meaning. When the word first became popular we do not know. While the Gospels were well accepted throughout Christianity, some of the other texts read at mass differed from area to area. The Catholic Church wanted only God-breathed texts for mass readings. It wasn't until the latter part of the 300s that the Catholic Church decided upon the books of the Bible.

When it comes to sola scriptura, that wasn't an issue for centuries, because the church operated within the bounds of what's found in scripture. The aspects of the Roman Catholic Church that are called unscriptural didn't officially start being implemented until the 4th century. Ironically not too long after the church compiled the bible, the church started implementing unbiblical doctrine and practices.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The only way to put established dates as to which came first, the "catholic church" or the new testament, there's Paul's epistles first written circa 52 AD, the book of Mark circa 70 AD and the term "universal church" used by Ignatius circa 110 AD.

The Catholic Church is older than the words "catholic church".

 

[concretecamper]

1. The Apocrypha Has Different Doctrine And Practices Than Holy Scripture
2. The Apocrypha Is Never Cited In The New Testament As Scripture
3. The Apocrypha Has Always Been Rejected By The Jews As Scripture
4. The Books Of The Apocrypha Were Written During The Silent Years
5. The Septuagint Translation Proves Nothing

The fact that the Apocrypha is found in the Septuagint translation does not prove anything. It merely testifies that the Alexandrian Jews translated other religious material into Greek apart from the Old Testament Scripture. A Greek translation is not the same thing as a book being part of the Hebrew canon.​

6. There Is No Evidence The Apocrypha Was In Septuagint At The Time Of Christ
7. There Is No Evidence Of A Greater Alexandrian Canon
8. They Are Not On The Early Canonical Lists
9. They Were Rejected By Most Church Leaders
10. There Are Other Books Apart From The Apocrypha That Are Cited As Scripture By Some Church Fathers
11. The Early Greek Manuscripts Are Not Decisive

The Books Have A Different Order And Content​

In the three most important Greek manuscripts the order and the contents of the books are different.​

12. The Apocrypha Is Not A Well-Defined Unit
13. The Councils At Hippo And Carthage Are Not Definitive

The fact that the councils of Hippo and Carthage accepted the canonical status of the Apocrypha is not decisive. First, they were not larger more representative councils. In addition, these councils had no qualified Hebrew scholar in attendance. Basically the Apocrypha was canonized at these councils because of the influence of one person - Saint Augustine.​

There was one great Hebrew scholar among the Christian Church living in the era of Saint Augustine - Jerome the translator of the Latin Vulgate. Jerome rejected the Apocrypha as Holy Scripture in the strongest of terms. He refused to place it in his translation of the Old Testament. It was only after the death of Jerome that the Apocrypha was placed in the Vulgate - the official translation of the Roman Catholic Church. His expert testimony was rejected.

We can start there:

​

​

The same Church that said the 27 books of the NT are inspired text gave us 46 books of the OT. Therefore, your logic is incoherent.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

But that's all irrelevant because the church was sola scriptura up to the 4th century.

Try to disambiguate "scriptura" so we know if you mean 66 books Protestant scriptures or if you mean LXX+NewTestament (73 books, and possibly more).

 

[ozso]

Try to disambiguate "scriptura" so we know if you mean 66 books Protestant scriptures or if you mean LXX+NewTestament (73 books, and possibly more).

I and I think most others mean the 27 books of the new testament, when it comes to Christian doctrine and practices.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I and I think most others mean the 27 books of the new testament, when it comes to Christian doctrine and practices.

Is that how you define the scriptures to which Sola Scriptura applies? I could not possibly agree with the exclusion of the Old Testament from consideration when doctrine and practise are to be defined.

PS: I created a thread for discussing the Scriptures. It is here, it is better suited to what you and I are currently discussing because this thread is specifically about Why the Apocryphal Books Rejected as Scripture and it a definitely Protestant perspective thread.

 

[ozso]

The same Church that said the 27 books of the NT are inspired text gave us 46 books of the OT. Therefore, your logic is incoherent.

Even that same Church calls 7 out of 46 OT books deuterocanonical apocrypha.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Even that same Church calls 7 out of 46 OT books deuterocanonical apocrypha.

Why is that significant?