Why the Apocryphal Books Rejected as Scripture.

[Xeno.of.athens]

How about we both say sorry, shake hands, and forget about it?

Amen, I repent of my naughtiness of every kind, and ask you my brother to pray for me to the Lord our God.

Oh, and sorry for annoying you by unintentionally and erroneously calling you the thread's author.

 

[concretecamper]

I think in Luke 10:16 Jesus meant to carry on what he taught them within the bounds of what he taught. Both in his own words which he God made sure were written down and in the written words of his apostles. And indeed the church operated within those bounds for centuries up to a certain point. Then man started adding in edicts, doctrine and practices outside those bounds.

You limit the Holy Spirit who guides His Church. You are also adding to what Jesus said. He didn't condition what He said in Luke 10:16. He didn't set any boundaries. You can operate under the assumption that He limited Hos declaration to what is in Scripture, but that position isn't supported by Scripture.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Let's look at Luke 10 and see it in context: context is so very important

Luke 10:10 After these things the Lord appointed seventy others also, and sent them two by two before His face into every city and place where He Himself was about to go. 2 Then He said to them, “The harvest truly is great, but the laborers are few; therefore pray the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into His harvest. 3 Go your way; behold, I send you out as lambs among wolves. 4 Carry neither money bag, knapsack, nor sandals; and greet no one along the road. 5 But whatever house you enter, first say, ‘Peace to this house.’ 6 And if a son of peace is there, your peace will rest on it; if not, it will return to you. 7 And remain in the same house, eating and drinking such things as they give, for the laborer is worthy of his wages. Do not go from house to house. 8 Whatever city you enter, and they receive you, eat such things as are set before you. 9 And heal the sick there, and say to them, ‘The kingdom of God has come near to you.’ 10 But whatever city you enter, and they do not receive you, go out into its streets and say, 11 ‘The very dust of your city which clings to us we wipe off against you. Nevertheless know this, that the kingdom of God has come near you.’ 12 But I say to you that it will be more tolerable in that Day for Sodom than for that city. 13 “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. 14 But it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the judgment than for you. 15 And you, Capernaum, who are exalted to heaven, will be brought down to Hades. 16 He who hears you hears Me, he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me.”​

​

17 Then the seventy returned with joy, saying, “Lord, even the demons are subject to us in Your name.”​

Plain as day - Jesus was NOT addressing the 12 Apostles/Disciples - but seventy others - how you conflate that to instructions to the church, I have no clue.

 

[ozso]

You limit the Holy Spirit who guides His Church. You are also adding to what Jesus said. He didn't condition what He said in Luke 10:16. He didn't set any boundaries. You can operate under the assumption that He limited Hos declaration to what is in Scripture, but that position isn't supported by Scripture.

If everything the church enacted was from the Holy Spirit, it would have a spotless record, which it does not. If the church had stayed strictly within the scope of what Jesus and his apostles taught, there wouldn't have been a reformation. Both Jesus and Paul made it clear that we are to stick to what they taught and not change or add to it. Some tried and it was deemed heresy. But others managed to get away with it.

 

[ozso]

Let's look at Luke 10 and see it in context: context is so very important

Luke 10:10 After these things the Lord appointed seventy others also, and sent them two by two before His face into every city and place where He Himself was about to go. 2 Then He said to them, “The harvest truly is great, but the laborers are few; therefore pray the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into His harvest. 3 Go your way; behold, I send you out as lambs among wolves. 4 Carry neither money bag, knapsack, nor sandals; and greet no one along the road. 5 But whatever house you enter, first say, ‘Peace to this house.’ 6 And if a son of peace is there, your peace will rest on it; if not, it will return to you. 7 And remain in the same house, eating and drinking such things as they give, for the laborer is worthy of his wages. Do not go from house to house. 8 Whatever city you enter, and they receive you, eat such things as are set before you. 9 And heal the sick there, and say to them, ‘The kingdom of God has come near to you.’ 10 But whatever city you enter, and they do not receive you, go out into its streets and say, 11 ‘The very dust of your city which clings to us we wipe off against you. Nevertheless know this, that the kingdom of God has come near you.’ 12 But I say to you that it will be more tolerable in that Day for Sodom than for that city. 13 “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. 14 But it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the judgment than for you. 15 And you, Capernaum, who are exalted to heaven, will be brought down to Hades. 16 He who hears you hears Me, he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me.”​

​

17 Then the seventy returned with joy, saying, “Lord, even the demons are subject to us in Your name.”​

Plain as day - Jesus was NOT addressing the 12 Apostles/Disciples - but seventy others - how you conflate that to instructions to the church, I have no clue.

It really boils down to Peter the "Royal Steward of His Church" ie each Pope.

 

[dzheremi]

I don't know how RCs relate whatever verses to their ecclesiology, since I don't share it, but I will say that those of us whose churches are founded by one of the seventy rather than the twelve (as the Coptic Orthodox Church is, being as the Church was founded at Alexandria by St. Mark) do not feel that such verses apply to us any less than they do to the Roman Catholics, or for that matter to the Syriac Orthodox or the Greek Orthodox Syrians (or the Maronite Catholics, or the Syriac Catholics...there are a lot of claimants to the chair of St. Peter in Antioch!). In fact, it would be strange if the Romans believed that, even, as they have more individual claimants to Antioch specifically in their communion than any other particular church does.

 

[concretecamper]

If everything the church enacted was from the Holy Spirit, it would have a spotless record, which it does not

His Church is made up of sinners. But on the issue of faith, She is a constant equalled by no other man made Church

If the church had stayed strictly within the scope of what Jesus and his apostles taught, there wouldn't have been a reformation.

How do you know they didn't? Or are you making the assumption that everything He taught was written down?

Both Jesus and Paul made it clear that we are to stick to what they taught and not change or add to it.

Exactly. And both Jesus and Paul told us to listen to "The Church".

 

[concretecamper]

I don't know how RCs relate whatever verses to their ecclesiology, since I don't share it, but I will say that those of us whose churches are founded by one of the seventy rather than the twelve (as the Coptic Orthodox Church is, being as the Church was founded at Alexandria by St. Mark) do not feel that such verses apply to us any less than they do to the Roman Catholics, or for that matter to the Syriac Orthodox or the Greek Orthodox Syrians (or the Maronite Catholics, or the Syriac Catholics...there are a lot of claimants to the chair of St. Peter in Antioch!). In fact, it would be strange if the Romans believed that, even, as they have more individual claimants to Antioch specifically in their communion than any other particular church does.

What Christ said applies to His Church. Rome seems to be the only One with enough faith to claim it.

 

[dzheremi]

What Christ said applies to His Church. Rome seems to be the only One with enough faith to claim it.

That's not even slightly the case. Every Church of the first century was formed within at most only a few decades of each other, and all claim to be the Church referred to in the scriptures, e.g., "“Blessed is Egypt My people, and Assyria the work of My hands, and Israel My inheritance." The "altar unto the Lord" in the land of Egypt is the Coptic Orthodox Church (not Rome), the Assyrians are the Syriac/ethnically Assyrian churches (not Rome), and I suppose the Jerusalemite Greek or Armenian Orthodox could say that this verse also prefigures them (not Rome). Rome's claims come later with the martyrdom of Sts. Peter and Paul in that particular city, which happened after the founding of these other churches (the Assyrians at Osroene within the lifetime of Christ, Egypt by 51 AD if not earlier, and Jerusalem in 33 AD at Pentecost; cf. St. Peter's martyrdom c. 64-68 AD, and St. Paul's c. 64-65).

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

In fact, it would be strange if the Romans believed that, even, as they have more individual claimants to Antioch specifically in their communion than any other particular church does.

Please, I may have missed something, but what would be strange if the Romans believed that?

 

[dzheremi]

Please, I may have missed something, but what would be strange is the Romans believed that?

If you guys believed that the types of verses that have been being discussed lately in this thread applied to the Roman Catholic Church in particular more than, say, the Syriac Maronite Church, or the Syriac Catholic Church, or any other of the several Catholic-specific claimants to Antioch.

 

[concretecamper]

If you guys believed that the types of verses that have been being discussed lately in this thread applied to the Roman Catholic Church in particular more than, say, the Syriac Maronite Church, or the Syriac Catholic Church, or any other of the several Catholic-specific claimants to Antioch.

It applies to His Church. Jesus DOES NOT have Churches. There is One. Either step up, claim it, and argue your case, or step aside.

The Roman Catholic Church has claimed it and argued it for close to 2 millennium. I believe she is correct.

 

[dzheremi]

It applies to His Church. Jesus DOES NOT have Churches. There is One. Either step up, claim it, and argue your case, or step aside.

The Roman Catholic Church has claimed it and argued it for close to 2 millennium. I believe she is correct.

I was answering a question from the other poster.

I don't feel the need to argue anything with anyone. Our ecclesiology is different enough from yours that it is apples and oranges.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I have no reason to push @dzheremi or any other ancient church member to receive Rome's claim to primacy because the first councils did that with regard to privileges of honour. When jurisdiction is in dispute between ancient church members in CF, then there is some guidance in the early councils but maybe not enough to answer contemporary questions about jurisdiction. There are letters from and to the fathers meeting in the synods that were held in the early centuries and what the letters say is informative and interesting but does not answer current day jurisdictional questions.

I am content to accept Rome's claims, I am a Catholic so what else would be expected? @dzheremi and others have their own reasons for accepting the views held by their churches. We should not expect to convince one another, but we can engage in the to-and-fro of discussion and enjoy some interesting conversation and learn something in the process. I like seeing the ancient councils quoted, the fathers quoted, and church documents from antiquity cited or quoted. It is educational.

But this thread is about the specific books that Protestants call apocrypha especially the books that are in the Catholic canon of scripture and are not in Protestant bibles. That isn't exactly a question about jurisdiction and the patriarchs.

I am a little unsure of what is happening in this thread right now. It looks like a deviation from the intended topic is afoot.

 

[Philip_B]

Typical Anglican thought. Stand firmly for nothing, accept anything.

Thank you for the compliment. This furthers œcumenical discussion.

 

[concretecamper]

Thank you for the compliment. This furthers œcumenical discussion.

Then take a stand. Either it's 73 or 66, don't sit on the fence.

 

[Philip_B]

Then take a stand. Either it's 73 or 66, don't sit on the fence.

I have. And I consistently have. It is 73.



VI. Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation.
Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.

Of the Names and Number of the Canonical Books.
Genesis, The First Book of Samuel, The Book of Esther,
Exodus, The Second Book of Samuel, The Book of Job,
Leviticus, The First Book of Kings, The Psalms,
Numbers, The Second Book of Kings, The Proverbs,
Deuteronomy, The First Book of Chronicles, Ecclesiastes or Preacher,
Joshua, The Second Book of Chronicles, Cantica, or Songs of Solomon,
Judges, The First Book of Esdras, Four Prophets the greater,
Ruth, The Second Book of Esdras, Twelve Prophets the less

And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following:

The Third Book of Esdras, The rest of the Book of Esther,
The Fourth Book of Esdras, The Book of Wisdom,
The Book of Tobias, Jesus the Son of Sirach,
The Book of Judith, Baruch the Prophet,
The Song of the Three Children, The Prayer of Manasses,
The Story of Susanna, The First Book of Maccabees,
Of Bel and the Dragon, The Second Book of Maccabees.​

 

[concretecamper]

and as an Anglican Christian, I recognise that some of them are in the proto-canon and some are in the Deutero-Canon. The difference is that I will not use the Deuterocanonical texts to affirm the truth

I have. And I consistently have. It is 73.

Be honest and own it, whatever it may be.

 

[Athanasius377]

This is true, for the most part, however saint Jerome's opinions were not shared by the Church and thus he was asked to produce a translation that included all the books from the LXX and the NT, he used Hebrew sources for his work, but with respect to the seven books I listed in my other post and the longer versions of Daniel and Esther saint Jerome produced a text in Latin and included it in his Bible.

The other issue with the LXX is that originally the LXX meant only the Greek translation of Torah. There are different levels of translation of the OT. As well as different versions of the LXX. Some have additional books others only some. Think of Psalm 151 and 3 Macc and 4 macc. Some include Jubilees as well as 1 Enoch. Some are spot on like the aforementioned Torah. Others vary greatly from being tight and accurate to eh, not so much. Add to that there isn’t an agreed content of the apocrypha even to this very day. Yet the LXX most likely preserves the oldest readings of the disputed passages of the OT. Meaning disputed from the Hebrew to the Greek. Isa 7.14 comes to mind for example Me thinks the difference here is the traditional interpretation vs the exact meaning of the word Almah.

 

[Athanasius377]

Be honest and own it, whatever it may be.

He’s recognized that there wasn’t agreed upon canon until late. Rome didn’t haven’t a declared canon until 1546.