apographa

neon_knights · Aug 4, 2011

NT apocrypha is a different story. The canon of NT scriptures were established in the 3rd century, and no other book is to be considered NT scripture.

But the Septuagint was the version of the OT used by the early Christians, and I think that the "extra" books in the Septuagint should be considered scripture.

OnlyHis · Aug 4, 2011

What books are in the Septuagint??

neon_knights · Aug 4, 2011

Septuagint - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A note, the Bible of the Ethiopian church has even more books, including Enoch.

OnlyHis · Aug 4, 2011

So are you saying the Ethipion Bible is correct??

neon_knights · Aug 5, 2011

Its not my personal canon, but they've had that tradition since their inception. Im not saying its correct or wrong.

I think the Ethiopian church has every right to use the extra books in their canon. Who am I to criticize a 1700 year old (possibly older)tradition?

OnlyHis · Aug 21, 2011

neon_knights said:
Show me which parts of the apocryphal books contradict scriptures.

Keep in mind that the OT apocrypha, plus another 5 or so books, were in the edition that the writers of the epistles referenced. This edition is called the "Septuagint".

There are many books in the apographa that teach praying to the dead, purgatory, indulgences, ect. And to my knowledge Jesus or the apostles never quoted from the apographa.

OnlyHis · Aug 21, 2011

And the day following Judas came with his company, to take away the bodies of them that were slain, and to bury them with their kinsmen, in the sepulchers of their fathers. And they found under the coats of the slain some of the donaries of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbiddeth to the Jews: so that all plainly saw, that for this cause they were slain. Then they all blessed the just judgment of the Lord, who had discovered the things that were hidden. And so betaking themselves to prayers, they besought him, that the sin which had been committed might be forgotten. But the most valiant Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves from sin, forasmuch as they saw before their eyes what had happened, because of the sins of those that were slain. And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachmas of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection, (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead,) And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them. It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins. (2 Maccabees 12:39-46)

OnlyHis · Aug 21, 2011

Josephus rejected the apocryphal books as inspired and this reflected Jewish thought at the time of Jesus
"From Artexerxes to our own time the complete history has been written but has not been deemed worthy of equal credit with the earlier records because of the failure of the exact succession of the prophets." ... "We have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine..."(Flavius Josephus, Against Apion 1:8)

neon_knights · Aug 21, 2011

Theres nothing wrong with praying for the dead. The earliest Christians did so, because they considered the books of Maccabees to be scripture. Josephus was a Jew, not a Christian.

Jerushabelle · Aug 21, 2011

neon_knights said:
Yes, but many Christians still use the "apocryphal" texts, and consider them scripture. For example, the Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox, the Copts, and the Ethiopians. The Ethiopians actually consider 1st Enoch to be scripture!

And some NonDenominationals use it as well.

Jerushabelle · Aug 21, 2011

Biker for Christ said:
I have known about and had access to some Apocrypha books since I was a kid. The debate around their authenticity tho goes back to the 1st century. The one I always liked reading was The Infancy of Christ and wondering if it really happened like that, and I was very impressed as a kid. Now days I think that it was better they left it out of the Canon......just saying.

Biker, to the best of my knowledge, The Infancy of Christ or St. Thomas's Gospel is a Gnostic book, not one of the books of the Apocrypha. Gnostics were heretics. Their writings are not Scripture.

OnlyHis · Aug 21, 2011

When you come into the land which the Lord your God is giving you, you shall not learn to follow the abominations of those nations. There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, or one who practices witchcraft, or a soothsayer, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, or one conjures spells, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead. For all who do these things are an abomination to the Lord, and because of these abominations the Lord your God drives them out from before you.” (Deuteronomy 18:9)

Jerushabelle · Aug 21, 2011

neon_knights said:
The apocrypha was not "left out" of the canon. Almost half, probably more, of Christians in the world consider the OT apocrypha to be Holy Scripture.

The earliest Christians used the Septuagint Greek OT, which had the Catholic apocrypha plus about five books.

And the Greek Septuagint was translated from the scrolls of the Temple in Jerusalem.

neon_knights · Aug 21, 2011

Jerushabelle said:
And some NonDenominationals use it as well.

Really? I had absolutely no idea that some non-denom churches considered those books Scripture. Thats really interesting.

neon_knights · Aug 21, 2011

OnlyHis said:
When you come into the land which the Lord your God is giving you, you shall not learn to follow the abominations of those nations. There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, or one who practices witchcraft, or a soothsayer, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, or one conjures spells, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead. For all who do these things are an abomination to the Lord, and because of these abominations the Lord your God drives them out from before you. (Deuteronomy 18:9)

Praying for the dead and necromancy have nothing in common.

To pray for God to have mercy on the souls of the departed, and to call up the dead to commune with them arent even in the same ballpark.

Jerushabelle · Aug 21, 2011

neon_knights said:
They did stay though!

More than half of Christians in the world use these books in their Bibles, they were not "left out". The writers of the Epistles used these books. Why shouldnt we?

So it is worth questioning. Let him question it.

OnlyHis, if you are truly interested, read the history of how the canon of the Bible was assembled. You will find that it isnt a "conspiracy", or any of that sort. Yes, the canon was assembled by the bishops of the Church in the first few centuries of its existence. How is that a conspiracy? The Bible did not miraculously fall out of the sky.. as some people seem to think.

Even before the canon was assembled, the early Christians used the Septuagint Greek OT, which contained the Roman Catholic apocrypha, as well as other books.

None of these books were "left out" of the Bible.

And, in fact, they were all included in the King James 1611 as well as the Geneva and several other translations.

neon_knights · Aug 21, 2011

Jerushabelle said:
And, in fact, they were all included in the King James 1611 as well as the Geneva and several other translations.

Indeed they were. I think they were placed in a different section though.

OnlyHis · Aug 21, 2011

neon_knights said:
Theres nothing wrong with praying for the dead. The earliest Christians did so, because they considered the books of Maccabees to be scripture. Josephus was a Jew, not a Christian.

I'm not aware of that. Is there any proof or documentation of that, why would the christians be praying for the dead??

Jerushabelle · Aug 21, 2011

neon_knights said:
There are no books missing out of the Bible. The Old Testament canon has been established since before the time of Christ, although some think there were different "traditions". The one that came out of Alexandria, the Greek Septuagint translation, was used by the Early Church. Later on, in the Middle Ages, the Catholics and then the Protestants began using the Masoretic Hebrew texts, which were from around 1000 AD. At the time of Luther, the "Apocrypha" was still being printed.

Luther had his own translation of it.

Jerushabelle · Aug 21, 2011

neon_knights said:
Indeed they were. I think they were placed in a different section though.

The Catholic Bible incorporated the books of the Apocrypha following the order of the Latin Vulgate. Calvin, in the Geneva, separated the books due to the timing of the events in them. Jesus, Paul, John and James all referred to those Scriptures.

apographa

neon_knights

Guest

OnlyHis

Guest

neon_knights

Guest

OnlyHis

Guest

neon_knights

Guest

OnlyHis

Guest

OnlyHis

Guest

OnlyHis

Guest

neon_knights

Guest

Jerushabelle

Well-Known Member

Jerushabelle

Well-Known Member

OnlyHis

Guest

Jerushabelle

Well-Known Member

neon_knights

Guest

neon_knights

Guest

Jerushabelle

Well-Known Member

neon_knights

Guest

OnlyHis

Guest

Jerushabelle

Well-Known Member

Jerushabelle

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency