Hurrah for Wheaton's faculty!

[smaneck]

Please link to where I quoted him. I would like to see the context.

Seriously? Exactly what statements? You need to prove your accusations.

Didn't mention a "him." I'm talking about this statement which can be found on all three of the websites I mentioned:

"The earliest Canons did not list Apocrypha. Even the later Council of Rome had just 46 Old Testament Books.
Studying the reason why is interesting. There are no direct quotes from Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical, allusions but no quotes in the New Testament. Of the early church fathers Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Origen and Jerome. opposed the use of Apocrypha and Irenaeus, Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria. "

A few of the propositions, conjunctives, and grammatical errors are not found there, but the gist of it is.

 

[simplegifts]

smaneck -So I didn't quote St. Augustine? I would still like to see your source. A person should use all material available to form their opinion, not just the one sided sites the person is leaning towards.

LoAmm Yes, that is a very strong reason. Another reason - some include historical errors. The concept in the following verse seems so false to me. The Catholic Church included these books in the canon to support their selling of indulgences. How do Rabbis/Jews today consider the books in question (those books consider non-canonical by non-Catholics) as Apocrypha?
2 Maccabees 12 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
43 And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection,

Sirach 3 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
30 The congregation of the proud shall not be healed: for the plant of wickedness shall take root in them, and it shall not be perceived.

 

[smaneck]

smaneck -So I didn't quote St. Augustine?

I showed you the quote which was taken from the website I indicated. This has nothing to do with the question of whether you cited St. Augustine as some point in this thread.

I would still like to see your source.

I already told you the websites where the stuff you posted came from.

A person should use all material available to form their opinion, not just the one sided sites the person is leaning towards.

Good advice. I suggest you follow it.

Another reason - some include historical errors.

LOL. So does the canonical Bible! Lots of them, in fact.

The concept in the following verse seems so false to me. The Catholic Church included these books in the canon to support their selling of indulgences.

Nice try, but selling indulgences does start until nearly a thousand years after the canon which includes the Apocrypha is closed. But you've provided a good reason as to why Protestants wanted to throw those books out.

 

[simplegifts]

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/hurrah-for-wheatons-faculty.7933553/page-3
You said, The statements you plagiarized are found on the CARM website, the Blue Letter Bible website and the In Plain Sight website.

You have accused me. You need to prove and provide the links to my statements. Two of those sites are quite large and one I can't seem to find - In Plain Sight.

 

[smaneck]

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/hurrah-for-wheatons-faculty.7933553/page-3
You said, The statements you plagiarized are found on the CARM website, the Blue Letter Bible website and the In Plain Sight website.

You have accused me. You need to prove and provide the links to my statements. Two of those sites are quite large and one I can't seem to find - In Plain Sight.

They are all found under the general label of apocrypha and they borrow from one another. But here is the one on CARM;

https://carm.org/apocrypha-it-scripture

It is in the section on the Church Fathers. I'm referring especially to this statement:

"Early church fathers like Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, and the great Roman Catholic translator Jerome spoke out against the Apocrypha."2

 

[simplegifts]

Finally, thank you. The quote - "Early church fathers like Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, and the great Roman Catholic translator Jerome spoke out against the Apocrypha."2

I would never use CARM as a source, but the Blue Letter Bible site is one to be trusted. Is this thw comment?
While a few of the early leaders of the church accepted some of the books of Apocrypha as Scripture, most of the great church leaders did not-Athanasius, Origen, and Jerome, to name a few.

I said - Of the early church fathers Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Origen and Jerome. opposed the use of Apocrypha and Irenaeus, Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria.
LOL which I agree does have grammatical errors. I confess I am a lousy proof reader.

My statement should have read-
Of the early church fathers Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Origen and Jerome opposed the use of Apocrypha as Scripture, as did Irenaeus, Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria.

... as Scripture is an important part of my statement.

 

[simplegifts]

Which according to https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_395.cfm is not completely supported by the Blue Letter Bible site.

10. There Are Other Books Apart From The Apocrypha That Are Cited As Scripture By Some Church Fathers
The Church Fathers do not restrict themselves to the books that now make up the Apocrypha. Authors such as Justin, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria occasionally use books outside the present Apocrypha - especially the Book of Enoch and First Esdras (Third Esdras).

Clement of Alexandria accepted Second Esdras (Fourth Esdras). Origen believed that the books of First and Second Maccabees, as well as the Letter to Jeremiah, were part of Holy Scripture. Irenaeus cited the Book of Wisdom as being divinely inspired. Therefore appeal to the church fathers cannot settle the matter, seeing that they give conflicting evidence.

I don't agree, we know in the least the basic books that can be considered Scripture. The appeal is not to just the early church fathers, but a combination of factors.