So why do we believe...?

[SumTinWong]

This is a Baptist forum. Historically, Baptists and Anabaptists have little to do with Luther.

Yeah I know it is a Baptist forum, I am afterall a Baptist, and am posting my questions to Baptists. Whether Baptists know it or not alot of the roots to what we profess to believe come from the likes of Luther, Calvin, Wesley, Tyndale, Wycliff, etc... I used Luther because he was the first one to move the books to the back of the book, so to speak. Later on we carry that same tradition a step further by removing them.

The line that is crossed in terms of the veneration of Mary is when she elevated to the "dispenser of all graces" and to "Co-Remptrix" and "Co-Mediatrix" with Christ. Also, the doctrine of Indulgences (the denial of which carries an anathema in Trent and Vatican II) is wholly incompatable with the gospel as taught by the majority of Baptists.

Well for the me the line was crossed when it was said to me that Mary was sinless. To me there was only one sinless being on the planet and that was Jesus the Christ. As far as the indulgencies, praying to saints, and the lot, I agree these are not Baptist practice. What I am asking is why were they removed? Some are obvious, and some others clearly were done and excepted for quite some time, so what did we see that they didn't? It has been hinted that the LXX was written by Hellenistic Jews. This LXX was used on more than one occasion by Paul. Did Paul ever condemn the LXX because it had these books in them? Would it suprise you to know that the apocrypaha is alluded to on more than one occasion?

As per traditions, the question is this: are church traditions judged by the scripture or are they superior to scripture (cp Acts 17:11; Gal 1:6-9; Mark 7).

Acts 17:11 speaks of the OT. The NT was not even attempted I believe at this point. Galatians 1:6-9 could have been oral teaching not necessarily written, as we don't know exactly when the Gospels were written out. Mark 7 I have no idea what you meant by that one. Please explain

The Immacualate Conception is the doctrine of Mary's conception. This led to the dilemma, if she was without sin why would she die?... Which led to the codification of the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary in 1951 (?) or roundabout.

I have never understood the whole without sin thing myself. Any attempts to explain it have lacked greatly in my opinion. The penalty of sin is death. So if Mary died, she must have sinned. People will say that Jesus never sinned and yet he died. That is very true but the sins of the world were placed on him...so he died.

 

[SumTinWong]

[font=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][size=-1]I thought this was intresting. I think what would be best is if we listed each error in the books and back it up with scripture. That way, we can all know exactly which verses are in error and why the books were rejected. I also wanted to point out again that books from the Orthodox church are rejected by Catholics and Angelicans. I am sure the reasons are the same, they contain errors in them and cannot possibly be concidered inspired. Anyway......I found this little footnote on this webpage. I will try to post up some errors in some of these books so that we can get right to the point.[/size][/font]
GEL

That is a good idea! Should we list the errors in our canon as well?

 

[Gold Dragon]

Here is one more chart that might help.
These are the books that are accepted by each religion. They differ in each one. So by that I gather that not only do the protestants agree that some of these books have error, but so does these other religions. It looks like none of them agree on what number of books are infallible.
GEL

The deuterocanonicals (apocrypha) were never rejected because of any errors but because of questions about their divine inspiration.

It goes back to the fourth century when the canon was beginning to solidify. Different Christian writings were considered inspired by different groups and individuals and the Church felt it was necessary to come up with an accepted canon of scripture. The church at the time was governed largely by the five major bishops with Rome being the primary and Constantinople being secondary.

Most of the Christian world had come to accept the 27 books that we now consider to be the New Testament because of clear apostolic authorship on all books except Hebrews, which was included because of its significant impact on Christian churches with generally accepted doctrine.

However there was a disagreement over the OT books between the leading biblical scholar at the time, Jerome, and the leading theologian, Augustine of Hippo. Jerome felt that the deuterocanonicals were valuable for Christian reading but not divinely inspired, largely because they were not included in the Hebrew Bible by Jewish scholars at the time. Augustine felt that they were inspired and in the end, he won out.

Fast forward a thousand years to Luther with this theses. He felt that the apocrypha, in addition to James and Revelation were not inspired and were used to support some of the abuses that he saw in the Roman Catholic church. As protestantism grew, protestant bibles (including the KJV) still included the apocrypha as valuable for learning and included them as appendices. However, like Jerome most did not feel they were divinely inspired. As Catholic and Protestant animosity grew, Catholics officially declared the apocrypha divine inspiration in the council of Trent and eventually Protestants gradually removed the apocrypha from their bibles to distance themselves from Catholics.

 

[bleechers]

I'm trying to keep this short:

As to Mark 7, this is to what I am referring:

9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition....
13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

That is a good idea! Should we list the errors in our canon as well?

Are you a Baptist? One of the reasons we hold to the scriptures as the 66 Books is because of inerrancy. I taught Religious Education in the CC (I still have the text books)... your statement is not Baptist doctrine by CC doctrine. They readily admith that Judith and Bel and the Dragon, etc. contain error, but they explain it away as only being "non-essentional" errors (historical. scientific, etc.). Baptists hold that the true canon contains no error, historical, scientific or otherwise.

I posted in another thread, the official CC Encyclopedia statement that confirms that until Trent, the CC held the Apocrypha (a derogatory term used by Jerome) to be "sub-scripture).

Whether Baptists know it or not alot of the roots to what we profess to believe come from the likes of Luther, Calvin,

This is simply not true. The Baptist essentials are not derived from Luther or Calvin in any way. Luther, in his studies as a doctor of the Scriptures in the CC, came to embrace some of what had already been accepted by groups before him. The first charge against him raised in his debate with Eck was that he was preaching the doctrines of the Hussites.

Since Luther was a professor, doctor, and Augustinian Monk coming from within the ranks, he introduced some of the Evangelical doctrines into the CC... He was, therefore, a very conspicuous figure. The other groups before him (apart from possibly Huss) never sought to "reform" anything. They were outside and that's where they functioned. No "central authority" or "headquarters", etc.

What happened in Europe following Luther did allow some freedom for some Baptists (Anabaptists) and today Luther is often recognized for his contribution to that freedom, but the ideas did not originate with Luther.

Read the charges against Tyndale sometime...

 

[Gold Dragon]

This is simply not true. The Baptist essentials are not derived from Luther or Calvin in any way.

Wouldn't you consider sola scriptura and the priesthood of believers to be Baptists essentials? Calvinism was and still is a major part of Baptist history and theology.

 

[bleechers]

Wouldn't you consider sola scriptura and the priesthood of believers to be Baptists essentials? Calvinism was and still is a major part of Baptist history and theology.

This is to what I was referring when I said that Luther introduced outside concepts on an academic level into the CC. The phrasing may have come from Luther, but not the doctrines.

In his debate with Eck, one of the sticking points was "the universal church" being founded on Christ (i.e. not needing a Pope). There was another hot moment that escapes me at he moment, but in both cases, Luther was accused of promulgating "the doctrines of the Hussites".

I'll agree that in some corners of the Baptist movement "Calvinism" has made inroads. But even there, Calvin attributed his doctrines to Augustine. What cannot be said is that the Baptist movement started with Calvin. Influenced? Sure. Started? No. That's the distinction that I would want to make clear.

 

[GreenEyedLady]

That is a good idea! Should we list the errors in our canon as well?

Lollard,
Yes I think we should list the errors in the apocrapha. The reasons these are not concidered inspiried is because of the GLARING errors contained in them. Our 66 books, are inspired, and have no errors. If you want to try another thread about errors you think you have found, I say got for it. But this thread is pretty packed with stuff. I think we should stick to the subject.
SO.........get to searching. I have already posted up some books with some of the erros in them. How about some of you guys doing the same?
Thanks
GEL

 

[Gold Dragon]

Lollard,
Yes I think we should list the errors in the apocrapha. The reasons these are not concidered inspiried is because of the GLARING errors contained in them. Our 66 books, are inspired, and have no errors. If you want to try another thread about errors you think you have found, I say got for it. But this thread is pretty packed with stuff. I think we should stick to the subject.
SO.........get to searching. I have already posted up some books with some of the erros in them. How about some of you guys doing the same?
Thanks
GEL

Lollard is saying that many of the types of errors that have been listed as an attack on the apocrypha can also be found in our canon, to which I agree. Many of the other errors quoted are doctrinal conflicts with modern evangelical NT doctrines, which can also be found between the NT and the OT if you look for them with the same critical eye.

 

[GreenEyedLady]

Lollard is saying that many of the errors that have been listed as an attack on the apocrypha can also be found in our canon, to which I agree. Many of the other errors quoted are doctrinal conflicts with modern evangelical NT doctrines, which can also be found between the NT and the OT if you look for them with the same critical eye.

I understand what Lollard is saying GD.
I just think we should stick to the OP of this thread, and create another thread with those so called "errors" of the Bible in that one. If you combine the both......the subject, IMHO, will get lost somewhere in a debate.
GEL

 

[Gold Dragon]

This is to what I was referring when I said that Luther introduced outside concepts on an academic level into the CC. The phrasing may have come from Luther, but not the doctrines.

Sorry but I think that is a pretty silly distinction. That is like saying that Jesus phrased the idea of "loving your neighbor as yourself" but did not originate the doctrine. I'm sure others had that idea before he said those words.

 

[BBAS 64]

Hey Bill,
Well I applaud you but for the most part would you say that Baptists as a rule read them, or diregard them?

Good Day, Lollard

I can not speak for Baptist as a rule that would be unfair IMO.

Sure but there is no denying what he said and the attitudes he had towards Jews. It just makes me wonder if he wasn't wrong on many other things. Benny Hinn has the same track record of coming up with false information, and we have nothing to do with him, so why this guy?

I am not sure what any of this has to do with the historcal view of the cannon of Scripture. No one hold Luther as being infallible. Over and over you seem to assert that Luther took the Aprocy. and moved them to the "back of the book". There are some before Luther who seen them as he did, I mentioned one of his time.

Our analysis has shown that the vast weight of historical evidence falls on the side of excluding the Apocrypha from the category of canonical Scripture. It is interesting to note that the only two Fathers of the early Church who are considered to be true biblical scholars, Jerome and Origen (and who both spent time in the area of Palestine and were therefore familiar with the Hebrew canon), rejected the Apocrypha. And the near unanimous opinion of the Church followed this view. And coupled with this historical evidence is the fact that these writings have serious internal difficulties in that they are characterized by heresies, inconsistencies and historical inaccuracies which invalidate their being given the status of Scripture. New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. I (Washington D.C.: Catholic University, 1967), p. 390.

That is a bit hard for me I am really drawing on the arguments I hear. Basically I am trying to see where we fit in, with what we know about not only us but the church we came from. Do we know what the traditions were that we walked away from? That kind of thing..

You are drawing from anothers arguments, but have not varified the basis of such, that is rather dangerous. What Church did "we" come from? Define Traditions, what role does traditions have ?

To Venerate: To regard with respect, reverence, or heartfelt courteous respect. Whether you like it or not your description matches the one from the dictionary..

Fair enough.

Well okay that is a good place to start, perhaps we can agree on what we would include in the box of must believes. What do you feel is the biggest thing we must believe to be saved?

Here is a Good place to start:

"Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith's sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrine so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture." (De Synodis, 6)- Athanasius

"For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures." - Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lectures, 4:17)"


as compare to :

Ludwig Ott, while commenting on Pius IX’s papal bull Ineffabilis that defined the dogma of the immaculate conception of Mary, wrote: “The Bull does not give any authentic explanation of the passage [i.e. Gen. 3:15]. It must be observed that the infallibility of the Papal doctrinal decision extends only to the dogma as such and not to the reasons given as leading up to the dogma.” Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, ed. James Canon Bastible (Rockford: Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., reprinted 1974), p. 200.

Moreover, church interpretations of Scripture in Roman Catholicism are affected by qualifications laid out in reference to church teaching in general which have the effect of recognizing historical conditioning.” Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament (New York: Doubleday, 1997), pp. 31-32.




For His Glory Alone!

Bill

 

[bleechers]

Sorry but I think that is a pretty silly distinction. That is like saying that Jesus phrased the idea of "loving your neighbor as yourself" but did not originate the doctrine. I'm sure others had that idea before he said those words.

What?? The contention was that Baptist doctrine orginated with Luther. I was arguing that the doctrines pre-dated Luther... your post agrees that this is the case... Your analogy is seriously flawed.

Jesus was quoting Deuteronomy....?

If I took a French dish and attached an Alabamian phrase to it to introduce it into Alabama culture, that does not mean that the recipe originated with me.

 

[Gold Dragon]

My point is that just because the doctrine pre-dates Luther doesn't mean it is wrong to attribute it to him if he was the primary promoter of that doctrine to the Christian and I would argue Baptist world.

Your statements about Luther and Calvin come from your "cosmological", if you will, view of Baptist history that tries to exclude the influences of the Reformation and Catholicism from Baptist history to the extent that you are not willing to fairly attribute doctrines that Luther were clearly influential in the modern definition, establishment and acceptance of.

 

[bleechers]

The things to which I attribute Luther's influence on the Baptist churches are mostly bad. I do not deny his influence, I do deny that he introduced the doctrines sited (priesthood of the believer, the sole authority of scripture) into the Baptist churches. Those doctrines influenced him, not the other way around. He renamed them, but never claimed them fully as his own... even in debates.

My point is that just because the doctrine pre-dates Luther doesn't mean it is wrong to attribute it to him if he was the primary promoter of that doctrine to the Christian and I would argue Baptist world.

If it pre-dates him, then by definition we cannot attribute it to him.

What we can attribute to him is it's introduction to greater Europe. That is hardly the same as Luther intiniating the doctrine itself.

If that distinction is understood, then I am satisfied

 

[Gold Dragon]

If it pre-dates him, then by definition we cannot attribute it to him.

What we can attribute to him is it's introduction to greater Europe. That is hardly the same as Luther intiniating the doctrine itself.

If that distinction is understood, then I am satisfied

Hey whatever floats your boat. If these minor distinctions matter so much to you.

 

[SumTinWong]

I'm trying to keep this short:
As to Mark 7, this is to what I am referring:
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition....
13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Okay I see what you are saying. And I agree to some extent that has carried over into this century, and it did lead to many departures from the other churches.

Are you a Baptist?

I attend a Baptist church, and I am a member of a Baptist church but I label myself a follower of Christ. Do adhere to Baptist traditions and ideals? That would be rather hard since each Baptist church has the ability to set their own standard, and there are no defined traditions. There are many Baptist branches(SBC, ABC, etc...) that range from ultra conservative to liberal out there. There is not even a Baptist cathecism per se that lets us know exactly where we should stand, so asking me if I am a Baptist doesn't make much sense to me. But if you want to label me, put me in the conservative Baptist line, and a slight shade away from an Evangelical.

One of the reasons we hold to the scriptures as the 66 Books is because of inerrancy. I taught Religious Education in the CC (I still have the text books)... your statement is not Baptist doctrine by CC doctrine.

That is amazing since I have not stepped foot in a Catholic Church except for ecumenical concerts. If anyone knows me or has read any of my posts in the theology forum, I am not a Catholic, not am I a canidate anytime soon. I just want to talk turkey here. If I am talking in the CC slant than perhaps it is because I listen to everyone. I don't always buy into everything, but I do listen just the same.

They readily admith that Judith and Bel and the Dragon, etc. contain error, but they explain it away as only being "non-essentional" errors (historical. scientific, etc.).

Why would they deny the obvious? They would be stupid not to. The muslims, atheists, and agnostics can spot the errors, why can't we? There are many, many, errors in the apocrypha, some that even teach gnostic type values. I totally am against them. But I have studied them to come to that conclusion. What I am asking is has everyone else?

Baptists hold that the true canon contains no error, historical, scientific or otherwise.

Yeah I know that is one of the things that bothers me about the Baptist faith. There are descrepencies in the Bible and yet people just sluff them off. I think I read somewhere that there were between 33,000 & 50,000 errors in the Bible. Now granted most of them are clerical in nature, but they are errors just the same.
One error that could be pointed out is that there is no Esther among the roles of queens in history nor is any Mordechai, or Queen Vashti. Ahasuerus' Queen was not deposed, and outlived him.
Another: II Chronicles 36:9 says that Jehoiachin was 8 years old when he became king. II Kings 24:8 says Jehoiachin was 18 years old when he became king.
Another:
II Samuel 10:18 talks about David slew the men of 700 chariots of the Syrians and 40,000 horsemen and Shobach the commander.
I Chronicles 1:18 says that David slew the men of 7000 chariots and 40,000 footmen
Another:
I Chronicles 9:25 says that Solomon had 4000 stalls for horses and chariots.
I Kings 4:26 says that he had 40,000 stalls for horses
Another:
Matthew 27:9 attributes a prophecy to Jeremiah; it is actually found in Zecheriah.
Take, for example, the popular story (John 7:53-8:11) in which Jesus saves a woman from being stoned as an adulteress. It is from this passage that we draw the phrase advice, "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her. Interestingly enough, this entire story is missing from the earliest version of John. It is also missing from early Latin translations of the text, missing from older versions used in the Holy Land and in fact, according to the 12th century Byzantine scholar Euthymius Zigabenus, accurate copies of the Gospel of John do not and should not contain it. Furthermore, if one blocks out the entire little story, John 7:52 flows just fine into John 8:12, lending further credence to the idea that the passage was simply inserted after the fact. Who inserted it, and why, remains a mystery.

I posted in another thread, the official CC Encyclopedia statement that confirms that until Trent, the CC held the Apocrypha (a derogatory term used by Jerome) to be "sub-scripture).

Where was that I missed that thread.

Since Luther was a professor, doctor, and Augustinian Monk coming from within the ranks, he introduced some of the Evangelical doctrines into the CC... He was, therefore, a very conspicuous figure. The other groups before him (apart from possibly Huss) never sought to "reform" anything. They were outside and that's where they functioned. No "central authority" or "headquarters", etc.

While admit that at the start Luther was in the reform mode of the church that he loved, when it became clear to him that it would not happen he turned cruel and vicious. He even goes as far as to mention that the pope is the antichrist. I don't really argue too much about what you are saying except you and I do not agree on who the main leader of "protestantism" was. It was a combined effort, granted but Luther was part of that fight for sure.

What happened in Europe following Luther did allow some freedom for some Baptists (Anabaptists) and today Luther is often recognized for his contribution to that freedom, but the ideas did not originate with Luther.

Read the charges against Tyndale sometime...

I have thanks. He was a contemporary of Luther and they worked together on occasion to distribute Bibles and I think once or twice shared priinters. They were not friends by any means but contemporaries just the same, with the same goal in mind. He followed his lead from Wycliff, for the most part, and lived on the run for his whole adult life. Pretty amazing story actually. He had to hide out all the time and never would let his picture be painted so he would not be recognized.

 

[SumTinWong]

Good Day, Lollard

I can not speak for Baptist as a rule that would be unfair IMO.

Okay my fault I asumed that you were a aptist, or at least attended a Baptist church.

I am not sure what any of this has to do with the historcal view of the cannon of Scripture. No one hold Luther as being infallible. Over and over you seem to assert that Luther took the Aprocy. and moved them to the "back of the book". There are some before Luther who seen them as he did, I mentioned one of his time.

Someone made the remark that Luther was not infallible. I was agreeing in part but expanding. My fault if you missed what i was saying.

You are drawing from anothers arguments, but have not varified the basis of such, that is rather dangerous. What Church did "we" come from? Define Traditions, what role does traditions have ?

Well the Baptist church came out of the reformation movement, which came out of the CC. There are some who say it dates back further, but I haven't read anything credible as to that being true. Traditions are things ataught by the church from the beginning of the church. For instance the Gospel is a tradition. It is in both oral, and written form.

"Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith's sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrine so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture." (De Synodis, 6)- Athanasius

And yet when we refer to divine scriptures, I ask again which scriptures? Part of their canon was the apocrypha, and part of their doctrine can be supported byt he apocrypha.

"For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures." - Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lectures, 4:17)"

Who could argue with that?

Ludwig Ott, while commenting on Pius IX’s papal bull Ineffabilis that defined the dogma of the immaculate conception of Mary, wrote: “The Bull does not give any authentic explanation of the passage [i.e. Gen. 3:15]. It must be observed that the infallibility of the Papal doctrinal decision extends only to the dogma as such and not to the reasons given as leading up to the dogma.” Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, ed. James Canon Bastible (Rockford: Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., reprinted 1974), p. 200.

Moreover, church interpretations of Scripture in Roman Catholicism are affected by qualifications laid out in reference to church teaching in general which have the effect of recognizing historical conditioning.” Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament (New York: Doubleday, 1997), pp. 31-32.
For His Glory Alone!

Bill

Hey buddy I agree with where you are going with that. I totally understand what you are saying.

 

[BT]

If I took a French dish and attached an Alabamian phrase to it to introduce it into Alabama culture, that does not mean that the recipe originated with me.

I thought the only food that was "Alabama culture" was roasted squirrel with hot-sauce.


I could be wrong.. it could be fried gopher.

 

[BBAS 64]

Okay my fault I asumed that you were a aptist, or at least attended a Baptist church..

Good Day Lollard

I should have said all Baptist I am a Baptist.

Someone made the remark that Luther was not infallible. I was agreeing in part but expanding. My fault if you missed what i was saying.

Well the Baptist church came out of the reformation movement, which came out of the CC. There are some who say it dates back further, but I haven't read anything credible as to that being true. Traditions are things ataught by the church from the beginning of the church. For instance the Gospel is a tradition. It is in both oral, and written form.

And yet when we refer to divine scriptures, I ask again which scriptures? Part of their canon was the apocrypha, and part of their doctrine can be supported byt he apocrypha.

Who could argue with that?

Hey buddy I agree with where you are going with that. I totally understand what you are saying.

I the case of Athanasius he tells us what Scripture is:

I also write, by way of remembrance, of matters with which you are acquainted, influenced by the need and advantage of the Church. In proceeding to make mention of these things, I shall adopt, to commend my undertaking, the pattern of Luke the Evangelist, saying on my own account: 'Forasmuch as some have taken in hand,' to reduce into order for themselves the books termed apocryphal, and to mix them up with the divinely inspired Scripture, concerning which we have been fully persuaded, as they who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word, delivered to the fathers; it seemed good to me also, having been urged thereto by true brethren, and having learned from the beginning, to set before you the books included in the Canon, and handed down, and accredited as Divine...There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews...there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit" (Athanasius, Festal Letter 39:2-11

If this was a Tradition at the time of Athanasius when did it change and why? Lollard there are others in historyt hat held this view and wrote about such things.

Have to go for a bit will address some other things later on.

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[SumTinWong]

Good Day Lollard

I should have said all Baptist I am a Baptist.

Okay cool.

I the case of Athanasius he tells us what Scripture is:

Well and obviously that goes along with what we think so we can quote that. EOC people have a plethora of writings in which this same man uses these "apocryphal" scriptures as gospel. Not arguing, just clarifying.