• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

The Apocrypha.

Ramon96

Eastern Orthodox Christian
Nov 4, 2006
360
25
NY, NY
Visit site
✟23,086.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Right, But we always knew that they were inspired and the jews never considered the Apocrypha inspried

But the fact remains is that Jesus and the Holy Apostles never quoted from several books in the OT (that you consider inspired) such as Esther, Song of Songs, Obadiah, Zephaniah, Judges, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Lamentations, nor Nahum. So at the same token, we must also reject these books, since they was not quoted by any NT writer. Quotation does not equal inspiration, since Saint Paul quoted from pagan writings, and Saint Jude alluded to two non-canonical OT books (Enoch, and the Assumption of Moses).

The Jews never consider them inspired? Which Jews I might ask? The African (Ethiopian) Jews still consider them as inspired. You falsely believe that the Jews, ancient and modern, agree which books should belong in the Old Testament. This is simply not the case. I am stud that people do not know this historical fact.......The Jews never could agree which books was "Holy Scriptures".

And the Jews had no authority to decide which books should be the Bible. If that is the case, we should burn the New Testament.

For the vast majority of Christians (Latin/Eastern Catholics, Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, etc), the Bible does not contain 66 books. Only a small minority of Christians believe otherwise.

397.... The Cathage...which authenticated finally what the real cannon really was And the Apocrypha wasn't in it.

Yes, it was. The NT Apocrypha wasn't though. Maybe you got confused between the two.

In IC.XC,
Ramon
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

SummaScriptura

Forever Newbie
May 30, 2007
6,986
1,051
Scam Francisco
Visit site
✟56,955.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
There is a point that was made that still needs to be addressed...

Someone said none of the New Testament writers quoted from the disputed books of the Greek Old Testament.

This is not true.

Paul relied heavily upon Wisdom of Solomon in Romans.

Jesus quoted from and updated Sirach concerning taking upon the yoke.

The Book of Hebrews in the chapter on faith refers to 1&2 Maccabees.

There are many more.

The truth is, many N.T. writers quote from books (disputed or not) without saying "this is a quote from..."

On a somewhat related note, is the Book of Job quoted in the NT?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

SummaScriptura

Forever Newbie
May 30, 2007
6,986
1,051
Scam Francisco
Visit site
✟56,955.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
It occurs to me, the field of apologetics in defense of the books of the Old Testament which were preserved by the Church, (but for which Judaism did not preserve Hebrew copies), cries out for Protestants who can specialize in their defense from and for the Protestant perspective.

Among the books of the Old Testament which have been preserved by the Church, but for which Judaism did not preserve Hebrew copies are books such as Jubilees, Enoch, Sirach and Wisdom.

For the most part I have found Protestant objections to these books usually revolve around the old "us vs. them" dialogue between Protestants and non-Protestants. By putting this old dynamic aside and examing the value of these books in a more objective fashion most Protestant objections will disappear I am convinced.

These "extra" Old Testament books contain some problem passages just as do the 34 books of the Hebrew Old Testament homolougomena and the 5 of the Hebrew Old Testament antilegomena. I am convinced most of these problem passages have convincing answers as do the books of the rest of the Bible.

These "extra" Old Testament books also contain many wonders and blessings to the reader because of which the Church found good reason to preserve them for two millennia.

The approach of faith to scripture is, "open my eyes, that I may behold wonderous things out of your word". That is a prayer God stands prepared to answer.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

laconicstudent

Well-Known Member
Sep 25, 2009
11,671
720
✟16,224.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
NPNF2-14. The Seven Ecumenical Councils | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

Canon XXIV said:
Canon XXIV. (Greek xxvii.)

That nothing be read in church besides the Canonical Scripture.
Item, that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture.
But the Canonical Scriptures are as follows:

Genesis.
Exodus.
Leviticus.
Numbers.
Deuteronomy.
Joshua the Son of Nun.
The Judges.
Ruth.
The Kings, iv. books.
The Chronicles, ij. books.
Job.
The Psalter.
The Five books of Solomon.
The Twelve Books of the Prophets.
Isaiah.
Jeremiah.
Ezechiel.
Daniel.
Tobit.
Judith.
Esther.
Ezra, ij. books.
Macchabees, ij. books.

The New Testament.

The Gospels, iv. books.
The Acts of the Apostles, j. book.
The Epistles of Paul, xiv.
The Epistles of Peter, the Apostle, ij.
The Epistles of John the Apostle, iij.
The Epistles of James the Apostle, j.
The Epistle of Jude the Apostle, j.
The Revelation of John, j. book.

Let this be sent to our brother and fellow bishop, Boniface, and to the other bishops of those parts, that they may confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church.
 
Upvote 0