- Oct 18, 2018
- 57
- 16
- 21
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
This site has lists of the ancient canons Ancient Canon Lists and this is where I get most of my information in this post from.
First they falsely claim that Athanasius did not regard any of the apocrypha as inspired which is flase because in his list he considers Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah as inspired and also most likely he considered the so called “additions to Daniel” as inspired as well. He also has a second canon for the Deuterocanonical books such as Tobit and Judith. He even includes Esther as not part of the main canon and puts it in with books like Wisdom. Athanasius on the Canon of Scripture
They also claim that Origen did not regard the apocrypha as inspired which is flase. He even defended “additions” to Daniel as inspired and even wrote about how the Jews corrupted the scriptures. Also according to Eusebius, Origen believed that the Epistle of Jeremiah and either two or three books of the Maccabees were inspired. He definitely considered the extra chapters of Daniel as inspired and probably Esther as well. Origen on the Canon of Scripture
It’s fine if you don’t consider the “apocrypha” as inspired (I personally do) for it’s not a salvation issue but why twist the writings of the Church Fathers to support you view? It doesn’t seem like they have much support so they have to make lies up instead.
First they falsely claim that Athanasius did not regard any of the apocrypha as inspired which is flase because in his list he considers Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremiah as inspired and also most likely he considered the so called “additions to Daniel” as inspired as well. He also has a second canon for the Deuterocanonical books such as Tobit and Judith. He even includes Esther as not part of the main canon and puts it in with books like Wisdom. Athanasius on the Canon of Scripture
They also claim that Origen did not regard the apocrypha as inspired which is flase. He even defended “additions” to Daniel as inspired and even wrote about how the Jews corrupted the scriptures. Also according to Eusebius, Origen believed that the Epistle of Jeremiah and either two or three books of the Maccabees were inspired. He definitely considered the extra chapters of Daniel as inspired and probably Esther as well. Origen on the Canon of Scripture
It’s fine if you don’t consider the “apocrypha” as inspired (I personally do) for it’s not a salvation issue but why twist the writings of the Church Fathers to support you view? It doesn’t seem like they have much support so they have to make lies up instead.