why not the apocrypha?

[RDKirk]

What so you mean by the Holy Spirit put the seal of approval on them. Did tongues of flame appear over copies of the books?

Yup, that's exactly what happened. Were you there too?

 

[fatherjimparker]

Yup, that's exactly what happened. Were you there too?

You betcha! Got 8x10 autographed glossy photos suitable for framing to prove it!

 

[concretecamper]

I am still waiting for our protestant freinds to show where the Church (or anyone for that fact), prior to the Reformation, ever defined their 66 book list as the canon of scripture. I'll even take fairy tales at this point.

 

[RDKirk]

I am still waiting for our protestant freinds to show where the Church (or anyone for that fact), prior to the Reformation, ever defined their 66 book list as the canon of scripture. I'll even take fairy tales at this point.

I think we've already agreed that didn't even happen after the Reformation. Printers just left it out...good ol' 'Murican capitalism.

 

[fatherjimparker]

I am still waiting for our protestant freinds to show where the Church (or anyone for that fact), prior to the Reformation, ever defined their 66 book list as the canon of scripture. I'll even take fairy tales at this point.

I noticed a similarity between the Sadducees only accepting the Pentateuch as "inspired" and rejecting the prophets who prophesied a New Covenant to come which would put them out of business and those Protestants who reject the Apocrypha which contains prayers for the dead in 2 Maccabees and that's waaaaaay too Catholic for them.

Each group rejected what they thought was a challenge to their theology.

Probably not important

 

[Meowzltov]

I kind of like the Daniel stories. Who knew...Daniel was the first amateur sleuth of the Hercule Poiroit style.

I *love* those stories!

 

[stray bullet]

I sure hope they aren't inspired. If you changed some proper nouns, 2 Mac would sound like an account of the Taliban. As far as I can tell the Maccabbees are the spiritual ancestors of the Pharisees, and thus opposed to Jesus' teachings.

Read Numbers 31

 

[FireDragon76]

The Maccabean accounts help us understand the Jewish origins of Christmastide. The early Church put Epiphany (as Christmas was originally a minor festival, the "Good Friday" even of Epiphany) around the feast that we know today as Hanukkah, as they did with most other Church festivals, seeing a typological correspondence between the Old and New Covenants.

 

[Albion]

That's nice.

The Scriptures that Jesus, Paul, John, James, Peter, Mathew, Mark, Luke, and Jude used were the LXX (Septuagint) which included the Apocrypha.

And there are over 300 verses in the NT which are associated with the Apocrypha.

If they're in the NT, they are considered to be inspired. If they are in the Apocryhpha but NOT affirmed in the NT, they're not. This isn't that hard to understand.

The Church found the Apocrypha acceptable for over 1500 years [/quote

Yes, and the church has made mistakes before, sometimes correcting them later. Plus, the Roman Catholic Church removed some of the Apocrypha itself shortly after the Protestants did. That completely wipes out your contention IMO.

 

[Albion]

I'd say the Holy Spirit put the seal of approval on them and the councils merely made formal recognition of it.

Well, you can say that. It can also be said of every heretical or mistaken notion that has come along in the history of the Church. In fact, virtually everyone who has departed from orthodoxy has insisted that the Holy Spirit was behind it. Would you expect them to say anything else? Indeed, culling the Apocrypha out from the Bible would probably be called the work of the Holy Spirit by many advocates of that decision.

 

[fatherjimparker]

I sure hope they aren't inspired. If you changed some proper nouns, 2 Mac would sound like an account of the Taliban. As far as I can tell the Maccabbees are the spiritual ancestors of the Pharisees, and thus opposed to Jesus' teachings.

Maccabees contains the account of the Jew's revolt against the oppression of the pagans who had conquered the land and made it their practice to force pagan Greek culture on the inhabitants of the territories the ruled.

The Jewish revolt was an effort to restore the worship of God among the Jews.

They were the spiritual ancestors of the Pharisees who were the purists of the faith. They tried to set a high standard of adherence among the Jews to the Covenant which Israel had with God.

And they were more like the Americans who revolted against the King of England than the Taliban.

 

[Albion]

Maccabees contains the account of the Jew's revolt against the oppression of the pagans who had conquered the land and made it their practice to force pagan Greek culture on the inhabitants of the territories the ruled.

The Jewish revolt was an effort to restore the worship of God among the Jews.

They were the spiritual ancestors of the Pharisees who were the purists of the faith. They tried to set a high standard of adherence among the Jews to the Covenant which Israel had with God.

And they were more like the Americans who revolted against the King of England than the Taliban.

That seems like a side issue, so I won't say anything more about that. However, the idea that the Apocryphal books are valuable from a historical POV or that they are inspirational, etc. is nothing special.

Hundreds of millions of us who do not accord these writings equality with the books of the Bible are more than willing to agree that they have their place...it's just not as divine revelation.

 

[fatherjimparker]

That seems like a side issue, so I won't say anything more about that. However, the idea that the Apocryphal books are valuable from a historical POV or that they are inspirational, etc. is nothing special.

Hundreds of millions of us who do not accord these writings equality with the books of the Bible are more than willing to agree that they have their place...it's just not as divine revelation.

And, apparently, there are hundreds of millions of people who, like you, imagine they know the mind of God better than everyone else.

But somewhere, someone said: “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the LORD. “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts."

 

[Albion]

And, apparently, there are hundreds of millions of people who, like you, imagine they know the mind of God better than everyone else.

Please try to be at least generally reasonable. I am not imagining anything. I certainly am not imagining that a small circle of church leaders is endowed with infallibility or that the church (any of them) holds exactly the same beliefs as the Early Church did. You're on as solid ground with those notions as you would be if you were promoting the Book of Mormon.

I am informed by the same sources you are, except that I am a reformed Christian, not a member of one of the unreformed denominations which simply stipulate that they cannot make an error.

 

[fatherjimparker]

<< If they're in the NT, they are considered to be inspired. >>

Ah! So none of the Old Testament, except the specific verses quoted in the NT, are inspired since they are not in the New Testament.

<< If they are in the Apocryhpha but NOT affirmed in the NT, they're not. >>

"Considered inspired" by whom?

You?

The people who revolted against the Church which Jesus established in order to re-form it according to their own personal preferences?

It's certainly not the people who remained faithful to the Church which Jesus established.

If you don't want to read them then don't read them. It's your loss.

<< This isn't that hard to understand. >>

Then you should "understand" that there are over 300 connections to the Apocrypha in the NT.

Apocrypha in the New Testament (Mathew)
Matthew 4:4 Wisdom 16:26 Matthew 4:15 1 Maccabees 5:15
Matthew 5:18 Baruch 4:1 Matthew 5:28 Sirach 9:8
Matthew 5:2ss Sirach 25:7-12 Matthew 5:4 Sirach 48:24
Matthew 6:7 Sirach 7:14 Matthew 6:9 Sirach 23:1, 4
Matthew 6:10 1 Maccabees 3:60 Matthew 6:12 Sirach 28:2
Matthew 6:13 Sirach 33:1 Matthew 6:20 Sirach 29:10s
Matthew 6:23 Sirach 14:10 Matthew 6:33 Wisdom 7:11
Matthew 7:12 Tobit 4:15 Matthew 7:12 Sirach 31:15
Matthew 7:16 Sirach 27:6 Matthew 8:11 Baruch 4:37
Matthew 8:21 Tobit 4:3 Matthew 9:36 Judith 11:19
Matthew 9:38 1 Maccabees 12:17 Matthew 10:16 Sirach 13:17
Matthew 11:14 Sirach 48:10 Matthew 11:22 Judith 16:17
Matthew 11:25 Tobit 7:17 Matthew 11:25 Sirach 51:1
Matthew 11:28 Sirach 24:19 Matthew 11:28 Sirach 51:23
Matthew 11:29 Sirach 6:24s Matthew 11:29 Sirach 6:28s
Matthew 11:29 Sirach 51:26s Matthew 12:4 2 Maccabees 10:3
Matthew 12:5 Sirach 40:15 Matthew 13:44 Sirach 20:30s
Matthew 16:18 Wisdom 16:13 Matthew 16:22 1 Maccabees 2:21
Matthew 16:27 Sirach 35:22 Matthew 17:11 Sirach 48:10
Matthew 18:10 Tobit 12:15 Matthew 20:2 Tobit 5:15
Matthew 22:13 Wisdom 17:2 Matthew 23:38 Tobit 14:4
Matthew 24:15 1 Maccabees 1:54 Matthew 24:15 2 Maccabees 8:17
Matthew 24:16 1 Maccabees 2:28 Matthew 25:35 Tobit 4:17
Matthew 25:36 Sirach 7:32-35 Matthew 26:38 Sirach 37:2

Matthew 27:24 Daniel 13:46 Matthew 27:43 Wisdom 2:13
Matthew 27:43 Wisdom 2:18-20

Shall I continue?

 

[fatherjimparker]

<<Please try to be at least generally reasonable. I am not imagining anything.>>

I'm sure you believe that.

<< I certainly am not imagining that a small circle of church leaders is endowed with infallibility or that the church (any of them) holds exactly the same beliefs as the Early Church did. >>

Small circle? Is that who you think the bishops who attended the 7 great councils and refuted the heresies of Arius, Nestorius, et. al. and established the foundations of Christian belief were? A small circle?

And are you under the impression that any of them imagined that they were infallible? They did not. They were not generally possessed of the level of arrogance and self will necessary to imagine they were competent to undertake the reformation of the Church which Jesus established.

<< You're on as solid ground with those notions as you would be if you were promoting the Book of Mormon. >>

And you are on the same "solid ground" that has generated some 50 thousand denominations, sects, and factions that has resulted in the Protestant rebellion.

You would be on more solid ground if you knew a bit about the history of the church other than the vitriolic propaganda of the so-called "reformers" created to inspire the zeal of their followers while they murdered and plundered their neighbors who remained faithful to the original Church.

It is to the shame of all Christendom that the division of God's kingdom initiated then still remains and even grows to this day when Jesus prayed that we would be one as He and the Father are one.

I have yet to hear a "reformed" believer weep over that splintering of God's body into tens of thousands of squabbling enclaves all claiming to be the sole possessors of HIs truth.

<< I am informed by the same sources you are,>>

I seriously doubt that.

<< I am a reformed Christian>>

Not to worry! You can repent of that error and return to the original Church.

<< not a member of one of the unreformed denominations which simply stipulate that they cannot make an error. >>

That group only exists in your imagination.

The Orthodox church certainly does not claim to be infallible but they do believe that the teaching of the apostles was the perfect transmission of the teaching of Jesus and attempt to adhere to it. They can trace their teaching to the earliest days of the church. (That would be 1st century)

The RCC only claims infallibility in matters of doctrine that have been thoroughly researched by the Magisterium. The Protestant churches practice the same thing but are careful not to use the word "infallible." They just ostracize you if you don't comply with their infallible denominational doctrine found right there in the infallible, inspired, KJV of the sola scripture.

 

[concretecamper]

The Protestant churches practice the same thing but are careful not to use the word "infallible."

Excellent point. Applying this to the topic at hand.....

Once the Church proclaimed in the late 4th Century that 72 books were divinely inspired, this list of 72 books became know as the Bible. The Universal Church accepted these 72 books as divinely inspired for over 1,000 years.

Along comes a small circle of men (who claim infallibility when it comes to deciding which books of the current canon does not belong) who dictate that 6 of the 72 books are not divinely inspired. So we have our protestant brother and sister who scoff at infallibility yet project that same infallibility to a select few that lived 500 years ago.

I have heard better constructed explanations from JW at my doorstep with regards to their interpretation of John 1:1 than any arguments presented here against the Apocrypha.

 

[Albion]

And you are on the same "solid ground" that has generated some 50 thousand denominations, sects, and factions that has resulted in the Protestant rebellion.

You're part of the same array of competing churches, whether or not you know or want to admit it.

You would be on more solid ground if you knew a bit about the history of the church

I'm quite sure that I know as much as you do about it, but 'thanks' for being so presumptuous.

When you return to the topic here, I'll be alert to it.

 

[Root of Jesse]

And I guess it would be accurate likewise to say that the only Christian tradition that takes a hard stance in favor of the apocryphal books being inspired is the Catholic tradition.

Discounting that Catholics make up the vast majority of Christians...

 

[Root of Jesse]

Well put. I remain quite unconvinced of the divine inspiration of the deuterocanonical books.

How do you explain that Ecclesiastes is inspired?