"Inspired"

[Left Coast]

I'm not talking about quotes, but places that could be aluding to stories from apocraphal books. The idea I'm thinking of is saducees question about the woman who has had seven husbands who died - which will she be married to in heaven? It has been suggested that this is a reference to Sarah in the book of Tobit.

I am not familiar with this story. Isn’t it possible that the Sadducees were familiar with, what would be simply a tale, and then asked the question.
Sort of like me asking if it was a sin if I let my children eat some old witches candy house.
There was a time 25 years or so ago when I read the “Lost and Forgotten Books of the Bible”. Fortunately I have forgotten what I read. It did alter my perception of the bible for several years. That is the problem with other books, they skew our perception.
I believe the true gospel is found in the bible and the bible alone, nothing more and nothing less. If we start adding to the bible, whether it is the Lost Books, The Book of Mormon, The Appocriphia, the visions of Ellen G. White, or speaking in tongues, then we have a wider authority than the bible alone.
My suggestion is stay away from them. Trust God. He has given and protected His word.  

[Mr. 5020]

I believe that one of the most important ways they canonized the OT was that they included books Jesus quoted from - which I believe is all of them, except Ezra(??).

Anyways, check out Josh McDowell's New Evidence That Demands a Verdict.  It takes you step by step through the whole canonization procedure for the OT and NT, and details why the Apocrypha was not included.  I would quote it, but I left it at my father's house when I moved to Houston.  

[ebia]

I'm not talking about quotes, but places that could be aluding to stories from apocraphal books. The idea I'm thinking of is saducees question about the woman who has had seven husbands who died - which will she be married to in heaven? It has been suggested that this is a reference to Sarah in the book of Tobit.

I am not familiar with this story. Isn’t it possible that the Sadducees were familiar with, what would be simply a tale, and then asked the question.
Sort of like me asking if it was a sin if I let my children eat some old witches candy house.

I'm not claiming it proves anything.

There was a time 25 years or so ago when I read the “Lost and Forgotten Books of the Bible”. Fortunately I have forgotten what I read. It did alter my perception of the bible for several years. That is the problem with other books, they skew our perception.

Any worthwhile you read alters your perception, whether it's the Gospel According to St John, Tobit or The Lord of the Rings.

I believe the true gospel is found in the bible and the bible alone, nothing more and nothing less.

I thought we were debating whether or not these were part of the bible, and the basis on which this choice has been/is being made.  Remember, for the majority of the world's Christians, these books are, and always have been, part of the bible.  No-one thought otherwise until St Jerome noticed that the Jews didn't use them.

My suggestion is stay away from them. Trust God. He has given and protected His word.  

See above.

[ebia]

I believe that one of the most important ways they canonized the OT was that they included books Jesus quoted from - which I believe is all of them, except Ezra(??).

's not true.  There are several OT books that are not quoted in the NT at all (let alone by Jesus) and several non-inspired books that are.   Based on reference from the NT alone, some of the apocrapha would have a stronger claim to inclusion than quite a few mainstream OT books.

Anyways, check out Josh McDowell's New Evidence That Demands a Verdict.  It takes you step by step through the whole canonization procedure for the OT and NT, and details why the Apocrypha was not included.  I would quote it, but I left it at my father's house when I moved to Houston.  

I have read it, and I didn't find it one of his more convincing sections.  He starts with too much conviction of which is the right answer, and sets out to prove it, rather than judge the issues on their own merit, I believe.  I no longer possess the book though, so I can't take it apart here.

[Willowbirch]

There was a time 25 years or so ago when I read the “Lost and Forgotten Books of the Bible”. Fortunately I have forgotten what I read. It did alter my perception of the bible for several years. That is the problem with other books, they skew our perception.

Don't worry!   The "Lost Books of the Bible" is not the Apocrypha. They do not share the same level of purity and truth, from my own observation; someone else might say otherwise. You may also be thinking of the "Forgotten Books of Eden". Much of these texts are legends that have been passed down until they are a little foggy, lol; also, stories that were invented to help explain our past. In my own opinion they aren't harmful to read, unless they interfere with your growth as a Christian.

There are some interesting topics in the Lost Books, which may or may not be true, such as the story of what happened when Jesus entered Hell, etc.

[Willowbirch]

Any worthwhile you read alters your perception, whether it's the Gospel According to St John, Tobit or The Lord of the Rings.

That's how we work; what goes in our head ultimately comes out in our perception of things. Not only books; but movies, etc.

I am firm enough in my walk with the Lord that the Lost Books, Apocrypha, etc. do me more good than harm. Its a lot better than watching soap operas or reading the Hardy Boys. (Sorry, detective fans, lol)

[Symphony]

Thanks, 5020, I'll keep an eye out for McDowell's book...

[Petro]

ebia posted as reply #9
There was no defined Hebrew canon until after the start of the rise of Christianity,

ebia,

While this first portion of your statement is true.

, so to use this to define what should be in our canon is to rely on the work of those who rejected Christ.

The rest of your  statement is nothing more than hot air, The fact is, this little argument has always been used by the papist institution, which includes some of the anglicans (Westcott & Hort to be precise) to bolster the Apocryphal book as inspired by those who desire to recognize what is uninspired to be canonical.

The term Apocrypha means "NONCANONICAL"Jerome (who translated the OT into Latin directly from the Hebrew) was one of the first to use the term Apocrypha to designate certain books which were included in the Septuagint and the Latin Old Testament versions but had never been part of the Hebrew Scriptures.

In Fact in his introduction to the translated version he begins it with the Prologus Galeatus ; this is what he writes about these spurious books.

"This prologue to the Scriptures may suit as a helmed preface to all the books which we have rendered from Hebrew into Latin, that we may know that whatever book is beyond these must be reckoned among the Apocrypha."

Ref: Prologus Galeatus - An Introduction To The Apocrypha, by Bruce M. Metzger, New York: Oxford University Press, 1957, p. 171.

The RCC, inspite of Jeromes Prologue adopted these spurios books as Inspired in answer to the reformations position in the 15th century. Their oficial Bible was this Latin Vulgate work of  Jerome, it is intersting that inspite of the prologue, they were bound and determined to force what is not of the Holy Spirit, to be their official version of the scriptures.

While it is true that the original KJV, had the apocryphical  writings sandwiched bet the OT and NT, it contained Jeromes Prologue Galeatus", since

What is ignored by those who use this argument,  is that the scriptures inform us, that;

"unto them (the Jews were committed the (lively) oracles of God. " (Acts 7:38, Rom 3:1-2)

Therefore if,  the Jews determined what was inspired of the OT writings, then that is what was delivered to them of the Holy Spirit. And we believe the Holy Spirit used them (inspite of their rejection of the Messiah) to list what He wanted us to receive as of God.

And this was settled at the council of Jamnia (Jamma) around 90 AD) the rest which are considered pseudopedigraphical (false writings), deautorocanonical books were considered spurios by them and the early church, and history clearly proves that by the year 367, 39 OT and 27 NT books where accepted as the Inspired Scriptures by the early church, the fate of all other writings, were sealed at that .. by the years 390 Ad (approx), the western roman church had accepted the Apocryphal writings as inspired and do so to this date.

The earliest list of the entire cannon was compiled by Anathasius Bishop of Alexanderia.

Anyone can verify this letter just use your search engine by typing in:     Anathasius Festal Letter 39 to the Egyptian Chruches..

Anathasius Bishop of Alexandria's - Easter Festal Letter 39
"As the heretics are quoting apocryphal writings, an evil which was rife even as early as when St. Luke wrote his gospel, therefore I have thought good to set forth clearly what books have been received by us through tradition as belonging to the Canon, and which we believe to be divine. For there are in all twenty-two books of the Old Testament. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. After this comes Joshua, and Judges, and Ruth. The four books of the Kings, counted as two. Then Chronicles, counted the two as one. Then First and Second Esdras [i.e. Ezra and Nehemiah]. After these Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Cantica. To these follow Job, and the Twelve Prophets, counted as one book. Then Isaiah, Jeremiah together with the Epistle of Baruch, the Lamentations, Ezekiel, and Daniel. Of the New Testament these are the books [then follows the complete list ending with "the Apocalypse of John"]. These are the fountains of salvation, that whoso thirsteth, may be satisfied by the eloquence which is in them. In them alone (en toutois monois) is set forth the doctrine of piety. Let no one add to them, nor take aught therefrom.
I also add for further accuracy that there are certain other books, not edited in the Canon, but established by the Fathers, to be read by those who have just come to us and wish to be instructed in the doctrine of piety. The Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, the Doctrine (Didakh) of the Apostles and the Pastor. And let none of the Apocrypha of the heretics be read among you."
Ref:  (An excerpt from from the XXXIX Festal Epistle of Athanasius, translated in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol. IV (2d series, pp. 551 and 552.)


This pretty much settles this argument, the Apocryphgal books are (not inspired) noncanonical ....................period.

Here is  information of the development of the NT cannon;

http://www.themage.net/Bible/New%20Testament%20Cannon.htm
By the way this is taken from a Catholic website, at least they depict the historical significance of the matter truthfully.

Note: 1546 AD, RCC At the Council of Trent, the Catholic Church reaffirms once and for all the full list of 27 books as traditionally accepted.

Someone a while back, made the ridiculous assertion that the protestant church removed the Apocryphal books from the Bible, it is clear from the study of the history of the NT Cannon, it was the RCC who insists on adding the apocryphal (noncanonical) writings to the scriptures.

I trust this has been informative to those who are perhaps not well versed on this little bit of history.

Blessings,

Petro

[ebia]

ebia posted as reply #9
There was no defined Hebrew canon until after the start of the rise of Christianity,

ebia,

While this first portion of your statement is true.

, so to use this to define what should be in our canon is to rely on the work of those who rejected Christ.

The rest of your  statement is nothing more than hot air,

Why?

The fact is, this little argument has always been used by the papist institution, which includes some of the anglicans (Westcott & Hort to be precise) to bolster the Apocryphal book as inspired by those who desire to recognize what is uninspired to be canonical.

Pure rhetoric, and not very good rhetoric.

The term Apocrypha means "NONCANONICAL"Jerome (who translated the OT into Latin directly from the Hebrew) was one of the first to use the term Apocrypha to designate certain books which were included in the Septuagint and the Latin Old Testament versions but had never been part of the Hebrew Scriptures.

I use the label apocrypha (which actually means hidden, not non-canonical) here as it is widely understood.  I prefer to refer to these books as deuterocanonical.

In Fact in his introduction to the translated version he begins it with the Prologus Galeatus ; this is what he writes about these spurious books.

"This prologue to the Scriptures may suit as a helmed preface to all the books which we have rendered from Hebrew into Latin, that we may know that whatever book is beyond these must be reckoned among the Apocrypha."

That tells us nothing of what St Jerome actually thought of them.  Neither does it prove much - plenty of other Christian Fathers have disagreed with him over these books, St. Athanasius and Augustine included.. Also, we have access to information regarding them and the LXX that he did not have.

The RCC, inspite of Jeromes Prologue adopted these spurios books as Inspired in answer to the reformations position in the 15th century. Their oficial Bible was this Latin Vulgate work of  Jerome, it is intersting that inspite of the prologue, they were bound and determined to force what is not of the Holy Spirit, to be their official version of the scriptures.

The RCC, and (more importantly in my opinion) the Othodox Churces, have always considered these books [deutero]canonical, not withstanding St Jerome.  The council of Trent changed nothing - it mearly clarified the existing situation.

While it is true that the original KJV, had the apocryphical  writings sandwiched bet the OT and NT, it contained Jeromes Prologue Galeatus", since

What is ignored by those who use this argument,  is that the scriptures inform us, that;

"unto them (the Jews were committed the (lively) oracles of God. " (Acts 7:38, Rom 3:1-2)

Therefore if,  the Jews determined what was inspired of the OT writings, then that is what was delivered to them of the Holy Spirit. And we believe the Holy Spirit used them (inspite of their rejection of the Messiah) to list what He wanted us to receive as of God.

You've cut this about so much it's not clear which bits are your words, which Jerome's and which come from the pen of others.  Perhaps you could clarify.

I'm sorry, but I don't consider decisions made by Jewish councils after 33AD to be particularly inspired.

And this was settled at the council of Jamnia (Jamma) around 90 AD) the rest which are considered pseudopedigraphical (false writings), deautorocanonical books were considered spurios by them and the early church,

What is quite clear is that the early church debated the matter, and virtually the entire church, East (Orthodox) and West (RCC) accepted the deuterocanonical books as valuable.

and history clearly proves that by the year 367, 39 OT and 27 NT books where accepted as the Inspired Scriptures by the early church, the fate of all other writings, were sealed at that .. by the years 390 Ad (approx), the western roman church had accepted the Apocryphal writings as inspired and do so to this date.

You seem to be contradicting yourself here.

(To be continued )

[ebia]

The earliest list of the entire cannon was compiled by Anathasius Bishop of Alexanderia.

Anyone can verify this letter just use your search engine by typing in:    Anathasius Festal Letter 39 to the Egyptian Chruches..

Anathasius Bishop of Alexandria's - Easter Festal Letter 39
"As the heretics are quoting apocryphal writings, an evil which was rife even as early as when St. Luke wrote his gospel, therefore I have thought good to set forth clearly what books have been received by us through tradition as belonging to the Canon, and which we believe to be divine. For there are in all twenty-two books of the Old Testament. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. After this comes Joshua, and Judges, and Ruth. The four books of the Kings, counted as two. Then Chronicles, counted the two as one. Then First and Second Esdras [i.e. Ezra and Nehemiah]. After these Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Cantica. To these follow Job, and the Twelve Prophets, counted as one book. Then Isaiah, Jeremiah together with the Epistle of Baruch, the Lamentations, Ezekiel, and Daniel.

So you want to accept this as the definitive list of OT books?  Did you bother to read it, or just cut and paste it from somewhere?
Athanasius includes one Deuterocanonical book (Baruch) and leaves out Esther.

Of the New Testament these are the books [then follows the complete list ending with "the Apocalypse of John"]. These are the fountains of salvation, that whoso thirsteth, may be satisfied by the eloquence which is in them. In them alone (en toutois monois) is set forth the doctrine of piety. Let no one add to them, nor take aught therefrom.
I also add for further accuracy that there are certain other books, not edited in the Canon, but established by the Fathers, to be read by those who have just come to us and wish to be instructed in the doctrine of piety. The Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, the Doctrine (Didakh) of the Apostles and the Pastor.

Here we have a list of most of the other deuterocanoncial books as being at least useful (NB including Esther as well).
That only leaves Maccabees unaccounted for, if I've not missed one.

And let none of the Apocrypha of the heretics be read among you.

Athanasius clearly isn't referring to these books as apocrypha.

This pretty much settles this argument, the Apocryphgal books are (not inspired) noncanonical ....................period.

Which bit(s) of the above would you like to back-track on.

Here is  information of the development of the NT cannon;

http://www.themage.net/Bible/New%20Testament%20Cannon.htm
By the way this is taken from a Catholic website, at least they depict the historical significance of the matter truthfully.

I don't see much argument in this thread about the NT canon.

Note: 1546 AD, RCC At the Council of Trent, the Catholic Church reaffirms once and for all the full list of 27 books as traditionally accepted.

Someone a while back, made the ridiculous assertion that the protestant church removed the Apocryphal books from the Bible, it is clear from the study of the history of the NT Cannon, it was the RCC who insists on adding the apocryphal (noncanonical) writings to the scriptures.

You seem a bit confused, the deuterocanoncal books are part of the OT, not the NT.

I trust this has been informative to those who are perhaps not well versed on this little bit of history.

Well, hopefully it might inspire a few people to go and read up on it for themselves.

[Petro]

ebia,

You ask..........

Why?

Because I said so..

Petro's answer to the  why?  
The fact is, this little argument has always been used by the papist institution, which includes some of the anglicans (Westcott & Hort to be precise) to bolster the Apocryphal book as inspired by those who desire to recognize what is uninspired to be canonical.

Pure rhetoric, and not very good rhetoric.

I called it hot air, pure gas...

ebia says;
That tells us nothing of what St Jerome actually thought of them.  Neither does it prove much - plenty of other Christian Fathers have disagreed with him over these books, St. Athanasius and Augustine included.. Also, we have access to information regarding them and the LXX that he did not have.

It makes no different Jerome (345-420) came on the seen after Anathasius (293-373), he was a young man, when Anathasius compiled the list of books.

It was not;

"until 386 AD the Jerome settled in Bethlehem and began his writing ministeries "

"He was carefull of his sources of information. He knew and used extensively early versions and manuscripts of the Bible no longer extant.   Operating on the principle that only the eriginal text of the Scriptures is free from error, he engaged in considerable manuscript study  in order to detrmine what, among variant readings should be considered the original and true text.  Out of these efforts came the wordk for ehich he is best known for  the Vulgate."

Ref:  The Chruch in Its Early Development Exploring Chruch History P.22, Howard F. Voss, Nelson

If these little facts are  accurate, one can get a very good glimpses of this mans interigity, and the mere distinction between what he consideredto be apocryphal (non-canonical) and what He didn't make the point distinctly, between that that was held by him to be inspired and what was not inspired, and clearly this is the point he makes in his prologue.

Here you can inform yourself, mo betta;

. http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=apocrypha

"The Apocrypha, whose name comes from a Greek work meaning 'hidden', are the set of 14 books of unknown authenticity that have been included in the canonized Old Testament at one point or another through the history of Christianity. The Jewish community has never accepted these books as inspired, and they are not present in the Protestant canon.

St. Augustine was the only significant figure to hold the apocrypha to be divinely inspired, but his voice on the matter was consistently undermined by that of St. Jerome, a considerably more talented linguist and prominent translator. Upon the death of Pope Damascus in 384AD, however, Jerome's influence was recuced drastically. Jerome was the chief secretary to the pope, and aimed ot be his successor. When Siricius was elected, however, Jerome moved to Bethlehem, a rather remote section of the Roman Empire, to finish his work on translating the Hebrew Old Testament into Latin Slang. This opened Augustine's opportunity for influence on the councils, and in 393 and 397AD, the councils of Hippo and Carthage finally accepted the apocrypha into the canon. The Syrian Church didn't accept them until the next century.

Most define the apocrypha in terms of the books 'left out' of the Old testament by the Protestants, however, I believe it's important to note that these books had no place in the Jewish canon and were never added to the Christian canon until St. Augustine used the Roman Catholic Church to do so. His efforts in this effect were fought vehemently, but in 450 AD (after 70 years of debating the issue), Augustine finally won out.

Of the reasons to reject the apocrypha as Christian canon:
No book claims to be the inspired word of God.
Some books contain serious historical inaccuracies 1, while others promote concepts contradictory to what is dominant in scripture 2.
Jesus, nor the apostles ever quote from the apocrypha in the New Testament. They allude to them twice 3, but never as authoritative scripture.
There are no original Hebrew copies of any apocryphal book -- the Greek is all that's available "


Catholics always claim the term apocrypha was coined by protestants,  but as you can see this is false, Jerome their own writer of their own Latin version of the OT, whom you claim where books cannonized by unbelievers, lists the same number of  OT books as inspired.

The RCC, inspite of Jeromes Prologue adopted these spurios books as Inspired in answer to the reformations position in the 15th century. Their oficial Bible was this Latin Vulgate work of  Jerome, it is intersting that inspite of the prologue, they were bound and determined to force what is not of the Holy Spirit, to be their official version of the scriptures.

ebia responds;
The RCC, and (more importantly in my opinion) the Othodox Churces, have always considered these books [deutero]canonical, not withstanding St Jerome.  The council of Trent changed nothing - it mearly clarified the existing situation.

Your opinion is merely an opinion, the history record speaks for itself.

Besides you can call them hideen, but the early church fathers said nothing ot the kind, they are u8ninspired writings, having some value, in living and worship, nothing more than that.

While it is true that the original KJV, had the apocryphical  writings sandwiched bet the OT and NT, it contained Jeromes Prologue Galeatus", since

What is ignored by those who use this argument,  is that the scriptures inform us, that;

"unto them (the Jews were committed the (lively) oracles of God. " (Acts 7:38, Rom 3:1-2)

Therefore if,  the Jews determined what was inspired of the OT writings, then that is what was delivered to them of the Holy Spirit. And we believe the Holy Spirit used them (inspite of their rejection of the Messiah) to list what He wanted us to receive as of God.

ebia answers;
You've cut this about so much it's not clear which bits are your words, which Jerome's and which come from the pen of others.  Perhaps you could clarify.

I know my writings look like scripture to you, but when I quote scripture, I always reference it.

ebia states;
I'm sorry, but I don't consider decisions made by Jewish councils after 33AD to be particularly inspired.

It matters little what you do or don't consider to be true from others, clearly these early church fathers, believed the 39 books to be the inspired versions, the rest are spurious.

And this was settled at the council of Jamnia (Jamma) around 90 AD) the rest which are considered pseudopedigraphical (false writings), deautorocanonical books were considered spurios by them and the early church,

ebia says;
What is quite clear is that the early church debated the matter, and virtually the entire church, East (Orthodox) and West (RCC) accepted the deuterocanonical books as valuable.

Now you are saying they are valuable, that is a long way from being inspired..isn't it..??

Me thinks, you like to argue just,  for the sake of arguing........

and history clearly proves that by the year 367, 39 OT and 27 NT books where accepted as the Inspired Scriptures by the early church, the fate of all other writings, were sealed at that .. by the years 390 Ad (approx), the western roman church had accepted the Apocryphal writings as inspired and do so to this date.

ebia states;
You seem to be contradicting yourself here.

Not hardly, in 393 and 397AD at the councils of Hippo and Cathage, Augustine who was a proponent of the apocryphical books, won out and had the apocrypha was added into the Roman Catholic church cannon of books, by this time there had been a rise of errors and effects on the development of doctrines within the Roman Catholic institution, that this began the rift between east and west, which eventually lead to the split.

You really should familiarize your self  with a little church history, befor you enter these discusssions..


Petro

[ebia]

If these little facts are  accurate, one can get a very good glimpses of this mans interigity, and the mere distinction between what he consideredto be apocryphal (non-canonical) and what He didn't make the point distinctly, between that that was held by him to be inspired and what was not inspired, and clearly this is the point he makes in his prologue.

Don't get me wrong - I've got heaps of respect for St Jerome.  I just don't think he's the last word on the matter, and neither did the Church of his time.

Here you can inform yourself, mo betta;

. http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=apocrypha

"The Apocrypha, whose name comes from a Greek work meaning 'hidden', are the set of 14 books of unknown authenticity that have been included in the canonized Old Testament at one point or another through the history of Christianity. The Jewish community has never accepted these books as inspired, and they are not present in the Protestant canon.

St. Augustine was the only significant figure to hold the apocrypha to be divinely inspired, but his voice on the matter was consistently undermined by that of St. Jerome, a considerably more talented linguist and prominent translator. Upon the death of Pope Damascus in 384AD, however, Jerome's influence was recuced drastically. Jerome was the chief secretary to the pope, and aimed ot be his successor. When Siricius was elected, however, Jerome moved to Bethlehem, a rather remote section of the Roman Empire, to finish his work on translating the Hebrew Old Testament into Latin Slang. This opened Augustine's opportunity for influence on the councils, and in 393 and 397AD, the councils of Hippo and Carthage finally accepted the apocrypha into the canon. The Syrian Church didn't accept them until the next century.

Most define the apocrypha in terms of the books 'left out' of the Old testament by the Protestants, however, I believe it's important to note that these books had no place in the Jewish canon and were never added to the Christian canon until St. Augustine used the Roman Catholic Church to do so. His efforts in this effect were fought vehemently, but in 450 AD (after 70 years of debating the issue), Augustine finally won out.

Am I debating with you, or with websites you can cut and paste from - I could, after all, sit here and paste stuff from RCC, Othodox and similar sites?

Of the reasons to reject the apocrypha as Christian canon:
No book claims to be the inspired word of God.

Neither do quite a few books that are undisputed.

Some books contain serious historical inaccuracies

Perfectly true.  Of course, many Christians don't believe all of the undisputed OT is historically accurate.

while others promote concepts contradictory to what is dominant in scripture

When taken at face value, yes.  But the same is true for many places in the rest of scripture if you take them at face value.

Jesus, nor the apostles ever quote from the apocrypha in the New Testament. They allude to them twice 3, but never as authoritative scripture.

Very few OT books are quoted in a way that demands them to be authoritative scripture.

There are no original Hebrew copies of any apocryphal book -- the Greek is all that's available "

Untrue or out of date.   There are no complete Hebrew copies to the best of my knowledge, but fragments have been discoved.

In the end, none of those stands up to scrutiny, so you have to judge whether to go with the OT used by the apostles (the LXX, which included them) or that defined by the Jews after33AD which doesn't.  Personally, I think the founders of the CofE (the church that produced your beloved Authorised Version, don't forget) got it about right when they wrote the 39 Articles, but I am open to other possibilities on the issue.

Catholics always claim the term apocrypha was coined by protestants,  but as you can see this is false, Jerome their own writer of their own Latin version of the OT, whom you claim where books cannonized by unbelievers, lists the same number of  OT books as inspired.

Even Catholics can be wrong sometimes  

Your opinion is merely an opinion, the history record speaks for itself.

My opinion is, indeed, only an opinion, and I would encourage anyone interested to read up on it themselves.  Preferably in reliable historical sources.  I would also encourage them to read the books concerned (and the Didache).  God Breathed or not, theres good stuff in them.

Besides you can call them hideen, but the early church fathers said nothing ot the kind, they are u8ninspired writings, having some value, in living and worship, nothing more than that.

Apocrapha means hidden.  Take that how you will.

I know my writings look like scripture to you, but when I quote scripture, I always reference it.

I wasn't refering to your scripture quotes but your quotes from St Jerome, other websites, the KJV notes or whatever, verses your own words.

ebia states;
I'm sorry, but I don't consider decisions made by Jewish councils after 33AD to be particularly inspired.

It matters little what you do or don't consider to be true from others, clearly these early church fathers, believed the 39 books to be the inspired versions, the rest are spurious.

Clearly St Jerome did.  St Athanathius and St Augustine (and Origen, FWIW) had slightly different ideas.  Most never commented on it in writings that have survived, so we will never know.   When alls said and done, you're putting a heck of a lot of faith in one great but fallable man - St Jerome.

And this was settled at the council of Jamnia (Jamma) around 90 AD) the rest which are considered pseudopedigraphical (false writings), deautorocanonical books were considered spurios by them and the early church,

ebia says;
What is quite clear is that the early church debated the matter, and virtually the entire church, East (Orthodox) and West (RCC) accepted the deuterocanonical books as valuable.

Now you are saying they are valuable, that is a long way from being inspired..isn't it..??

That was badly phrased on my part, since both the RCC and the Orthodox church do accept them as inspired.  Personally, I'm still undecided on their level of inspiration.  Like I said, I like the phrasing of article VI, which rates them as useful, places them clearly on a different footing to the "mainstream" books, and leaves open the question of their inspiration.

Me thinks, you like to argue just,  for the sake of arguing........

No, but I think people should make up their own mind clear of (or at least fully understanding) the propaganda of both sides.  And not be put off from reading the books concerned.

After all, this thread was started to discuss how the canon was arrived at, and that's what we are doing.

and history clearly proves that by the year 367, 39 OT and 27 NT books where accepted as the Inspired Scriptures by the early church, the fate of all other writings, were sealed at that .. by the years 390 Ad (approx), the western roman church had accepted the Apocryphal writings as inspired and do so to this date.

ebia states;
You seem to be contradicting yourself here.

Not hardly, in 393 and 397AD at the councils of Hippo and Cathage, Augustine who was a proponent of the apocryphical books, won out and had the apocrypha was added into the Roman Catholic church cannon of books, by this time there had been a rise of errors and effects on the development of doctrines within the Roman Catholic institution, that this began the rift between east and west, which eventually lead to the split.

So you think the church went from being the font of all knowledge under St Jerome, to a corrupt monster, in the space of about 25 years?  You put too much weight on the importance of two individuals.

You really should familiarize your self  with a little church history, befor you enter these discusssions..

How much personal abuse should I take from someone who can't even spell the topic under discussion?

[Petro]

posted by ebia as reply #26
Am I debating with you, or with websites you can cut and paste from - I could, after all, sit here and paste stuff from RCC, Othodox and similar sites?

Well, by all means please do post some evidence to back your opinions and feelings, which are not credible, since they do not have any basis except that they are your own thoughts of what you think is the way it is.

Don't get me wrong - I've got heaps of respect for St Jerome.  I just don't think he's the last word on the matter, and neither did the Church of his time.

To late!

If Jerome was here you'd be arguing with him..proposing you speak for the church of his time.. Hah!

You do take the cake...

I got to hand to you...

Untrue or out of date.  There are no complete Hebrew copies to the best of my knowledge, but fragments have been discoved.

Your blowing smoke again.

Please give us the facts.  Don't keep us in ignorance..

Apocrapha means hidden.  Take that how you will.

Not when Jerome spoke of it..his prologue was written in Latin..

I wasn't refering to your scripture quotes but your quotes from St Jerome, other websites, the KJV notes or whatever, verses your own words.

I have written what I meant to write!  If you recognize something similar to scripture in what I have written good for you..if it does not have the verse quoted next to it, you won't find in scripture.

How much personal abuse should I take from someone who can't even spell the topic under discussion?

I can't spell apoyrcpha but you know what I am syaing, and I really don't care whether I spell it write for you or not,  Anyhow,  I noticed you mispelled the word  yourself herein, but I am to polite to mention it, You obviously don't know church history although you think you do., your math skills are questionable and your english isn't anything to write home about.

What more can I say...

The rest of your post isn't even worth wasting time on..

Petro

[ebia]

posted by ebia as reply #26
Am I debating with you, or with websites you can cut and paste from - I could, after all, sit here and paste stuff from RCC, Othodox and similar sites?

Well, by all means please do post some evidence to back your opinions and feelings, which are not credible, since they do not have any basis except that they are your own thoughts of what you think is the way it is.

What facts of mine are you disputing?
As to your quoting, your reference to St Athanasius, for example, was fine.  Shame he didn't say what you wanted him to, but you seem to have run away from that.  Your quoting from http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=apocrypha proves nothing beyond your ability to cut & paste as the website carries no greater authority than your opinion or mine.

Don't get me wrong - I've got heaps of respect for St Jerome.  I just don't think he's the last word on the matter, and neither did the Church of his time.

To late!

If Jerome was here you'd be arguing with him..proposing you speak for the church of his time.. Hah!

I'd be listening to what he had to say, as well as his critics, I hope.

You do take the cake...

I got to hand to you...

Very kind.  What sort is it?

Untrue or out of date.  There are no complete Hebrew copies to the best of my knowledge, but fragments have been discoved.

Your blowing smoke again.

Please give us the facts.  Don't keep us in ignorance..

I'm sorry, I didn't expect you to dispute this: I thought it was well know by now - its hardly news.  Try:
http://www.companysj.com/v141/written.html

Apocrapha means hidden.  Take that how you will.

Not when Jerome spoke of it..his prologue was written in Latin..

So?

I have written what I meant to write!  If you recognize something similar to scripture in what I have written good for you..if it does not have the verse quoted next to it, you won't find in scripture.

Try answering the question I asked, instead of the one you wish I had asked.  It is more than just good manners to acknowledge when you quote anyone, not just when you quote scripture.

How much personal abuse should I take from someone who can't even spell the topic under discussion?

I can't spell apoyrcpha but you know what I am syaing, and I really don't care whether I spell it write for you or not,  Anyhow,  I noticed you mispelled the word  yourself herein, but I am to polite to mention it, You obviously don't know church history although you think you do., your math skills are questionable and your english isn't anything to write home about.

I wasn't referring to apocrypha (which is a git to type, I'll admit) or to the odd typo, but to the fact that you consistantly misspell canon, which reduces your credibility in talking about it hugely.

What more can I say...

The rest of your post isn't even worth wasting time on..

Petro

[ollie]

Define "inspired".


How did the church, down through the centuries, measure what is "inspired", and what isn't, to determine which mss(manuscripts) were "canonical" and which were not.

How does the church "know" that what we have in scripture is "inspired", and what is not included, as for instance, the Apocrypha(sp), is not "inspired".

Does it not define as "God breathed"? Does not God and His Holy Spirit assign some protection to it down through the times? Even though the compilers may have applied it to their lives in an adulterated form of it's truth?

 "Inspira'tion   From: Easton's Bible Dictionary.

Text:  that extraordinary or supernatural divine influence vouchsafed to those who wrote the Holy Scriptures, rendering their writings infallible.

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God" (R.V., "Every scripture inspired of God"), 2 Tim. 3:16. This is true of all the "sacred writings," not in the sense of their being works of genius or of supernatural insight, but as "theopneustic," i.e., "breathed into by God" in such a sense that the writers were supernaturally guided to express exactly what God intended them to express as a revelation of his mind and will.

The testimony of the sacred writers themselves abundantly demonstrates this truth; and if they are infallible as teachers of doctrine, then the doctrine of plenary inspiration must be accepted. There are no errors in the Bible as it came from God none have been proved to exist. Difficulties and phenomena we cannot explain are not errors. All these books of the Old and New Testaments are inspired. We do not say that they contain, but that they are, the Word of God.

The gift of inspiration rendered the writers the organs of God, for the infallible communication of his mind and will, in the very manner and words in which it was originally given. As to the nature of inspiration we have no information. This only we know, it rendered the writers infallible. They were all equally inspired, and are all equally infallible. The inspiration of the sacred writers did not change their characters. They retained all their individual peculiarities as thinkers or writers.
(See BIBLE; WORD OF GOD.)"

 Strong's Number: 2315
Transliterated: theopneustos
Phonetic: theh-op'-nyoo-stos

Text:  from 2316 and a presumed derivative of 4154; divinely breathed in: --given by inspiration of God.


2 Timothy3:16.  All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
 17.  That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

 1 Peter 1:23.  Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
 24.  For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:
 25.  But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.