Apocrypha

[hopper]

Edited April 11, 2008 by hopper

[apothanein kerdos]

My thoughts only:

If they were a part of the bible, God would have made sure they were included.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They are.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jesus didn't say so.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Mornin' halifax:

Actually, Jesus didn't tell us which books to include in the Bible at all; at least not literally. However, He did send the Holy Spirit to guide His Church.

His Church accepted those books you call "apocryphal" for over 1000 years. It was Martin Luther that threw them out.

I choose to rely more on the early Church Fathers, guided by the Holy Spirt, to decide on the canon of the Bible, rather than on one man's opinion 1000 years later.

Peace,

Fiosh

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's VERY misleading.

The Palestinian Jews outright rejected the Apocrypha (among them would have been Paul, Jesus, and the other disciples) for the main reason they did not hold harmony with the other scriptures. It wasn't a false tradition that Jesus would have condemned but a scholarly rejection. The Apocryphal books were only accepted, prior to Christianity, by the Hellenistic Jews, or the Jews that came from a Jewish background but didn't understand Hebrew or anything else. This is why we have the Septuagint. This came into Christianity when those that converted brought the Septuatgint with them when looking for scriptures. However, when making their argumentations against heresy, the early church fathers (prior to the 3rd century) used scripture from some of what we consider scripture today. While they didn't use every book, what is more damning is that they never once appealed to the Apocrypha. Likewise, while there was a respect for the Apocrypha in the early church (and even among the Palestinian Jews that considered them "lesser writings") no one actually considered them scripture. It wasn't until the sixteenth century that we see the Apocrypha cannonized.

So to say it was scripture for 1,000 years is very misleading, it was merely considered a "lesser writing" and would not have been accepted as scripture had it not been for Hellenistic Jews.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

With all due respect, please cite proof of this.

Thanks,

Fiosh

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's common history It doesn't validate or negate the Apocrypha, just that some supported it in the early church and others did not. It is also established fact that the Apocrypha was not cannonized by the Catholic church until much later. As for proof we have "CHurch History in Plain Language" by Bruce L. Shelley, "Church History Volume One: From Christ to Pre-Reformation : The Rise and Growth of the Church in Its Cultural, Intellectual, and Political Context", and any other Christian history.

Can you supply any fact that is contrary to this? If so then you're using a revisionist history. Almost every protestant, Catholic, and secular historian agree that the Apocrypha was not universally accepted ever in the church.

[halifaxchristian]

My thoughts only:

If they were a part of the bible, God would have made sure they were included.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They are.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jesus didn't say so.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Mornin' halifax:

Actually, Jesus didn't tell us which books to include in the Bible at all; at least not literally. However, He did send the Holy Spirit to guide His Church.

His Church accepted those books you call "apocryphal" for over 1000 years. It was Martin Luther that threw them out.

I choose to rely more on the early Church Fathers, guided by the Holy Spirt, to decide on the canon of the Bible, rather than on one man's opinion 1000 years later.

Peace,

Fiosh

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's VERY misleading.

The Palestinian Jews outright rejected the Apocrypha (among them would have been Paul, Jesus, and the other disciples) for the main reason they did not hold harmony with the other scriptures. It wasn't a false tradition that Jesus would have condemned but a scholarly rejection. The Apocryphal books were only accepted, prior to Christianity, by the Hellenistic Jews, or the Jews that came from a Jewish background but didn't understand Hebrew or anything else. This is why we have the Septuagint. This came into Christianity when those that converted brought the Septuatgint with them when looking for scriptures. However, when making their argumentations against heresy, the early church fathers (prior to the 3rd century) used scripture from some of what we consider scripture today. While they didn't use every book, what is more damning is that they never once appealed to the Apocrypha. Likewise, while there was a respect for the Apocrypha in the early church (and even among the Palestinian Jews that considered them "lesser writings") no one actually considered them scripture. It wasn't until the sixteenth century that we see the Apocrypha cannonized.

So to say it was scripture for 1,000 years is very misleading, it was merely considered a "lesser writing" and would not have been accepted as scripture had it not been for Hellenistic Jews.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

With all due respect, please cite proof of this.

Thanks,

Fiosh

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Here is some easy proof for you... The Roman Catholic Church did not canonize the Apcrypha unto the 16th century (fact). Obviously the, the Canon of the Old Testament previous to this would have been the 39 Books that most Christians/Protestants and Jews presently hold on to. Jesus was not born after the 16th century but long before it.

Make a wild guess as to what Books were in His canon if the Apocrypha wasn't yet a part of it according to your own beliefs???

Easy answer.

God bless.

[Fiosh]

SJ said: "Can you supply any fact that is contrary to this? If so then you're using a revisionist history. Almost every protestant, Catholic, and secular historian agree that the Apocrypha was not universally accepted ever in the church. "

That statement is simply wrong.

There are more historians and Bible scholars that agree that the "Apocrypha", or more correctly, the "Deutero-canonical books" WERE accepted since the time of Christ.

[Fiosh]

SJ said: "Can you supply any fact that is contrary to this? If so then you're using a revisionist history. Almost every protestant, Catholic, and secular historian agree that the Apocrypha was not universally accepted ever in the church. "

That statement is simply wrong.

There are more historians and Bible scholars that agree that the "Apocrypha", or more correctly, the "Deutero-canonical books" WERE accepted since the time of Christ.

[halifaxchristian]

SJ said: "Can you supply any fact that is contrary to this? If so then you're using a revisionist history. Almost every protestant, Catholic, and secular historian agree that the Apocrypha was not universally accepted ever in the church. "

That statement is simply wrong.

There are more historians and Bible scholars that agree that the "Apocrypha", or more correctly, the "Deutero-canonical books" WERE accepted since the time of Christ.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Great...bible scholars, historians...but NOT YOUR OWN CHURCH.

God bless.

[Fiosh]

In very clear language...so as not to cause confusion...let me state the following:

JESUS, WHEN IN THE FLESH, DID NOT QUESTION THE SCRIBES, PHARISEES, OR RELIGIOUS LEADERS OF HIS DAY ABOUT THEIR EXCLUSION OF THE APOCRYPHA.

He referred to the OT many times, even saying that not a tittle would pass from it.  Jesus told His listeners to search the Scriptures, said that He was the fulfillment of the OT Messiah, etc., etc.  If the Apocrypha was indeed Holy Scripture, surely Jesus would have told us so or not so.

The Old Testament of Jesus' day stands.

The Apocrypha is NOT AMONG THOSE BOOKS.

God bless.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi Halifax,

Are you aware that in Mark 7:6-8 Jesus was quoting the version of Isaiah that is found only in the Septuagint version of the Old Testament which contains what you call the "Apocrypha" ?

The Scribes, Pharisees, and religious leaders of various sects disagreed on what books should be included in Scripture. It wasn't until the "Council of Javneh" in 90 A.D that the Jews made any attempt to formalize a canon of Scripture.

By that time, the church of Jesus had been in existence for 60 years and had been using the Septuagint for preaching, teaching and worship.

AND, you need to understand that many of the Jews of that day were trying to deny that Jesus was the Messiah.

So, if you want to trust their judgment, you go right ahead.

I prefer to trust those who know and love Jesus as God and Saviour.

Blessings to you,

Fiosh

[halifaxchristian]

Remember one thing: because certain sects and believers did or did not include the apocrypha in their Old Testament...the consensus is simple: though "higher writing" and profitable "history"...these book are not and were not divine. It is next to unheard of that these books were considered canonical...until the 16th century, that is.

The point is this: YOUR church did not consider them canonical until about 400 years ago. You can run and hide from that conclusion but that is FACT. YOUR church denied them until somewhat recently. So...before this point in time...the remaining canon is what "Jesus' Church" (as you would say) considered divine. According to YOU AND YOUR CHURCH...this is the canon that would have existed pre-16th century. Don't point at others to defend your heresies. Look at your own "church" and see the contradiction. It's right before your eyes.

God bless you.

[apothanein kerdos]

SJ said: "Can you supply any fact that is contrary to this? If so then you're using a revisionist history. Almost every protestant, Catholic, and secular historian agree that the Apocrypha was not universally accepted ever in the church. "

That statement is simply wrong.

There are more historians and Bible scholars that agree that the "Apocrypha", or more correctly, the "Deutero-canonical books" WERE accepted since the time of Christ.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, you're wrong on this. While almost everyone will agree that they were accepted by certain sects of Hellenistic Jews, they were almost blatantly rejected by all Palestinian Jews, including Christ. When He mentioned the list of the Torah, he made mention to all the sections they have not but not to the apocrypha. Likewise, the Apocrphya was rejected whole sale by most Jews (outside of Judea and the other middle eastern provinces) and only accepted by Jews who didn't truly understand the Torah in the first place. The early Christians, comming from this background, would have equally have rejected the Apocrpyha being that they were Palestinian Jews and simply had never used it as scripture. We dont' see it enter into Christian reading until the Hellenistic Jews begin to convert to Christianity early in the first century. Regardless, it is not in any of the early codex's and was never considered canon by the majority of the church until much later.

This is historican fact. As the old saying goes, "To be Catholic is to deny history".

[Fiosh]

SJ said: "Can you supply any fact that is contrary to this? If so then you're using a revisionist history. Almost every protestant, Catholic, and secular historian agree that the Apocrypha was not universally accepted ever in the church. "

That statement is simply wrong.

There are more historians and Bible scholars that agree that the "Apocrypha", or more correctly, the "Deutero-canonical books" WERE accepted since the time of Christ.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, you're wrong on this. While almost everyone will agree that they were accepted by certain sects of Hellenistic Jews, they were almost blatantly rejected by all Palestinian Jews, including Christ. When He mentioned the list of the Torah, he made mention to all the sections they have not but not to the apocrypha. Likewise, the Apocrphya was rejected whole sale by most Jews (outside of Judea and the other middle eastern provinces) and only accepted by Jews who didn't truly understand the Torah in the first place. The early Christians, comming from this background, would have equally have rejected the Apocrpyha being that they were Palestinian Jews and simply had never used it as scripture. We dont' see it enter into Christian reading until the Hellenistic Jews begin to convert to Christianity early in the first century. Regardless, it is not in any of the early codex's and was never considered canon by the majority of the church until much later.

This is historican fact. As the old saying goes, "To be Catholic is to deny history".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hey SJ, how are ya?

RC's have no problem with history. It's you guys that avoid history and run every time someone says the word "tradition", even though to follow church tradition is Biblical

2Th 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

Actually the quote is more like, "To go deep into history is to become Catholic" . I'll find the exact quote for you.

************************************************************

Sorry, but you are just plain wrong. The early Christians did not "reject the 'Apocrypha', more correctly called the 'Deutero-canonical books'.

There are, in fact, many references in the New Testament to the 7 Deutero-canonical books.

As for the Jews of that day:

The Sadducees only regarded the first 5 books of the OT as inspired.

The Pharisees held a somewhat larger canon of Scripture, but not as large as some.

When Jesus and the Apostles adressed the Greek-speaking Diaspora Jews, they used the Septuagint.

THE SEPTUAGINT INCLUDES THE DEUTEROCANONICAL BOOKS (what you call the Apocrypha), the books that were said to be added by Rome in the 16th cent.

THE Church (which at the time was yours and mine), had chosen the canon of the Bible in the late 4th and early 5th cent at the Councils of Hippo & Carthage.

It was Martin Luther who threw out the books in question. In fact, he also tried to toss out James, parts of Hebrews, and several others.

So, I ask you: whose canon will you accept? Martin Luther's or that of Jesus and the Apostles??????

Peace,

Fiosh