There is more than one set of apocryphas.

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Willie T

Heaven Sent
Staff member
Sep 14, 2017
5,869
7,426
113
St. Petersburg Florida
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Well Christians need to simply be clear that they are not to look for Bible doctrines in the apocryphal books.

Even the Orthodox Church maintains this position, although paradoxically they also claim that the 16 apocryphal books in their bibles are Scripture!

Although the Orthodox Church accepts these books as being canonical, and treasures them and uses them liturgically, she does not use them as primary sources in the definition of her dogmas.

The Old Testament Apocrypha
I think we do FAR TOO MUCH searching for all the doctrines and dogmas we can find as it is!
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I do have to agree that CARM is one of the last sources I would use for anything. I have little use for Matt Slick.
Agreed.
I understand differences of belief and opinion - but I completely reject his brand of flat-out lies and deceit.
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Those passage are similar superficially, but do not correspond at all:

WISDOM OF SOLOMON
17 He shall take to him his jealousy for complete armour, and make the creature his weapon for the revenge of his enemies.
18 He shall put on righteousness as a breastplate, and true judgment instead of an helmet.
19 He shall take holiness for an invincible shield.
20 His severe wrath shall he sharpen for a sword, and the world shall fight with him against the unwise.

Only the breastplate of righteousness corresponds. But the whole tenor of Wisdom is different. Jealousy, revenge and severe wrath have nothing to do with the armor of God in Ephesians 6:

EPHESIANS 6:
13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
14 Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;
15 And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;
16 Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.
17And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:
18 Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints;
Nonsense.

Not only are all of the same elements of the armor mentioned on BOTH passages - your interpretation of them is what is flawed - NOT what is written. BOTH passages are depicting a battle against evil.

- We have the "Breastplate of righteousness" in both passages.
- The "Shield of faith" and "Shield of holiness" are basically the same thing because we are made holy BY our faith.
- The "wrath of God" can easily be drawn from the "sword of the Spirit".

Also - - you haven't addressed the other 2 examples I gave you . . .
- Heb 11:35 - Paul teaches about the martyrdom of the mother and her sons described in 2 Macc. 7:1-42.
- Matt.. 7:12
- Jesus' golden rule about "doing unto others" is the converse of Tobit 4:15.
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
You are truly brainwashed.
Then, please - enlighten me.
Where DID the canon of Scripture come from, Einstein - if NOT from the Catholic Church being guided by the Holy Spirit??

Surely, you have more to offer than a moronic ad hominem attack . . .
 

CoreIssue

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2018
10,032
2,023
113
USA
christiantalkzone.net
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Then, please - enlighten me.
Where DID the canon of Scripture come from, Einstein - if NOT from the Catholic Church being guided by the Holy Spirit??

Surely, you have more to offer than a moronic ad hominem attack . . .

The Canon was recognize by the Jews in the Old Testament and the early Christians before there was any political vote taken.

Books of the Bible were in full circulation from the day each letter was written. Long before the Catholic Church existed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tzcho2

CoreIssue

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2018
10,032
2,023
113
USA
christiantalkzone.net
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I think we do FAR TOO MUCH searching for all the doctrines and dogmas we can find as it is!

I agree.

Far too many look back to so-called early church fathers, councils etc. as if they were prophets.

Fact is they got a lot of things wrong. Just look at Calvin who is counted in their numbers. Or Erasmus, Constantine and so on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tzcho2

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The Canon was recognize by the Jews in the Old Testament and the early Christians before there was any political vote taken.

Books of the Bible were in full circulation from the day each letter was written. Long before the Catholic Church existed.
Hogwash.

First of all - there were MANY Books that were considered Scripture before the Canon was declared by the Catholic Church - Apocrophal works. Books like the Shepherd of Hermas, the Gospel of Peter, The Epistles of Barnabas, etc. It was the authority of the Catholic Church guided by the Holy Spirit that declared the Canon that YOU follow - not including the 7 OT Books your Protestant Fathers deleted.

During a period of 37 years at the end of the 4th and the turn of the 5th century, the Canon of Scripture was formally declared and confirmed FIVE times.

- The Synod of Rome (382) is where the canon was first formally identified.
- It was confirmed at the Synod of Hippo eleven years later (393).
- At the Council (or Synod) of Carthage (397), it was yet again confirmed. The bishops wrote at the end of their document, "But let Church beyond sea (Rome) be consulted about confirming this canon". There were 44 bishops, including St. Augustine who signed the document.
- 7 years later, in 405, in a letter from Pope Innocent I to Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse, he reiterated the canon.
- 14 years after that, at the 2nd Council (Synod) of Carthage (419) the canon was again formally confirmed.

The Canon of Scripture was officially closed at the Council of Trent in the 16th century because of the perversions happening within Protestantism and the random editing and deleting of books from the Canon.

Study your history . . .
 
  • Like
Reactions: historyb

CoreIssue

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2018
10,032
2,023
113
USA
christiantalkzone.net
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Hogwash.

First of all - there were MANY Books that were considered Scripture before the Canon was declared by the Catholic Church - Apocrophal works. Books like the Shepherd of Hermas, the Gospel of Peter, The Epistles of Barnabas, etc. It was the authority of the Catholic Church guided by the Holy Spirit that declared the Canon that YOU follow - not including the 7 OT Books your Protestant Fathers deleted.

During a period of 37 years at the end of the 4th and the turn of the 5th century, the Canon of Scripture was formally declared and confirmed FIVE times.

- The Synod of Rome (382) is where the canon was first formally identified.
- It was confirmed at the Synod of Hippo eleven years later (393).
- At the Council (or Synod) of Carthage (397), it was yet again confirmed. The bishops wrote at the end of their document, "But let Church beyond sea (Rome) be consulted about confirming this canon". There were 44 bishops, including St. Augustine who signed the document.
- 7 years later, in 405, in a letter from Pope Innocent I to Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse, he reiterated the canon.
- 14 years after that, at the 2nd Council (Synod) of Carthage (419) the canon was again formally confirmed.

The Canon of Scripture was officially closed at the Council of Trent in the 16th century because of the perversions happening within Protestantism and the random editing and deleting of books from the Canon.

Study your history . . .

The majority accepted the books of the Bible we have today.

To this day there are those who accept Apocrypha, Gnostic writings and other false books.

To try to credit the Catholic Church for fixing it is sheer nonsense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tzcho2

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
I agree.

Far too many look back to so-called early church fathers, councils etc. as if they were prophets.

Fact is they got a lot of things wrong. Just look at Calvin who is counted in their numbers. Or Erasmus, Constantine and so on.
Neither Calvin nor Constantine nor Erasmus are considered Early Church Fathers.
Where do you get your bizarre information??

Erasmus lived in the 15th century - Calvin in the 16th century. The last of the Church fathers were on the 7th century. Constantine wasn't even a member of the Church until he was on his death bed.
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The majority accepted the books of the Bible we have today.
To this day there are those who accept Apocrypha, Gnostic writings and other false books.
To try to credit the Catholic Church for fixing it is sheer nonsense.
The "majority" of WHOM?

Can you show me some documented evidence for this - or did you just pull it out of your behind like you do most of your "facts"??
 

CoreIssue

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2018
10,032
2,023
113
USA
christiantalkzone.net
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Neither Calvin nor Constantine nor Erasmus are considered Early Church Fathers.
Where do you get your bizarre information??

Erasmus lived in the 15th century - Calvin in the 16th century. The last of the Church fathers were on the 7th century. Constantine wasn't even a member of the Church until he was on his death bed.

Yet they are all referred to as being powerhouses in church history.
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Yet they are all referred to as being powerhouses in church history.
Ummmmm, YOU claimed the were "Church Fathers". NONE of them were.
Calvin was a Protestant Father - not a Church Father.

As I educated you about Constantine - he wasn't even a Church member - let alone a Church "powerhouse" . . .
 

CoreIssue

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2018
10,032
2,023
113
USA
christiantalkzone.net
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The "majority" of WHOM?

Can you show me some documented evidence for this - or did you just pull it out of your behind like you do most of your "facts"??

Do you deny letters of the apostles were copied and circulated to the other churches?


Compared to the New Testament, there was much less controversy over the canon of the Old Testament. Hebrew believers recognized God’s messengers and accepted their writings as inspired of God. While there was undeniably some debate in regards to the Old Testament canon, by A.D. 250 there was nearly universal agreement on the canon of Hebrew Scripture. The only issue that remained was the Apocrypha, with some debate and discussion continuing today. The vast majority of Hebrew scholars considered the Apocrypha to be good historical and religious documents, but not on the same level as the Hebrew Scriptures.

Very early on, some of the New Testament books were being recognized. Paul considered Luke’s writings to be as authoritative as the Old Testament (1 Timothy 5:18; see also Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7). Peter recognized Paul’s writings as Scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16). Some of the books of the New Testament were being circulated among the churches

The councils followed something similar to the following principles to determine whether a New Testament book was truly inspired by the Holy Spirit: 1) Was the author an apostle or have a close connection with an apostle? 2) Is the book being accepted by the body of Christ at large? 3) Did the book contain consistency of doctrine and orthodox teaching? 4) Did the book bear evidence of high moral and spiritual values that would reflect a work of the Holy Spirit? Again, it is crucial to remember that the church did not determine the canon. No early church council decided on the canon. It was God, and God alone, who determined which books belonged in the Bible.
 

BreadOfLife

Well-Known Member
Jan 2, 2017
20,915
3,368
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Do you deny letters of the apostles were copied and circulated to the other churches?
Compared to the New Testament, there was much less controversy over the canon of the Old Testament. Hebrew believers recognized God’s messengers and accepted their writings as inspired of God. While there was undeniably some debate in regards to the Old Testament canon, by A.D. 250 there was nearly universal agreement on the canon of Hebrew Scripture. The only issue that remained was the Apocrypha, with some debate and discussion continuing today. The vast majority of Hebrew scholars considered the Apocrypha to be good historical and religious documents, but not on the same level as the Hebrew Scriptures.

Very early on, some of the New Testament books were being recognized. Paul considered Luke’s writings to be as authoritative as the Old Testament (1 Timothy 5:18; see also Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7). Peter recognized Paul’s writings as Scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16). Some of the books of the New Testament were being circulated among the churches

The councils followed something similar to the following principles to determine whether a New Testament book was truly inspired by the Holy Spirit: 1) Was the author an apostle or have a close connection with an apostle? 2) Is the book being accepted by the body of Christ at large? 3) Did the book contain consistency of doctrine and orthodox teaching? 4) Did the book bear evidence of high moral and spiritual values that would reflect a work of the Holy Spirit? Again, it is crucial to remember that the church did not determine the canon. No early church council decided on the canon. It was God, and God alone, who determined which books belonged in the Bible.
Nice try - but history tells us a different story, which I laid out in Post #29.
The Canon was first officially declared at the Synod of Rome in 382 AD. It was officially reiterated several times, as I have shown you.

Also - I never stated that it was the Church and the Church ALONE who decided on the Canon of Scripture.
It was the Holy spirit, who GUIDED the Church to this decision (John 16:12-15).

Finally - as to the Deuterocanonical Books that you Protestants ejected from Scripture - they were part of the OPEN Jewish Canon that existed some 200 years prior to the time of Christ and during His lifetime. this is why we see some 200 references to these Books on the pages of the NT.
.
It was only AFTER His ascension to the Father and AFTER the destruction of the Temple that these Books were edited OUT of the open Canon of Scripture and the Canon was closed.

Your 2nd century pal and false prophet, Rabbi Akiva was instrumental in rendering these books "uninspired" around the time of the 2nd Jewish Revolt - about 100 years AFTER Christ.
 

tzcho2

Well-Known Member
Feb 15, 2019
1,646
846
113
Boston
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Yes - that's what people like out Catholic-hating friend CoreIssue would have you believe . . .
Criticizing the Institution of the RCC is equal to hating catholics. The majority of my extended family is Catholic and I don't hate them. I hate the false teachings and brainwashing they are under--that is a vast difference. But guess what we love each other though we do not worship the same. I pray for their souls and they are glad for that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Enoch111