It is not in the bible.....sola scripture

  • 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!

Marymog

Well-Known Member
Mar 7, 2017
11,283
1,633
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
lforrest said:
The scriptures don't say that the scriptures should be assembled into one book, the Bible. I would prefer a bible for myself with multiple volumes instead of small print on transparently thin pages in a large book. I'm also sure that God knew it was going to happen, and he likely caused it to happen himself. It is probably for the best it is one book.

The Apocrypha, which is the principle difference in the versions, wasn't removed until long after the Protestant reformation started. Luther and the Catholic church had the same Bible, It is a matter of interpreting that bible differently not inspiration.

Some part of the Apocrypha books may be inspired. I believe it is rightly set aside just from reading it for myself, as it doesn't chime with the rest of the scriptures. I don't think I have ever seen a Catholic quote from the Apocrypha.
That is why I am torn dear sir. Why was the Apocrypha removed after the Reformation?

I tend to think the Christians of the 1st 1500+ years got it right. Not the Christians who rebelled 500 years ago.

Either all of the Apocrypha is inspired or none of it. Jesus alluded to it so it's good enough for me.

My two cents worth....Mary
 

FHII

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2011
4,833
2,494
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Marymog said:
That is why I am torn dear sir. Why was the Apocrypha removed after the Reformation?

I tend to think the Christians of the 1st 1500+ years got it right. Not the Christians who rebelled 500 years ago.

Either all of the Apocrypha is inspired or none of it. Jesus alluded to it so it's good enough for me.

My two cents worth....Mary
When did Jesus allude to the Apocrypha?

The original KJV included the Apocrypha. Many other versions did as well. I've heard many reasons why its no longer included, but the most reasonable (or I should say, the most reasonable reason why its no longer in modern Bibles) is that publishers wanted to cut down on printing costs.

Screwy reason, I know... But on the other hand, not many early church fathers thought it was inspired by God either. From what I read, Jerome was against it.
 

bbyrd009

Groper
Nov 30, 2016
33,943
12,081
113
Ute City, COLO
www.facebook.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States Minor Outlying Islands
interesting, i had been taught that Luke's genealogy was Mary's, too? Guess it is debatable


Luke 3:23 says, “And when He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Eli.” Many believe that Luke is saying that Jesus was the grandson of Eli or Heli through Mary. Eli was Mary’s father and Jesus’ grandfather. By contrast, Joseph was son of Jacob according to Matthew.
There is another argument that comes from the theme, purpose, and audience of the two gospels. Matthew was written to the Jews to prove that Jesus was in the legal line of David by adoption through Joseph. However, this was not Luke’s purpose. Luke was writing to show and emphasize the humanity of Christ. He was writing to Gentiles or Greeks to show Jesus’ involvement with the needs of men. In keeping with this focus, we might naturally expect Luke, the doctor, to present the genealogy of Jesus through Mary, the source of his true humanity...
https://bible.org/question/mary%E2%80%99s-lineage-one-gospels
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
The Protestant obsession with Mary continues...

Catholics agree with Protestants that Scripture is a "standard of truth" — even the preeminent one — but not in a sense that rules out the binding authority of authentic apostolic Tradition and the Church. The Bible doesn't teach that. Catholics agree that Scripture is materially sufficient. In other words, on this view, every true doctrine can be found in the Bible, if only implicitly and indirectly by deduction. But no biblical passage teaches that Scripture is the formal authority or rule of faith in isolation from the Church and Tradition. Sola scriptura can't even be deduced from implicit passages.

Protestants often quote the verses in the Bible where corrupt traditions of men are condemned (e.g., Matt. 15:2-6; Mark 7:8-13; Col. 2:8). Of course, Catholics agree with this. But it's not the whole truth. True, apostolic Tradition also is endorsed positively. This Tradition is in total harmony with and consistent with Scripture. In that sense, Scripture is the "final judge" of Tradition, but it does not rule out all binding Tradition and Church authority (cf. Acts 2:42; 1 Cor. 11:2; 2 Thess. 2:15; 2 Tim. 1:13-14, 2:2).

Paul Casually Assumes That His Passed-Down Tradition Is Infallible and Binding

If Paul wasn't assuming that, he would have been commanding his followers to adhere to a mistaken doctrine. He writes:
"If any one refuses to obey what we say in this letter, note that man, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed" (2 Thess. 3:14).
"Take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them" (Rom. 16:17).
He didn't write about "the pretty-much, mostly, largely true but not infallible doctrine which you have been taught."
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=7185
 

bbyrd009

Groper
Nov 30, 2016
33,943
12,081
113
Ute City, COLO
www.facebook.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States Minor Outlying Islands
ya ok well Paul also confidently proclaimed that he knew the wolves would rush in as soon as he left, and Mary Worship strikes me as a pretty good reflection of
"Take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them" (Rom. 16:17)
if you ask me.
 

Mungo

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2012
4,332
643
113
England
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
bbyrd009 said:
Mary Worship
Catholics don't worship Mary.

In accusing Catholics of doing such a thing you are saying they are not Christians.

I'm reporting your libellous post. Not that the mods will take any notice.
 

bbyrd009

Groper
Nov 30, 2016
33,943
12,081
113
Ute City, COLO
www.facebook.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States Minor Outlying Islands
Catholics don't worship Mary.

In accusing Catholics of doing such a thing you are saying they are not Christians.

I'm reporting your libellous post. Not that the mods will take any notice.
oh--well i apologize, i'll refrain from saying it, but i mean plz. How can you separate someone you are praying to and consider perfect, a god, from "worship?" personally i wouldn't even try to defend it if i were you, you don't have to defend your beliefs to me. They are irrelevant to me. As far as it concerns me, i would much rather have a neighbor who prays than a neighbor who doesn't, i'm sure. Pretty much end of story.

man, and i guess i won't comment on whether Catholics are Christians or not either, lol, that' just not my call. Plus, when i hear "Christian" well that is more apt to make me cautious than relaxed nowadays lol. J/k, but you get me. I'm sure you are seeking Christ just like i am, and the rest is window dressing imo.
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
ya ok well Paul also confidently proclaimed that he knew the wolves would rush in as soon as he left, and Mary Worship strikes me as a pretty good reflection of
"Take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them" (Rom. 16:17)
if you ask me.
I'm glad you brought that up.

It is incorrect to regard St. Paul as some kind of spiritual “lone ranger,” on his own with no particular ecclesiastical allegiance, since he was commissioned by Jesus Himself as an Apostle.
  • In his very conversion experience, Jesus informed Paul that he would be told what to do (Acts 9:6; cf.9:17). (told what by whom?)

  • He went to see St. Peter in Jerusalem for fifteen days in order to be confirmed in his calling (Galatians 1:18),

  • and fourteen years later was commissioned by Peter, James, and John (Galatians 2:1-2,9).

  • He was also sent out by the Church at Antioch (Acts 13:1-4), which was in contact with the Church at Jerusalem (Acts 11:19-27).

  • Later on, Paul reported back to Antioch (Acts 14:26-28).

  • Acts 15:2 states: “. . . Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.”

  • The next verse refers to Paul and Barnabas being sent on their way by the church.”

  • Paul did what he was told to do by the Jerusalem Council (where he played no huge role),
  • and Paul and Barnabas were sent off, or commissioned by the council (15:22-27), and shared its binding teachings in their missionary journeys: “. . . delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem” (Acts 16:4).
The Jerusalem Council certainly regarded its teachings as infallible, and guided by the Holy Spirit Himself. The records we have of it don’t even record much discussion about biblical prooftexts, and the main issue was circumcision (where there is a lot of Scripture to draw from). Paul accepted its authority and proclaimed its teachings (Acts 16:4).

Furthermore, Paul appears to be passing on his office to Timothy (1 Tim 6:20; 2 Tim 1:6, 13-14; 2 Tim 4:1-6), and tells him to pass his office along, in turn (2 Tim 2:1-2) which would be another indication of apostolic succession in the Bible.

The attempt to pretend that St. Paul was somehow on his own, disconnected to the institutional Church, has always failed, as unbiblical. Protestant frown upon institutions, but we Catholics rather like the Church that Jesus Christ set up, initially led by St. Peter.

if you agree that Paul was commissioned as an apostle “by Jesus Himself” then does he derive his apostleship from Jesus or from Peter?
Both. Why do you feel compelled to make a choice? It’s the usual Protestant “either/or” dichotomous mentality. Calvin does the same thing repeatedly.
And actually, why do you say that “fourteen years later was commissioned by Peter, James, and John (Galatians 2:1-2,9)”? But you leave out the intervening verses where Paul claims that these men “added nothing to his message” and that their high esteem “makes no difference” to Paul or to God. There is also the interesting incident in Gal. 2 where Paul rebukes Peter “to his face” for his “hypocrisy” because he was “not walking in line with the gospel” (Gal. 2:11-15).
So what? Peter was a hypocrite in that instance, and so Paul rebuked him. They had no differences theologically. Popes have been rebuked throughout history (e.g., by St. Catherine of Siena, St. Dominic, St. Francis). It doesn’t follow that they have no authority. Jesus rebuked and excoriated the Pharisees, but He told His followers to follow their teaching, even though they acted like hypocrites ((Matt 23:2 ff.).




 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
You’re trying to set the Bible against the Church, which is typical Protestant methodology, and ultra-unbiblical. The Bible never does that. I’ve already given the example of the Jerusalem Council, which plainly shows the infallibility of the Church.

The Bible repeatedly teaches that the Church is indefectible; therefore, the hypothetical of rejecting the (one true, historic) Church, as supposedly going against the Bible, is impossible according to the Bible. It is not a situation that would ever come up, because of God’s promised protection.

What the Bible says is to reject those who cause divisions, which is the very essence of the onset of Protestantism: schism, sectarianism, and division. (see your own quote) It is Protestantism that departed from the historic Church, which is indefectible and infallible (see also 1 Tim 3:15).
my main questions involve Gal. 1:8-9 and the nature of apostolic authority. . . . they underlie all subsequent questions since they determine whether or not all teachings of any church have to be tested against the words of God. Is the church under the authority of God’s words or not?
The one true Church is and always will be in harmony with God’s inspired revelation, the Bible; yes. Thus, we reject any form of Protestantism, because they fail this test. It’s not a matter of one thing being “under” the other. All of that is the invention of the 16th century and the biblically bankrupt and meaningless notion of sola Scriptura. The Bible presents Scripture-Tradition-Church as a “three-legged stool”: the rule of faith. All are in harmony; all work together.
And is any church and any teacher to be rejected who strays from God’s words, as Paul commands? That is the fundamental issue.
Sure; this is why we reject any form of Protestantism, because all fail the test of allegiance to God’s Word in Holy Scripture, and the historical pedigree that the fathers always taught was necessary. Every heretic in the history of the world thumbed their nose at the institutional Church and went by Scripture alone. It is the heretical worldview to do so, precisely because they know they can’t prove that their views were passed down through history in an unbroken succession.
Dave, where does Paul say that he derived his apostleship in any way from Peter or the other apostles?
I gave several passages showing that Paul was under Church authority, in various ways. Of course, all authority ultimately comes from God. It is the pitting of the ultimate source against the secondary, human source (the Church) which is the problem in your approach and that of Protestantism in general. You guys don’t like human, institutional authority and don’t have enough faith to believe that God can and does preserve it, so you try to undermine it by fallacious arguments, as presently.

No doubt you aren’t even aware that you are doing it. To do this is automatic in Protestantism; it’s like breathing. It’s like the fish that doesn’t know it’s in water. It all comes from the rejection of the infallibility of the Church (which is one thing that sola Scriptura always entails).

Therefore, heresies and Protestantism either had to play games with history in order to pretend that it fits with their views, or ignore it altogether.

Aren’t the whole first two chapters of Galatians a very exhaustive and emphatic statement by that he did not receive the gospel he preached “from any man, nor by the agency of men”? “Paul, an apostle—sent not from men nor by a man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead” (Gal. 1:1) “I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.” (Gal. 1:11-12). How can it be “both” when Paul says “No, not from man or through man. Only from Jesus himself.”
In Galatians 1-2 Paul is referring to his initial conversion. But even then God made sure there was someone else around, to urge him to get baptized (Ananias: Acts 22:12-16).

He received the revelation initially and then sought to have it confirmed by Church authority (Gal 2:1-2); then his authority was accepted or verified by James, Peter, and John (Gal 2:9). So we see that the Bible doesn’t pit the divine call directly from God, against Church authority, as you do. You do it because it is Protestant man-made tradition to do so; period, and because the Protestant has to always undermine the authority of the Church, in order to bolster his own anti-system, that was set up against the historic Church in the first place.

We believe in faith that the Church is infallible and indefectible, based on many biblical indications. It is theoretically possible (speaking in terms of philosophy or epistemology) that the Church could stray and have to be rejected, but the Bible rules that out. We believe in faith that it has not and will not.

Protestants don’t have enough faith to believe that God could preserve an infallible Church, even though they can muster up even more faith than that, which is required to believe in an infallible Bible written by a bunch of sinners and hypocrites.

We simply have more faith than you guys do. It’s a supernatural gift. We believe that the authoritative Church is also a key part of God’s plan to save the souls of men. We follow the model of the Jerusalem Council, whereas you guys reject that or ignore it, because it doesn’t fit in with the man-made tradition of Protestantism and a supposedly non-infallible Church.

Dialogue w Calvinist: Paul a "Lone Ranger"?
 

bbyrd009

Groper
Nov 30, 2016
33,943
12,081
113
Ute City, COLO
www.facebook.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States Minor Outlying Islands
gag me already. Don't forget that Paul was having to collect alms for this same "infallible" church ok, when they could no longer support themselves.
 

Mungo

Well-Known Member
May 23, 2012
4,332
643
113
England
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
gag me already. Don't forget that Paul was having to collect alms for this same "infallible" church ok, when they could no longer support themselves.

Sometimes your comments are so inane I question your sanity.
 

bbyrd009

Groper
Nov 30, 2016
33,943
12,081
113
Ute City, COLO
www.facebook.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States Minor Outlying Islands
Sometimes your comments are so inane I question your sanity.
best commendation i could possibly get imo; no offense meant. Doubt it would do me much good to actually discuss the issue, being as how you are avoiding it. Paul was a wanted man. There was a price on his head. The Early Church also misunderstood Christ to mean that He was bodily returning very soon, and we have a record in Acts, and we know that Paul was collecting alms for this congregation several years later. Sorry if this doesn't fit with your perspective.
 

Questor

Messianic Gentile
Jun 11, 2012
196
31
28
68
SoCal Mountains
Faith
Country
United States
Mary's perpetual virginity bears witness to the uniqueness and Christ and to the divinity of Christ.

Denying the perpetual virginity of Mary subtly denies the divinity of Christ in the womb.


Does it? Why, when she was virgin at his birth, no matter what happened later? It's not that it is a salvation matter to me, but it is to those gentle beings who cannot be contradicted lest all the other things they trust in fall apart, so it would be best to discuss it from the point of the scriptures...the Septuagint, which is the oldest complete Bible.

I only look at Scripture, and listen to the Ruach haKodesh, since I am outside of the 'Christian Church' whether Catholic or Reformed or Protestant or Non-Denominational, Because I don't acknowledge the authority of anyone but Yeshua.

A lot of people have knowledge, which I value and respect, but if anything, I am a Berean, reading the Scriptures to see if what anyone is saying is true.
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
gag me already. Don't forget that Paul was having to collect alms for this same "infallible" church ok, when they could no longer support themselves.
the Bible doesn’t pit the divine call directly from God, against Church authority, as you do. You do it because it is Protestant man-made tradition to do so.
gag me already. Don't forget that Paul was having to collect alms for this same "infallible" church ok, when they could no longer support themselves.
That has nothing to do with infallibility. Paul made arrangements so his immediate needs would be looked after, without being a burden on one member of the community.
"they could no longer support themselves" Chapter and verse, please..
 

mjrhealth

Well-Known Member
Mar 15, 2009
11,810
4,090
113
Australia
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
the Bible doesn’t pit the divine call directly from God, against Church authority, as you do. You do it because it is Protestant man-made tradition to do so.
For one Kepha I quiet agree. For it is not the bible but mens rekigions and there doctrines that pit themslevels agaisnt Jesus and teh authority of His church, for all mens churches have

Usurped (stolen) His authority
Made slaves of His Children
Keep His children from Him .. This bit..

Mar 10:13 And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them: and his disciples rebuked those that brought them.
Mar 10:14 But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.
Mar 10:15 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.

Shut up teh doors of heaven so none one can anter in... Thus bit

Mat_23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

Use there doctines to justify there traditions .. this bit

Mat 15:7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
Mat 15:8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
Mat 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

And i could go on for ever. There is no mna made church on this earth that even comes close to the (ecclesia) taht Christ is putting together because all mens religions are of flesh and blood where Christs is made of living stones.
 

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The Reformormers believed in Perpetual Virginity. You are now saying the Reformers were right. You previously said you don't believe in Mary's Perpetual Virginity. You have me confused young man.

Mary was NOT from Davidic ancestors.

Respectfully.....Mary

I previously answered this question in post #200. You may disagree, but there should be no confusion.

Mary was of Davidic descent. (Luke 2:3) "And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city." And you have Mary's genealogy in (Luke 3:23-38).

Stranger
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
For one Kepha I quiet agree. For it is not the bible but mens rekigions and there doctrines that pit themslevels agaisnt Jesus and teh authority of His church, for all mens churches have

Usurped (stolen) His authority
Made slaves of His Children
Keep His children from Him .. This bit..

Mar 10:13 And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them: and his disciples rebuked those that brought them.
Mar 10:14 But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.
Mar 10:15 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.

Shut up teh doors of heaven so none one can anter in... Thus bit

Mat_23:13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.

Use there doctines to justify there traditions .. this bit

Mat 15:7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
Mat 15:8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
Mat 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

And i could go on for ever. There is no mna made church on this earth that even comes close to the (ecclesia) taht Christ is putting together because all mens religions are of flesh and blood where Christs is made of living stones.
Does Jesus build junk?
The Bible repeatedly teaches that the Church is indefectible; therefore, the hypothetical of rejecting the (one true, historic) Church, as supposedly going against the Bible, is impossible according to the Bible. It is not a situation that would ever come up, because of God’s promised protection. Not only are you going going against the Bible, you are claiming Jesus lied when He promised He would never leave us, no evidence the gates of Hades prevailed, just false assertions, scriptural denials and phony histories.
 

bbyrd009

Groper
Nov 30, 2016
33,943
12,081
113
Ute City, COLO
www.facebook.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States Minor Outlying Islands
Does Jesus build junk?
The Bible repeatedly teaches that the Church is indefectible; therefore, the hypothetical of rejecting the (one true, historic) Church, as supposedly going against the Bible, is impossible according to the Bible. It is not a situation that would ever come up, because of God’s promised protection. Not only are you going going against the Bible, you are claiming Jesus lied when He promised He would never leave us, no evidence the gates of Hades prevailed, just false assertions, scriptural denials and phony histories.
the problem with this imo is that you have included yourself in a group that you may not be included in, with the "we" and the "us" language, and how might you know whether or not you are just drunk on tares, maybe? As your strict definition of the Church maybe indicates? I'm not saying you are, but how do you know? What is your test? You have advocated for the wide path here; how do i know that you are not just another crying "Lord, Lord?"

i mean, wadr you are currently praying to a woman, think Passover is Easter, and confess the sins that you have committed in the light in the dark right now, and accept "penance" for them, aside from having a definition of "Church" that is worldly and literal; how much more evidence do you need? If your "Church" leaders were to fall under suspicion by the world, maybe come under indictment and have to pay $Billions in damages for all the lives they have destroyed, would that maybe give you pause?

Please show us the leg you are standing on, if you would. Because as far as i am concerned you may believe what you like, but when you become so assured as to presume you can instruct others, then it becomes fair to cross examine you. And your answers do not need to even make sense to me, ok, but imo you should have some answers. If they amount to "I don't read James, because i am not Jewish" then so be it.
 

OzSpen

Well-Known Member
Mar 30, 2015
3,728
795
113
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
spencer.gear.dyndns.org
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
That is why I am torn dear sir. Why was the Apocrypha removed after the Reformation?

I tend to think the Christians of the 1st 1500+ years got it right. Not the Christians who rebelled 500 years ago.

Either all of the Apocrypha is inspired or none of it. Jesus alluded to it so it's good enough for me.

My two cents worth....Mary

Mary,

It can become confusing, can't it? We know that the Deuterocanonical Books (Apocrypha) were not included in the OT Hebrew canon. But they were added to the Septuagint, Greek translation of OT. So the Apocrypha is not regarded as canonical by those who spoke Hebrew in the OT era.

That the Apocrypha was acknowledged and quoted by the church fathers is no indication that it was inspired. It was not included after the Reformation (even though in KJV of 1611) because it was not regarded as Scripture by those who wanted to get away from church tradition and back to the Bible.

Read the Apocryphal books, Tobit, and Bel and the Dragon, and you'll see how fanciful they can be. These 2 books remind me of some of the sentiments in Mark 16:18 (not content), which is in Mark 16:9-20, which I and many scholars do not regard as part of the NT.

Oz
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Mary,

It can become confusing, can't it? We know that the Deuterocanonical Books (Apocrypha) were not included in the OT Hebrew canon. But they were added to the Septuagint, Greek translation of OT. So the Apocrypha is not regarded as canonical by those who spoke Hebrew in the OT era.

That the Apocrypha was acknowledged and quoted by the church fathers is no indication that it was inspired. It was not included after the Reformation (even though in KJV of 1611) because it was not regarded as Scripture by those who wanted to get away from church tradition and back to the Bible.

Read the Apocryphal books, Tobit, and Bel and the Dragon, and you'll see how fanciful they can be. These 2 books remind me of some of the sentiments in Mark 16:18 (not content), which is in Mark 16:9-20, which I and many scholars do not regard as part of the NT.

Oz
The Jews, who rejected the whole NT, didn't have the authority to tell Christians what books belong in the Bible, and Martin Luther didn't have the authority to eject 7 books. No one ever claimed the early church fathers were inspired, you pulled that one out of your ear. If you like your skinny Bible, fine, but don't tell Catholics we are wrong for having the same consistent canon since the 4th century. What books will you guys throw out next? And how many times do you have to be corrected on your false definition of Tradition? 50? 100? Without Tradition you have no Bible. Get it?
 
Last edited by a moderator: