The Dueterocanonicals: Myths vs Facts

  • 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!

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Myth: The Catholic Church added 7 books to the OT.
Fact: The DTC books were made canon at the same time as the NT canon by the same bishops. The Council of Trent closed the discussion on the canon and that's all, nothing was added to the Bible. There is nothing in Trent that says otherwise.

Myth: Martin Luther took the books out because he believed they were not inspired.
Fact: Martin Luther took the books out because they did not suit his private theology.

Inscripturation the the moment a text is written.
Inspiration means inerrant and God breathed.
Canonization means making it a rule binding on all Chistians. Weeding out false books was part of this process.

Myth: the books of the Bible came together by a plurality of elders.
Fact: there was no "Bible" as we know it until the 4th century.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tom55

mjrhealth

Well-Known Member
Mar 15, 2009
11,810
4,090
113
Australia
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Fact: there was no "Bible" as we know it until the 4th century.
And stil teh only truth is in Christ Jesus, God and te hHoly Spirirt who are all in agreemnt. FACT.
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
The synod of 393 is best known for two distinct acts. First, for the first time a council of bishops listed and approved a Christian Biblical canon that corresponds to the modern Catholic canon...

Canonical scriptures
The canonical scriptures are listed in Canon xxxvi of Hippo as follows:[6]
Genesis. Exodus. Leviticus. Numbers. Deuteronomy. Joshua the Son of Nun. The Judges. Ruth. The Kings, iv. books. The Chronicles, ii. books. Job. The Psalter. The Five books of Solomon. The Twelve Books of the Prophets. Isaiah. Jeremiah. Ezechiel. Daniel. Tobit. Judith. Esther. Ezra, ii. books. Macchabees, ii. books. The New Testament. The Gospels, iv. books. The Acts of the Apostles, i. book. The Epistles of Paul, xiv. The Epistles of Peter, the Apostle, ii. The Epistles of John the Apostle, iii. The Epistles of James the Apostle, i. The Epistle of Jude the Apostle, i. The Revelation of John, i. book.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synod_of_Hippo

The Council of Carthage, a local north Africa council of bishops created the same list of canonical books in 397. This is the council which many Protestant and Evangelical Christians take as the authority for the New Testament canon of books. The Old Testament canon from the same council is identical to Catholic canon today. Another Council of Carthage in 419 offered the same list of canonical books. Since the Catholic Church does not define truths unless errors abound on the matter, Catholic Christians look to the Council of Florence, an ecumenical council in 1441 for the first definitive list of canonical books. The final infallible definition of canonical books for Catholic Christians came from the Council of Trent in 1556 in the face of the errors of the Reformers who rejected seven Old Testament books from the canon of scripture to that time.

There was no canon of scripture in the early Church; there was no Bible. The Bible is the book of the Church; she is not the Church of the Bible. It was the Church--her leadership, faithful people--guided by the authority of the Spirit of Truth which discovered the books inspired by God in their writing. The Church did not create the canon; she discerned the canon.

Fixed canons of the Old and New Testaments, hence the Bible, were not known much before the end of the 2nd and early 3rd century.

Catholic Christians together with Protestant and Evangelical Christians hold the same canon of the New Testament, 27 books, all having been originally written in the Greek language.

Catholic Christians accept the longer Old Testament canon, 46 books, from the Greek Septuagint (LXX) translation of the Alexandrian Canon.

Protestant and Evangelical Christians, from the Reformers onward, accept the shorter Old Testament canon, 39 books, from the Hebrew Palestinian Canon. Jews have the same canon as Protestants.
Canonical books are those books which have been acknowledged as belonging to the list of books the Church considers to be inspired and to contain a rule of faith and morals. Some criteria used to determine canonicity were...
http://www.catholicapologetics.org/ap030700.htm

The Council of Florence affirmed the same list as Hippo and Carthage in 1442,

Council of Trent affirmed the same list as the Council of Florence.:
Of the Old Testament, the five books of Moses, namely, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, the four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first and second of Esdras, the latter of which is called Nehemias, Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidic Psalter of 150 Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel, the twelve minor Prophets, namely, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of Machabees, the first and second. (the Catholic Bible today is the same list as Hippo and Carthage )

How can Trent "add" books that had been canonized since the 2nd and 3rd centuries?
 
  • Like
Reactions: tom55

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
DEUTEROCANONICAL BOOKS
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT


Scripture
Matt. 2:16 - Herod's decree of slaying innocent children was prophesied in Wis. 11:7 - slaying the holy innocents.
Matt. 6:19-20 - Jesus' statement about laying up for yourselves treasure in heaven follows Sirach 29:11 - lay up your treasure.
Matt.. 7:12 - Jesus' golden rule "do unto others" is the converse of Tobit 4:15 - what you hate, do not do to others.
Matt. 7:16,20 - Jesus' statement "you will know them by their fruits" follows Sirach 27:6 - the fruit discloses the cultivation.
Matt. 9:36 - the people were "like sheep without a shepherd" is same as Judith 11:19 - sheep without a shepherd.
Matt. 11:25 - Jesus' description "Lord of heaven and earth" is the same as Tobit 7:18 - Lord of heaven and earth.
Matt. 12:42 - Jesus refers to the wisdom of Solomon which was recorded and made part of the deuterocanonical books.
Matt. 16:18 - Jesus' reference to the "power of death" and "gates of Hades" references Wisdom 16:13.
Matt. 22:25; Mark 12:20; Luke 20:29 - Gospel writers refer to the canonicity of Tobit 3:8 and 7:11 regarding the seven brothers.
Matt. 24:15 - the "desolating sacrilege" Jesus refers to is also taken from 1 Macc. 1:54 and 2 Macc. 8:17.
Matt. 24:16 - let those "flee to the mountains" is taken from 1 Macc. 2:28.
Matt. 27:43 - if He is God's Son, let God deliver him from His adversaries follows Wisdom 2:18.
Mark 4:5,16-17 - Jesus' description of seeds falling on rocky ground and having no root follows Sirach 40:15.
Mark 9:48 - description of hell where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched references Judith 16:17.
Luke 1:42 - Elizabeth's declaration of Mary's blessedness above all women follows Uzziah's declaration in Judith 13:18.
Luke 1:52 - Mary's magnificat addressing the mighty falling from their thrones and replaced by lowly follows Sirach 10:14.
Luke 2:29 - Simeon's declaration that he is ready to die after seeing the Child Jesus follows Tobit 11:9.
Luke 13:29 - the Lord's description of men coming from east and west to rejoice in God follows Baruch 4:37.
Luke 21:24 - Jesus' usage of "fall by the edge of the sword" follows Sirach 28:18.
Luke 24:4 and Acts 1:10 - Luke's description of the two men in dazzling apparel reminds us of 2 Macc. 3:26.
John 1:3 - all things were made through Him, the Word, follows Wisdom 9:1.
John 3:13 - who has ascended into heaven but He who descended from heaven references Baruch 3:29.
John 4:48; Acts 5:12; 15:12; 2 Cor. 12:12 - Jesus', Luke's and Paul's usage of "signs and wonders" follows Wisdom 8:8.
John 5:18 - Jesus claiming that God is His Father follows Wisdom 2:16.
John 6:35-59 - Jesus' Eucharistic discourse is foreshadowed in Sirach 24:21.
John 10:22 - the identification of the feast of the dedication is taken from 1 Macc. 4:59.
John 10:36 – Jesus accepts the inspiration of Maccabees as He analogizes the Hanukkah consecration to His own consecration to the Father in 1 Macc. 4:36.
John 15:6 - branches that don't bear fruit and are cut down follows Wis. 4:5 where branches are broken off.
Acts 1:15 - Luke's reference to the 120 may be a reference to 1 Macc. 3:55 - leaders of tens / restoration of the twelve.
Acts 10:34; Rom. 2:11; Gal. 2:6 - Peter's and Paul's statement that God shows no partiality references Sirach 35:12.
Acts 17:29 - description of false gods as like gold and silver made by men follows Wisdom 13:10.
Rom 1:18-25 - Paul's teaching on the knowledge of the Creator and the ignorance and sin of idolatry follows Wis. 13:1-10.
Rom. 1:20 - specifically, God's existence being evident in nature follows Wis. 13:1.
Rom. 1:23 - the sin of worshipping mortal man, birds, animals and reptiles follows Wis. 11:15; 12:24-27; 13:10; 14:8.
Rom. 1:24-27 - this idolatry results in all kinds of sexual perversion which follows Wis. 14:12,24-27.
Rom. 4:17 - Abraham is a father of many nations follows Sirach 44:19.
Rom. 5:12 - description of death and sin entering into the world is similar to Wisdom 2:24.
Rom. 9:21 - usage of the potter and the clay, making two kinds of vessels follows Wisdom 15:7.
1 Cor. 2:16 - Paul's question, "who has known the mind of the Lord?" references Wisdom 9:13.
1 Cor. 6:12-13; 10:23-26 - warning that, while all things are good, beware of gluttony, follows Sirach 36:18 and 37:28-30.
1 Cor. 8:5-6 - Paul acknowledging many "gods" but one Lord follows Wis. 13:3.
1 Cor. 10:1 - Paul's description of our fathers being under the cloud passing through the sea refers to Wisdom 19:7.
1 Cor. 10:20 - what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God refers to Baruch 4:7.
1 Cor. 15:29 - if no expectation of resurrection, it would be foolish to be baptized on their behalf follows 2 Macc. 12:43-45.
Eph. 1:17 - Paul's prayer for a "spirit of wisdom" follows the prayer for the spirit of wisdom in Wisdom 7:7.
Eph. 6:14 - Paul describing the breastplate of righteousness is the same as Wis. 5:18. See also Isaiah 59:17 and 1 Thess. 5:8.
Eph. 6:13-17 - in fact, the whole discussion of armor, helmet, breastplate, sword, shield follows Wis. 5:17-20.
1 Tim. 6:15 - Paul's description of God as Sovereign and King of kings is from 2 Macc. 12:15; 13:4.
2 Tim. 4:8 - Paul's description of a crown of righteousness is similar to Wisdom 5:16.
Heb. 4:12 - Paul's description of God's word as a sword is similar to Wisdom 18:15.
Heb. 11:5 - Enoch being taken up is also referenced in Wis 4:10 and Sir 44:16. See also 2 Kings 2:1-13 & Sir 48:9 regarding Elijah.
Heb 11:35 - Paul teaches about the martyrdom of the mother and her sons described in 2 Macc. 7:1-42.
Heb. 12:12 - the description "drooping hands" and "weak knees" comes from Sirach 25:23.
James 1:19 - let every man be quick to hear and slow to respond follows Sirach 5:11.
James 2:23 - it was reckoned to him as righteousness follows 1 Macc. 2:52 - it was reckoned to him as righteousness.
James 3:13 - James' instruction to perform works in meekness follows Sirach 3:17.
James 5:3 - describing silver which rusts and laying up treasure follows Sirach 29:10-11.
James 5:6 - condemning and killing the "righteous man" follows Wisdom 2:10-20.
1 Peter 1:6-7 - Peter teaches about testing faith by purgatorial fire as described in Wisdom 3:5-6 and Sirach 2:5.
1 Peter 1:17 - God judging each one according to his deeds refers to Sirach 16:12 - God judges man according to his deeds.
2 Peter 2:7 - God's rescue of a righteous man (Lot) is also described in Wisdom 10:6.
Rev. 1:4 – the seven spirits who are before his throne is taken from Tobit 12:15 – Raphael is one of the seven holy angels who present the prayers of the saints before the Holy One.
Rev. 1:18; Matt. 16:18 - power of life over death and gates of Hades follows Wis. 16:13.
Rev. 2:12 - reference to the two-edged sword is similar to the description of God's Word in Wisdom 18:16.
Rev. 5:7 - God is described as seated on His throne, and this is the same description used in Sirach 1:8.
Rev. 8:3-4 - prayers of the saints presented to God by the hand of an angel follows Tobit 12:12,15.
Rev. 8:7 - raining of hail and fire to the earth follows Wisdom 16:22 and Sirach 39:29.
Rev. 9:3 - raining of locusts on the earth follows Wisdom 16:9.
Rev. 11:19 - the vision of the ark of the covenant (Mary) in a cloud of glory was prophesied in 2 Macc. 2:7.
Rev. 17:14 - description of God as King of kings follows 2 Macc. 13:4.
Rev. 19:1 - the cry "Hallelujah" at the coming of the new Jerusalem follows Tobit 13:18.
Rev. 19:11 - the description of the Lord on a white horse in the heavens follows 2 Macc. 3:25; 11:8.
Rev. 19:16 - description of our Lord as King of kings is taken from 2 Macc. 13:4.
Rev. 21:19 - the description of the new Jerusalem with precious stones is prophesied in Tobit 13:17.
Exodus 23:7 - do not slay the innocent and righteous - Dan. 13:53 - do not put to death an innocent and righteous person.
1 Sam. 28:7-20 – the intercessory mediation of deceased Samuel for Saul follows Sirach 46:20.
2 Kings 2:1-13 – Elijah being taken up into heaven follows Sirach 48:9.
2 Tim. 3:16 - the inspired Scripture that Paul was referring to included the deuterocanonical texts that the Protestants removed. The books Baruch, Tobit, Maccabees, Judith, Sirach, Wisdom and parts of Daniel and Esther were all included in the Septuagint that Jesus and the apostles used.
Sirach and 2 Maccabees – some Protestants argue these books are not inspired because the writers express uncertainty about their abilities. But sacred writers are often humble about their divinely inspired writings. See, for example, 1 Cor. 7:40 – Paul says he “thinks” that he has the Spirit of God.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tom55

tom55

Love your neighbor as yourself
Sep 9, 2013
1,199
18
0
mjrhealth said:
And stil teh only truth is in Christ Jesus, God and te hHoly Spirirt who are all in agreemnt. FACT.
I agree with you that "stil {sic} teh {sic} only truth is in Christ Jesus, God and te {sic} hHoly {sic} Spirirt {sic}". But we would not know Jesus Christ and God and the Holy Spirit is The Truth unless we had The Bible to reveal that truth to us and we would not have The Bible without man deciding what is in our bible since the bible does not have a table of contents.....and that is a FACT.
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
To justify this rejection of books that had been in the Bible since before the days of the apostles (for the Septuagint was written before the apostles), the early Protestants cited as their chief reason the fact that the Jews of their day did not honor these books, going back to the council of Javneh in A.D. 90. But the Reformers were aware of only European Jews; they were unaware of African Jews, such as the Ethiopian Jews who accept the deuterocanonicals as part of their Bible. They glossed over the references to the deuterocanonicals in the New Testament, as well as its use of the Septuagint. They ignored the fact that there were multiple canons of the Jewish Scriptures circulating in first century, appealing to a post-Christian Jewish council which has no authority over Christians as evidence that "The Jews don't except these books." In short, they went to enormous lengths to rationalize their rejection of these books of the Bible.

While Protestants are willing to accept the testimony of Hippo and Carthage (the councils they most commonly cite) for the canonicity of the New Testament deuterocanonicals, they are unwilling to accept the testimony of Hippo and Carthage for the canonicity of the Old Testament deuterocanonicals. :wacko:

cherry-pick-300x288.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: tom55

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
kepha31

What apocryphal books of the New Testament are you talking about that Protestants accept?

Stranger
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Stranger said:
kepha31

What apocryphal books of the New Testament are you talking about that Protestants accept?

Stranger
Certain books, such as the Gospels, Acts, and most of the epistles of Paul had long been agreed upon. However a number of the books of the New Testament, most notably Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, and Revelation remained hotly disputed until the canon was settled. They are, in effect, "New Testament deuterocanonicals."

Protestants generally refer to them as Apocrypha, while Catholics often use Deuterocanon. . In both cases, the protocanon and deuterocanon are valued equally as the word of God – we just acknowledge that some books were more readily accepted than others, for a variety of reasons.

Now contrast that with the term apocrypha. The term means “hidden,” and is used to refer to anything which is non-canonical. As with the term ‘deuterocanon,’ there is an entire New Testament apocrypha, but it’s made up of very different books. In fact, if you contrast the New Testament deuterocanon (Hebrews, 2nd Peter, 2nd and 3rd John, James, Jude, and Revelation) with the New Testament apocrypha (the Gnostic “Gospels” of Thomas and Judas, both Apocalypses of Peter, Infancy Gospel of James, etc.), you can see the importance of the terminology.

http://shamelesspopery.com/apocrypha-or-deuterocanon/
 

mjrhealth

Well-Known Member
Mar 15, 2009
11,810
4,090
113
Australia
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
The Bible without man deciding what is in our bible since the bible does not have a table of contents.....and that is a FACT
Yes that is a fact, man made just as you said. Glad you admitted it.
But we would not know Jesus Christ and God and the Holy Spirit is The Truth
We would if we listened to the Holy Spirit its He who reveals teh truth to us. as I said a gazzilion times, so many denominations based upon a book, all preaching a different gospel based upon "there" understanding.
 

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
kepha31 said:
Certain books, such as the Gospels, Acts, and most of the epistles of Paul had long been agreed upon. However a number of the books of the New Testament, most notably Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, and Revelation remained hotly disputed until the canon was settled. They are, in effect, "New Testament deuterocanonicals."

Protestants generally refer to them as Apocrypha, while Catholics often use Deuterocanon. . In both cases, the protocanon and deuterocanon are valued equally as the word of God – we just acknowledge that some books were more readily accepted than others, for a variety of reasons.

Now contrast that with the term apocrypha. The term means “hidden,” and is used to refer to anything which is non-canonical. As with the term ‘deuterocanon,’ there is an entire New Testament apocrypha, but it’s made up of very different books. In fact, if you contrast the New Testament deuterocanon (Hebrews, 2nd Peter, 2nd and 3rd John, James, Jude, and Revelation) with the New Testament apocrypha (the Gnostic “Gospels” of Thomas and Judas, both Apocalypses of Peter, Infancy Gospel of James, etc.), you can see the importance of the terminology.

http://shamelesspopery.com/apocrypha-or-deuterocanon/
None of the 27 books of the New Testament were ever considered part of the Apocryphal books.

Stranger
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Stranger said:
None of the 27 books of the New Testament were ever considered part of the Apocryphal books.

Stranger
Agreed. That's why the term "apocrypha" should be avoided. It includes false books.

if you contrast the New Testament deuterocanon


with the New Testament apocrypha (the Gnostic “Gospels” of Thomas and Judas, both Apocalypses of Peter, Infancy Gospel of James, etc.), you can see the importance of the terminology.


New Testament apocrypha does not refer to the New Testament scriptures, it refers to non canonical books written in the New Testament era.. The Gnostic “Gospels” of Thomas and Judas, both Apocalypses of Peter, Infancy Gospel of James, etc. may have been disputed by some as scripture, but rejected by the Church.

New Testament deuterocanon refers to books that were universally accepted as scripture 2-3rd centuries after they were written (Hebrews, 2nd Peter, 2nd and 3rd John, James, Jude, and Revelation) Inspiration was never assumed; proving it was a long and complicated process.
 

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
List for me the apocryphal books of the Old Testement.

Stranger
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
The deuterocanon (ie. "second canon") is a set of seven books — Sirach, Tobit, Wisdom, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and Baruch, as well as longer versions of Daniel and Esther — that are found in the Old Testament canon used by Catholics, but are not in the Old Testament canon used by Protestants, who typically refer to them by the mildly pejorative term "apocrypha."

This group of books is called "deuterocanonical" not (as some imagine) because they are a "second rate" or inferior canon, but because their status as being part of the canon of Scripture was settled later in time than certain books that always and everywhere were regarded as Scripture, such as Genesis, Isaiah, and Psalms.

Why are Protestant Bibles missing these books? Protestants offer various explanations to explain why they reject the deuterocanonical books as Scripture. I call these explanations "myths" because they are either incorrect or simply inadequate reasons for rejecting these books of Scripture.
5 Myths About 7 Books
 

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Kepha31

Deuterocanonical is another name for 'apocryphal'. It is just Roman Catholicism's way of trying to separate the apocryphal books they accept and the ones they don't. So now you want to try and identify books that protestants have in the New Testament as 'deuterocanonical' to give some validity to the apocryphal books Catholics accept in the Old. Won't work.

The books of Hebrews, 2nd Peter, 2nd and 3rd John, James, Jude, and Revelation, are part of the one canon of the New Testament. Not another canon.

Stranger
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Stranger said:
Kepha31

Deuterocanonical is another name for 'apocryphal'. It is just Roman Catholicism's way of trying to separate the apocryphal books they accept and the ones they don'
Many of the early Fathers of the Christian church spoke out against the Apocrypha, including Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, and the great Roman Catholic Bible translator, Jerome, (A.D. 340-420), the greatest biblical scholar of the early medieval period and translator of the Latin Vulgate, explicitly rejected the Apocrypha as part of the canon. He said the church reads these books "for example and instruction of manners" but does not "apply them to establish any doctrine."
Norman Geisler and Ralph E. MacKenzie, Baker Books, Grand Rapids, Michigan, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences, 1995, p. 16 both are Protestants
http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/deut.html

So now you want to try and identify books that protestants have in the New Testament as 'deuterocanonical' to give some validity to the apocryphal books Catholics accept in the Old. Won't work.
That is a non sequitur fallacy, and it won't work. Equating deuterocanon with apocrypha just means you are too prejudiced to accept proper terminology. NT deuterocanon just means NT books that were universally accepted as scripture in the 3rd century. I've already explained this twice. Apocrypha is an erroneous blanket Protestant term and it is wrong. It's also a prop.
The books of Hebrews, 2nd Peter, 2nd and 3rd John, James, Jude, and Revelation, are part of the one canon of the New Testament. Not another canon.
I never said they were another canon. They are a classification within one canon due to their late acceptance. I've been over this twice as well. Keep misquoting me and I will put you on ignore.
 

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
kepha31

Again, Deuterocanonical and Apocrypha are the same. What is a prop is the Catholic Church trying to make some distinction between the Apocryphal books they included and the ones they don't.
Hebrews, 2nd Peter, 2nd and 3rd John, James, Jude, and Revelation are not another canon, and are not another classification within a canon. They are books accepted as inspired by God in one canon.

Go ahead, and put me on ignore if that is what you do when your wrong. Is that supposed to bother me?

Stranger
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Stranger said:
kepha31

Again, Deuterocanonical and Apocrypha are the same. What is a prop is the Catholic Church trying to make some distinction between the Apocryphal books they included and the ones they don't.
Hebrews, 2nd Peter, 2nd and 3rd John, James, Jude, and Revelation are not another canon, and are not another classification within a canon. They are books accepted as inspired by God in one canon.

Go ahead, and put me on ignore if that is what you do when your wrong. Is that supposed to bother me?

Stranger
Deuterocanonical and Apocrypha are NOT the same. That is a Protestant invention. Get a dictionary. Hebrews, 2nd Peter, 2nd and 3rd John, James, Jude, and Revelation are not another canon, they are IN EFFECT Deuterocanonical, not exact and precise. "IN EFFECT" gives any word certain flexibility. They are within the same canon.
They are books accepted as inspired by God in one canon.
God inspired all the books of the Bible, but you seem unable or unwilling to acknowledge who canonized them, because you continue to confuse terms. Inspired books didn't float in the air with a glowing light, and there were plenty of false APOCRYPHA books that were debated as inspired, but eventually rejected the the authority of the Church you are unable to acknowledge.. The inspiration of true books was not discerned by individual bible readers, and not by one man's opinions in the middle ages, but by the Church, 1000 years previous. Accepting Luther's opinions over the Church that canonized the NT is cherry picking and inconsistent.
The NT Apocrypha, that you keep touting, were rejected by most of the Early Church Fathers (whom you have nothing to do with anyway) and were never used for doctrine. If the ECF rejected them, and the Church rejected them, you simply refuse to bend on your faulty terminology.

Usage of the OT Deuterocanonicals, under a variety of literary forms, as found in the NT, are on post #4.
You have no case.
 

mjrhealth

Well-Known Member
Mar 15, 2009
11,810
4,090
113
Australia
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
God inspired all the books of the Bible
That is an assumption??? If the bible was teh truth than all men would be walking in th truth, these and othere forums and all teh different religions based on te hbible prove otherwise
 

Stranger

Well-Known Member
Oct 5, 2016
8,826
3,157
113
Texas
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
kepha31

No, what is an invention is the Roman Catholic term 'deuterocanonical'. A made up term to identify certain apocryphal books they accept as opposed to the ones they don't. Now, as I have said, you want to label some books all accept as inspired by God, as deuterocanonical, so as to give credence to Roman Catholics definition of 'deuterocanonical' . And somehow you think people are stupid enough to believe it.

The Roman Church has included the Apocrypha in its Bible. These books the Jews of Palestine and Protestants reject.

I'm not touting any New Testament Apocrypha. Where do you see that?

What do you mean I have no case? My Bible rejects your apocryphal books. Thats all I need. Nothing you can say can change it.

Stranger
 

epostle1

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2012
3,326
507
113
72
Essex
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
THERE ARE NO APOCRYPHA BOOKS IN THE CATHOLIC BIBLE, BUT SOME PROTESTANTS INSIST ON ERRONEOUSLY USING THE TERM INTERCHANGEABLY AS AN EXCUSE TO REJECT THE LEGITIMATE INSPIRED DEUTEROCANON THAT JESUS AND THE APOSTLES USED.. THAT'S WHAT HAS YOU CONFUSED.
DEAL WITH POST #4

My Bible rejects your apocryphal books. Thats all I need. Nothing you can say can change it.
That's because you refuse to admit how we got the Bible in the first place, and flatly deny 4 centuries of Christian history, all because you deny the authority of the Church. No amount of factual evidence can change blind prejudice.