What's with this thing called THE APOCRYPHA?

[BreadOfLife]

Lots of people included the apocrypha in their bibles but it doesn't mean they thought they were inspired. Luthers bible had the apocrypha but he never thought they were part of the canon. Another citation from Jerome he says that those books can be read but not for doctrine.

WRONG.

Jerome wrote:
"What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susanna, the Son of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume (ie. canon), proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. For I wasn't relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they [the Jews] are wont to make against us" (Against Rufinus 11:33 [A.D. 402]).

Regarding the Book of Sirach, he writes:
“for does not the SCRIPTURE say: ‘Burden not yourself above your power?'” (Letter to Eustochium)

 

[CoreIssue]

Sorry - but WHO told you this nonsense??
It is historically bankrupt.

First of all - the 73 Book Canon of Scripture was declared at the Council of Rome in 382.

Secondly - Jerome never "rejected" the Deuterocanonical Books.
Jerome sought help from Jewish scholarship in his Latin Translation. It was the Jewish Scholars who rejected the Deuterocanonical Books - NOT Jerome. Jerome went on to refer to those Books as "Sacred Scripture" in his writings and debates.

Time for a Bible lesson . . .

- The Septuagint (Greek OT) was translated by 70 JEWISH (NOT Catholic) Scholars - about 200 years before the birth of Christ.
- There were 7 Books that were part of the OPEN Jewish Canon of the 1st Century (Baruch, Sirach, Wisdom, Tobit, Judith, 1 & 2 Maccabees) along with portions of Daniel and Esther.
- This is the Canon of Scripture that Jesus and the NT writers studied from - and they are referred to some 200 TIMES in the New Testament.

Now, pay attention because here's where it gets ugly . . .

AFTER Jesus died, rose and ascended to Heaven - the Apostles started their mission. Around the years 70 AD, Jerusalem was sacked by the Romans and the Temple was destroyed. SOME rabbis began to have second thoughts about the Deuterocanonical Books because of their "Hellenistic" influence in the Diaspora (Dispersed Jews). Around the year 135, during the 2nd Jewish Revolt - a leading rabbi at the rabbinical school in Jamnia named Akiva declared TWO things:

a. A man named Simon Bar Kokhba was the "real" messiah. He turned out to be a false messiah and Akiva was a false prophet.
b. The Deuterocanonical Books needed to be REMOVED from the OPEN Canon - and the canon closed.

SO - you Protestants adhere to a POST-Christ, POST-Temple OT Canon that was determined by a FALSE Prophet (Akiva) who declared a FALSE Christ (Kokhba)

Here's the worst part: the ONLY reason your Protestant Fathers chose to do this was to further-divorce themselves from the Catholic Church.[/QUOTE]
Declared by the Council of a cult religion.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Declared by the Council of a cult religion.

And the OT Canon of Scripture that you Protestants adhere is a POST-Christ, POST-Temple OT Canon that was determined by a FALSE Prophet (Akiva) who declared a FALSE Christ (Kokhba).

If that doesn't send chills up and down your spine - it SHOULD . . .

 

[Nondenom40]

Sorry - but WHO told you this nonsense??
It is historically bankrupt.

First of all - the 73 Book Canon of Scripture was declared at the Council of Rome in 382.

Prove it. Lets see a citation from the 382 council where it was 'declared'. I'll wait.

Secondly - Jerome never "rejected" the Deuterocanonical Books.
Jerome sought help from Jewish scholarship in his Latin Translation. It was the Jewish Scholars who rejected the Deuterocanonical Books - NOT Jerome. Jerome went on to refer to those Books as "Sacred Scripture" in his writings and debates.

Maybe you missed this, #29

Jerome; Prefaces to the Vulgate version of the Old Testament; Books of Samuel and Kings;

Books of Samuel and Kings

This preface to the Scriptures may serve as a "helmeted" introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may be assured that what is not found in our list must be placed amongst the Apocryphal writings. Wisdom, therefore, which generally bears the name of Solomon, and the book of Jesus, the Son of Sirach, and Judith, and Tobias, and the Shepherd are not in the canon.

(from Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2, Volume 6, PC Study Bible formatted electronic database Copyright © 2003, 2006 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Jerome most certainly rejected your apocrypha. Please post his work; book, chapter and verse where he referred to the apocrypha as 'sacred scripture'.

Time for a Bible lesson . . .

- The Septuagint (Greek OT) was translated by 70 JEWISH (NOT Catholic) Scholars - about 200 years before the birth of Christ.
- There were 7 Books that were part of the OPEN Jewish Canon of the 1st Century (Baruch, Sirach, Wisdom, Tobit, Judith, 1 & 2 Maccabees) along with portions of Daniel and Esther.
- This is the Canon of Scripture that Jesus and the NT writers studied from - and they are referred to some 200 TIMES in the New Testament.

Being in the Septuagint doesn't mean they were considered inspired. They were not in the palestinian canon.

Now, pay attention because here's where it gets ugly . . .

AFTER Jesus died, rose and ascended to Heaven - the Apostles started their mission. Around the years 70 AD, Jerusalem was sacked by the Romans and the Temple was destroyed. SOME rabbis began to have second thoughts about the Deuterocanonical Books because of their "Hellenistic" influence in the Diaspora (Dispersed Jews). Around the year 135, during the 2nd Jewish Revolt - a leading rabbi at the rabbinical school in Jamnia named Akiva declared TWO things:

a. A man named Simon Bar Kokhba was the "real" messiah. He turned out to be a false messiah and Akiva was a false prophet.
b. The Deuterocanonical Books needed to be REMOVED from the OPEN Canon - and the canon closed.

SO - you Protestants adhere to a POST-Christ, POST-Temple OT Canon that was determined by a FALSE Prophet (Akiva) who declared a FALSE Christ (Kokhba)

I cite sources, you post your opinion. When Jerome translated the hebrew o.t. into the latin in the late 4th century he translated the apocrypha from the hebrew canon. Youre telling us a false Jesus removed them in the 2nd century? How did Jerome translate your apocrypha from the hebrew canon in the 4th century when you say they were removed in the 2nd? I'd be interested in hearing that one.

Here's the worst part: the ONLY reason your Protestant Fathers chose to do this was to further-divorce themselves from the Catholic Church.

There was no roman catholic church in the 2nd century. So there was nothing to divorce themselves from. We prefer fact not fiction. Your seven extra books doesn't pass the truth test. You should ditch them.

 

[CoreIssue]

And the OT Canon of Scripture that you Protestants adhere is a POST-Christ, POST-Temple OT Canon that was determined by a FALSE Prophet (Akiva) who declared a FALSE Christ (Kokhba).

If that doesn't send chills up and down your spine - it SHOULD . . .

It is the ancient Jewish canon.

 

[CoreIssue]

 

[BreadOfLife]

Prove it. Lets see a citation from the 382 council where it was 'declared'. I'll wait.

Maybe you missed this, #29
Jerome most certainly rejected your apocrypha. Please post his work; book, chapter and verse where he referred to the apocrypha as 'sacred scripture'.

Being in the Septuagint doesn't mean they were considered inspired. They were not in the palestinian canon.
I cite sources, you post your opinion. When Jerome translated the hebrew o.t. into the latin in the late 4th century he translated the apocrypha from the hebrew canon. Youre telling us a false Jesus removed them in the 2nd century? How did Jerome translate your apocrypha from the hebrew canon in the 4th century when you say they were removed in the 2nd? I'd be interested in hearing that one.

There was not roman catholic church in the 2nd century. So there was nothing to divorce themselves from. We prefer fact not fiction. Your seven extra books doesn't pass the truth test. You should ditch them.

More nonsense . . .

First of all - Jerome didn't translate the Vulgate by himself. THAT'S the whole point. He was helped by Jewish scholars who, by then had rejected the Deuterocanonical Books.
Didn't you read my last post?? They weren't rejected by the Jews until the SECOND century. Jerome lived in the 4th and 5th centuries.

Secondly - I never said that a "false Jesus" removed the Deuteros. I said that a false PROPHET (Akiva) removed them. Akiva declared that a man named Simon Kokhbar was the REAL Messiah. Pay attention . . .

Thirdly - being in the Septuagint ABSOLUTELY meant that they were inspired and part of the OPEN Jewish Canon of Scripture during the 1st century. As I pointed out - there are some 200 references to them on the pages on the New Testament.
For example:
- Eph. 6:13-17 - The whole discussion of armor, helmet, breastplate, sword, shield follows Wis. 5:17-20.
- 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 "do unto others" is the converse of Tobit 4:15 - "what you hate, do not do to others".


As for quotes from Jerome - I already gave you TWO. Here's another one:
"I would cite the words of the psalmist: 'the sacrifices of God are a broken spirit,’ [Ps 51:17] and those of Ezekiel 'I prefer the repentance of a sinner rather than his death,’ [Ez 18:23] AND THOSE OF BARUCH,'Arise, arise, O Jerusalem,’ [Baruch 5:5] AND MANY OTHER PROCLAMATIONS MADE BY THE TRUMPETS OF THE PROPHETS." Jerome, To Oceanus, Epistle 77:4 (A.D. 399), in NPNF2, VI:159

And another . . .
It is true that a festival such as the birthday of Saint Peter should be seasoned with more gladness than usual; still our merriment must not forget the limit set by SCRIPTURE, and we must not stray too far from the boundary of our wrestling-ground. Your presents, indeed, remind me of the SACRED VOLUME, for in it Ezekiel decks Jerusalem with bracelets, (Eze. 16:11) Baruch receives letters from Jeremiah, (Jer. 36, Bar. 6) and the Holy Spirit descends in the form of a dove at the baptism of Christ.(Mt. 3:16) Jerome, To Eustochium, Epistle 31:2 (A.D. 384),

Face it - you've LOST this one . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

It is the ancient Jewish canon.

View attachment 6352

Yup - as of 130 AD.

Certified by a FALSE Prophet names Akiva who declared a FALSE Christ named Simon Kokhbar during the 2nd Jewish Revolt.
This ALL occurred AFTER Christ and AFTER the destruction of the Temple.

Nice job . . .

 

[Nondenom40]

WRONG.

Right!

Jerome; Prefaces to the Vulgate Version of the Old Testament;
Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs

As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it read these two volumes for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church.

(from Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2, Volume 6, PC Study Bible formatted electronic database Copyright © 2003, 2006 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Jerome wrote:
"What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susanna, the Son of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume (ie. canon), proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. For I wasn't relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they [the Jews] are wont to make against us" (Against Rufinus 11:33 [A.D. 402]).

Whats this supposed to prove? What exactly is Jerome saying here? Maybe cite the entire text and not a snippet. Here
Jerome is NOT accepting the apocrypha here. The quote comes from; Jerome's Apology against the Books of Rufinus Book 2. The work itself is found in the works of Rufinus, not Jerome....Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Series 2, volume 3. Here is the full text.

Book Two

33. In reference to Daniel my answer will be that I did not say that he was not a prophet; on the contrary, I confessed in the very beginning of the Preface that he was a prophet. But I wished to show what was the opinion upheld by the Jews; and what were the arguments on which they relied for its proof. I also told the reader that the version read in the Christian churches was not that of the Septuagint translators but that of Theodotion. It is true, I said that the Septuagint version was in this book very different from the original, and that it was condemned by the right judgment of the churches of Christ; but the fault was not mine who only stated the fact, but that of those who read the version. We have four versions to choose from: those of Aquila, Symmachus, the Seventy, and Theodotion. The churches choose to read Daniel in the version of Theodotion. What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches? But when I repeat what the Jews say against the Story of Susanna and the Hymn of the Three Children, and the fables of Bel and the Dragon, which are not contained in the Hebrew Bible, the man who makes this a charge against me proves himself to be a fool and a slanderer; for I explained not what I thought but what they commonly say against us. I did not reply to their opinion in the Preface, because I was studying brevity, and feared that I should seem to he writing not a Preface but a book. I said therefore, "As to which this is not the time to enter into discussion." Otherwise from the fact that I stated that Porphyry had said many things against this prophet, and called, as witnesses of this, Methodius, Eusebius, and Apollinarius, who have replied to his folly in many thousand lines, it will be in his power to accuse me for not baring written in my Preface against the books of Porphyry. If there is any one who pays attention to silly things like this, I must tell him loudly and free that no one is compelled to read what he does not want; that I wrote for those who asked me, not for those who would scorn me, for the grateful not the carping, for the earnest not the indifferent. Still, I wonder that a man should read the version of Theodotion the heretic and judaizer, and should scorn that of a Christian, simple and sinful though he may be.

(from Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2, Volume 3, PC Study Bible formatted electronic database Copyright © 2003, 2006 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)

He never makes the assertion your trying to make. And notice he repeatedly says 'churches', 'christian churches', 'churches of Christ'? Never does he suggest he is following any church based in rome or under some direction of a pope. And the translation of Daniel they were reading was of a person Jerome calls a heretic and judaizer. If thats your best evidence Jerome accepted the apocrypha, i'd keep looking.

Regarding the Book of Sirach, he writes:

“for does not the SCRIPTURE say: ‘Burden not yourself above your power?'” (Letter to Eustochium)

Hes already said its not in the canon. Deal with it. Where does he say sirach is part of the canon. Got that one?

 

[BreadOfLife]

Right!
Jerome; Prefaces to the Vulgate Version of the Old Testament;
Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs

As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it read these two volumes for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church.

(from Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2, Volume 6, PC Study Bible formatted electronic database Copyright © 2003, 2006 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Book Two

33. In reference to Daniel my answer will be that I did not say that he was not a prophet; on the contrary, I confessed in the very beginning of the Preface that he was a prophet. But I wished to show what was the opinion upheld by the Jews; and what were the arguments on which they relied for its proof. I also told the reader that the version read in the Christian churches was not that of the Septuagint translators but that of Theodotion. It is true, I said that the Septuagint version was in this book very different from the original, and that it was condemned by the right judgment of the churches of Christ; but the fault was not mine who only stated the fact, but that of those who read the version. We have four versions to choose from: those of Aquila, Symmachus, the Seventy, and Theodotion. The churches choose to read Daniel in the version of Theodotion. What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches? But when I repeat what the Jews say against the Story of Susanna and the Hymn of the Three Children, and the fables of Bel and the Dragon, which are not contained in the Hebrew Bible, the man who makes this a charge against me proves himself to be a fool and a slanderer; for I explained not what I thought but what they commonly say against us. I did not reply to their opinion in the Preface, because I was studying brevity, and feared that I should seem to he writing not a Preface but a book. I said therefore, "As to which this is not the time to enter into discussion." Otherwise from the fact that I stated that Porphyry had said many things against this prophet, and called, as witnesses of this, Methodius, Eusebius, and Apollinarius, who have replied to his folly in many thousand lines, it will be in his power to accuse me for not baring written in my Preface against the books of Porphyry. If there is any one who pays attention to silly things like this, I must tell him loudly and free that no one is compelled to read what he does not want; that I wrote for those who asked me, not for those who would scorn me, for the grateful not the carping, for the earnest not the indifferent. Still, I wonder that a man should read the version of Theodotion the heretic and judaizer, and should scorn that of a Christian, simple and sinful though he may be.

(from Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2, Volume 3, PC Study Bible formatted electronic database Copyright © 2003, 2006 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)
He never makes the assertion your trying to make. And notice he repeatedly says 'churches', 'christian churches', 'churches of Christ'? Never does he suggest he is following any church based in rome or under some direction of a pope. And the translation of Daniel they were reading was of a person Jerome calls a heretic and judaizer. If thats your best evidence Jerome accepted the apocrypha, i'd keep looking.

Did you even bother to READ what you posted (in RED)??

Here, Jerome is stating plainly that the "JEWS" don't believe the story of Susannah and Bel and the Dragon to be Scripture. He goes on to say that ANY MAN who accuses HIM (Jerome) of not considering these works Scripture, they are "fools and slanderers" because he was simply conveying what the JEWS said against the Books and NOT what HE (Jerome) thought.

You posted the defeating argument against your case and didn't even see it . . .

As to the first part of your response - Jerome wasn't clear on the Church'[s teaching on the Deuterocanonicals at first. This is why he writes about the opinion of the JEWS regarding the 7 Books and parts of Daniel and Esther not being inspired.

Now - pay attention because here is ANOTHER quote from Jerome referring to a Deuterocanonical Book (Wisdom) as "HOLY SCRIPTURE" . . .

"Yet the Holy Spirit in the thirty-ninth(9) psalm, while lamenting that all men walk in a vain show, and that they are subject to sins, speaks thus: "For all that every man walketh in the image."(Psalm 39:6) Also after David's time, in the reign of Solomon his son, we read a somewhat similar reference to the divine likeness. For in the Book of Wisdom, WHICH IS INSCRIBED WITH HIS NAME, SOLOMON SAYS: "GOD CREATED MAN TO BE IMMORTAL, AND MADE HIM TO BE AN IMAGE OF HIS OWN ETERNITY." (Wisdom 2:23) And again, about eleven hundred and eleven years afterwards, we read in the New Testament that men have not lost the image of God. For James, an apostle and brother of the Lord, whom I have mentioned above--that we may not be entangled in the snares of Origen--teaches us that man does possess God's image and likeness. For, after a somewhat discursive account of the human tongue, he has gone on to say of it: "It is an unruly evil ... therewith bless we God, even the Father and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God."(James 3:8-9) Paul, too, the "chosen vessel,"(Acts 9:15) who in his preaching has fully maintained the doctrine of the gospel, instructs us that man is made in the image and after the likeness of God. "A man," he says, "ought not to wear long hair, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God."(1 Cor. 11:7) He speaks of "the image" simply, but explains the nature of the likeness by the word "glory."

7. Instead of the three proofs from HOLY SCRIPTURE which you said would satisfy you if I could produce them, BEHOLD I HAVE GIVEN YOU SEVEN"--- Jerome, Letter 51, 6. 7, 394 AD, NPNF2, VI:87-8.

YOUR turn . . .

 

[Nondenom40]

Did you even bother to READ what you posted (in RED)??

Ya you cited it earlier. It doesn't say what you think. Read the rest of what i posted..maybe a couple of times so it sinks in.

Here, Jerome is stating plainly that the "JEWS" don't believe the story of Susannah and Bel and the Dragon to be Scripture. He goes on to say that ANY MAN who accuses HIM (Jerome) of not considering these works Scripture, they are "fools and slanderers" because he was simply conveying what the JEWS said against the Books and NOT what HE (Jerome) thought.

You posted the defeating argument against your case and didn't even see it . . .

Really? Show us the word 'scripture' you just said is there. Thats called eisegesis. Youre injecting into the text something that isn't there.

As to the first part of your response - Jerome wasn't clear on the Church'[s teaching on the Deuterocanonicals at first. This is why he writes about the opinion of the JEWS regarding the 7 Books and parts of Daniel and Esther not being inspired.

Sure he is clear on the apocrypha. I've already cited it twice where he says its 'not in the canon'. Can't get anymore clearer than that.

Now - pay attention because here is ANOTHER quote from Jerome referring to a Deuterocanonical Book (Wisdom) as "HOLY SCRIPTURE" . . .

"Yet the Holy Spirit in the thirty-ninth(9) psalm, while lamenting that all men walk in a vain show, and that they are subject to sins, speaks thus: "For all that every man walketh in the image."(Psalm 39:6) Also after David's time, in the reign of Solomon his son, we read a somewhat similar reference to the divine likeness. For in the Book of Wisdom, WHICH IS INSCRIBED WITH HIS NAME, SOLOMON SAYS: "GOD CREATED MAN TO BE IMMORTAL, AND MADE HIM TO BE AN IMAGE OF HIS OWN ETERNITY." (Wisdom 2:23) And again, about eleven hundred and eleven years afterwards, we read in the New Testament that men have not lost the image of God. For James, an apostle and brother of the Lord, whom I have mentioned above--that we may not be entangled in the snares of Origen--teaches us that man does possess God's image and likeness. For, after a somewhat discursive account of the human tongue, he has gone on to say of it: "It is an unruly evil ... therewith bless we God, even the Father and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God."(James 3:8-9) Paul, too, the "chosen vessel,"(Acts 9:15) who in his preaching has fully maintained the doctrine of the gospel, instructs us that man is made in the image and after the likeness of God. "A man," he says, "ought not to wear long hair, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God."(1 Cor. 11:7) He speaks of "the image" simply, but explains the nature of the likeness by the word "glory."

7. Instead of the three proofs from HOLY SCRIPTURE which you said would satisfy you if I could produce them, BEHOLD I HAVE GIVEN YOU SEVEN"--- Jerome, Letter 51, 6. 7, 394 AD, NPNF2, VI:87-8.

YOUR turn . . .

Well, i don't know what catholic site your quoting. But it would help to dig a hair deeper. This isn't Jerome's quote as you suggested above. This is a letter by Epiphanius to John, Bishop of Jerusalem. Whoops. Jerome was asked to translate it into latin from the greek. So, since your 'another quote from Jerome' isn't, your point is moot.

A couple of things to keep in mind when reading ecf's on pretty much anything, especially the canon.
1. There was no set canon in the early church, none. Your church made its (incorrect) dogmatic declaration regarding the canon at trent, 1546.
2. Jerome very clearly rejected the apocrypha. Something i've cited twice now and you have yet to refute.

The books in the early church were separated into two classes basically; canon and ecclesiastical. Your apocrypha isn't part of the canon.

 

[CoreIssue]

Ya you cited it earlier. It doesn't say what you think. Read the rest of what i posted..maybe a couple of times so it sinks in.

Really? Show us the word 'scripture' you just said is there. Thats called eisegesis. Youre injecting into the text something that isn't there.

Sure he is clear on the apocrypha. I've already cited it twice where he says its 'not in the canon'. Can't get anymore clearer than that.


Well, i don't know what catholic site your quoting. But it would help to dig a hair deeper. This isn't Jerome's quote as you suggested above. This is a letter by Epiphanius to John Bishop of Jerusalem. Whoops. Jerome was asked to translate it into latin from the greek. So, since your 'another quote from Jerome' isn't, your point is moot.

A couple of things to keep in mind when reading ecf's on pretty much anything, especially the canon.
1. There was no set canon in the early church, none. Your church made its (incorrect) dogmatic declaration regarding the canon at trent, 1546.
2. Jerome very clearly rejected the apocrypha. Something i've cited twice now and you have yet to refute.

The books in the early church were separated into two classes basically; canon and ecclesiastical. Your apocrypha isn't part of the canon.

Kick in the fact the a lot of Catholic Accepted material is actually Gnostic.

 

[Nondenom40]

Kick in the fact the a lot of Catholic except material is actually Gnostic.

Catholics will cite absolutely anything if it agrees with them. I have quotes from catholics that cite early church fathers knowing that those quotes are spurious before they even post them. In others words they knowingly cite false documents just to prop up mother church. And i've seen them edit ecfs to make them sound more catholic. But when they are busted they don't care or apologize they just keep on doing what they do.

 

[CoreIssue]

Catholics will cite absolutely anything if it agrees with them. I have quotes from catholics that cite early church fathers knowing that those quotes are spurious before they even post them. In others words they knowingly cite false documents just to prop up mother church. And i've seen them edit ecfs to make them sound more catholic. But when they are busted they don't care or apologize they just keep on doing what they do.

Who named those people early church fathers? Catholics.

Why? Because they were the founders of Catholicism.

 

[Nondenom40]

Who named those people early church fathers? Catholics.

Why? Because they were the founders of Catholicism.

Not all. Catholicism didn't poke its ugly head up for hundreds of years post apostolic age. Just a lot of men with a lot of time to write ( no tv or internet). Some were heretics, some had a lot of good things to say. And others not so much. Then theres all the stuff no one knows who wrote it.

 

[Enoch111]

Not all. Catholicism didn't poke its ugly head up for hundreds of years post apostolic age

Actually the roots of Catholicism go back to the Nicolaitans and the Gnostics, which was even while the apostles were on earth. And baptismal regeneration (a fundamental Catholic doctrine) was already being taught by the second century. While the Apostolic Fathers were generally sound in their beliefs, from the 2nd to the 4th centuries many Catholic teachings began to be presented in the writings of the Early Church Fathers, and also within the churches of that time. At the same time, there was also sufficient Bible truth in their writings, so that one cannot reject their teachings out of hand.

 

[CoreIssue]

Not all. Catholicism didn't poke its ugly head up for hundreds of years post apostolic age. Just a lot of men with a lot of time to write ( no tv or internet). Some were heretics, some had a lot of good things to say. And others not so much. Then theres all the stuff no one knows who wrote it.

The seeds were planted early and it sprouted 325AD.

I agree initially it was a mix.

In fact, the first few popes rejected the title as ungodly.

But at the same time such as Constantine and others bowed to the sun as God.

It was not the early Catholics that called them church fathers. That happened centuries later.

A lot of so-called proof was forged and invented to defend the Catholic Church.

Modern Catholics accept all whole cloth.

 

[Nondenom40]

Actually the roots of Catholicism go back to the Nicolaitans and the Gnostics, which was even while the apostles were on earth. And baptismal regeneration (a fundamental Catholic doctrine) was already being taught by the second century. While the Apostolic Fathers were generally sound in their beliefs, from the 2nd to the 4th centuries many Catholic teachings began to be presented in the writings of the Early Church Fathers, and also within the churches of that time. At the same time, there was also sufficient Bible truth in their writings, so that one cannot reject their teachings out of hand.

The rcc simply usurped or amalgamated different beliefs into its system, mostly pagan. Relics was already a thing by the 2nd century, although not widely accepted, it was there. Guess what the rcc is steeped in today? Yep, relics. They have an unhealthy affinity for bones and dead people.

 

[CoreIssue]

The rcc simply usurped or amalgamated different beliefs into its system, mostly pagan. Relics was already a thing by the 2nd century, although not widely accepted, it was there. Guess what the rcc is steeped in today? Yep, relics. They have an unhealthy affinity for bones and dead people.

Just look at the garb the hierarchy of Catholicism wears and compared to the pagan Roman leaders. The same.

Pontificus Maximus was the pagan religious leader title.

College of pontiffs became the College of Cardinals.

Roman Eagle was the god of Roman troops.

Prayer beads, holy water, Mary worship and more all came from pagan religions.

 

[Nondenom40]

The seeds were planted early and it sprouted 325AD.

I agree initially it was a mix.

In fact, the first few popes rejected the title as ungodly.

Gregory the Great, late 6th early 7th century was bishop of rome and wrote a letter to Eusebius of Thessalonica regarding John of Constantinople because John wanted to use a name for himself 'universal bishop'. Gregory in his day called it a 'new and temerarious name of superstition..' If a universal bishop was 'new' in the 7th century it certainly was unknown in previous centuries.

But at the same time such as Constantine and others bowed to the sun as God.

It was not the early Catholics that called them church fathers. That happened centuries later.

A lot of so-called proof was forged and invented to defend the Catholic Church.

Modern Catholics accept all whole cloth.

Yep, pseudo-isidore, donation of constantine.....Lots of false history.