What's with this thing called THE APOCRYPHA?

[Nondenom40]

There were multiple canons (lists) of Scripture in the Early Church. MOST included Books that are now considered "Apocrypha" and others were incomplete.
It took the Church to infallibly declare the Canon under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (John 16:12-15).

Theres no such thing as people being infallible. Let alone the church...which is people.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Theres no such thing as people being infallible. Let alone the church...which is people.

The Church is CHRIST (Acts 9:4-5, Eph. 1:22-23), and He is infallible . . .

 

[farouk]

Theres no such thing as people being infallible. Let alone the church...which is people.

Instead, it's a case of 'Thy word is truth' (John 17.17), right?

 

[Nondenom40]

The Church is CHRIST (Acts 9:4-5, Eph. 1:22-23), and He is infallible . . .

Why don't you exegete those verses for us. Then define church and who comprises the church. Then show us the verse where anyone "in" the church is infallible. Christ is the head, we are the body. Your dancing around the issue.

 

[epostle]

Why don't you exegete those verses for us. Then define church and who comprises the church. Then show us the verse where anyone "in" the church is infallible. Christ is the head, we are the body. Your dancing around the issue.

No, he is not. You can't escape your false definition of infallible. How many times does it have to be repeated?
No "person or human" is infallible.
I have lots of verses about infallibilty:

Isa. 35:8, 54:13-17 – this prophecy refers to the Church as the Holy Way where sons will be taught by God and they will not err. The Church has been given the gift of infallibility when teaching about faith and morals, where her sons are taught directly by God and will not err. This gift of infallibility means that the Church is prevented from teaching error by the power of the Holy Spirit (it does not mean that Church leaders do not sin!)

Acts 9:2; 22:4; 24:14,22 – the early Church is identified as the “Way” prophesied in Isaiah 35:8 where fools will not err therein.

Matt. 10:20; Luke 12:12 – Jesus tells His apostles it is not they who speak, but the Spirit of their Father speaking through them. If the Spirit is the one speaking and leading the Church, the Church cannot err on matters of faith and morals.

Matt. 16:18 – Jesus promises the gates of Hades would never prevail against the Church. This requires that the Church teach infallibly. If the Church did not have the gift of infallibility, the gates of Hades and error would prevail. Also, since the Catholic Church was the only Church that existed up until the Reformation, those who follow the Protestant reformers call Christ a liar by saying that Hades did prevail.

Matt. 16:19 – for Jesus to give Peter and the apostles, mere human beings, the authority to bind in heaven what they bound on earth requires infallibility. This is a gift of the Holy Spirit and has nothing to do with the holiness of the person receiving the gift.

Matt. 18:17-18 – the Church (not Scripture) is the final authority on questions of the faith. This demands infallibility when teaching the faith. She must be prevented from teaching error in order to lead her members to the fullness of salvation.

Matt. 28:20 – Jesus promises that He will be with the Church always. Jesus’ presence in the Church assures infallible teaching on faith and morals. With Jesus present, we can never be deceived.

Luke 10:16 – whoever hears you, hears me. Whoever rejects you, rejects me. Jesus is very clear that the bishops of the Church speak with Christ’s infallible authority.
The Biblical Church - Scripture Catholic

Your personal post-modernist definition of "infallible" is in error.

 

[epostle]

It would be IMPOSSIBLE for 11 men to "teach all nations" traveling on foot, with no jets or helicopters. Either the original 11 Apostles disobeyed Jesus command, or APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION is required to fulfil Christs command to "teach all nations".

 

[epostle]

(Just some words for information)

The rise of Protestantism forced reconsideration of what had, up to that point, been a relatively unproblematic question: "what specific texts does the phrase “the Bible” denote?" At a fairly early stage in its history, the Christian church had to make some important decisions as to what the term “scripture” actually designated. The first major phase in the history of the church, often referred to as the “patristic period” (c. 100–c. 450), witnessed the setting of the limits to the New Testament — a process usually known as “the fixing of the canon.” The word “canon” derives from the Greek word kanon, meaning a “rule” or “reference point.” The phrase “the canon of scripture” thus refers to a limited and defined group of writings that are accepted as authoritative within the church.

What criteria were used in drawing-up this canon? The basic principle underlying this process appears to have been that of the recognition rather than the imposition of authority. In other words, the works in question were recognized by Christians as already possessing authority; they did not have an arbitrary authority imposed upon them. For the early church father Irenaeus, the church does not create the canon of scripture; it acknowledges, conserves, and receives canonical scripture on the basis of the authority already inherent to it. Some early Christians appear to have regarded apostolic authorship as of decisive importance; others were prepared to accept books that did not appear to have apostolic credentials. Although the precise details of how this selection was made remain unclear, it is certain that the canon was closed within the Western church by the beginning of the fifth century. The issue of the canon would not be raised again until the dawn of Protestantism.

At the time of the Reformation, a major debate broke out over whether some works accepted by the medieval church as canonical really deserved this status. It must be emphasized that the debate centered on the Old Testament; the canon of the New Testament was never seriously questioned, despite Martin Luther’s misgivings about the canonicity of the letter of James and three other shorter letters.

While all the New Testament works were accepted as canonical — Luther’s misgivings would gain little support — doubts were raised concerning the canonicity of a group of Old Testament works. A comparison of the contents of the Old Testament in the Hebrew Bible, on the one hand, and in the Greek and Latin versions (such as the Septuagint and the Vulgate), on the other, shows that the latter contain a number of works not found in the former. Following the lead of Jerome, the reformers argued that the only Old Testament writings that could be regarded as belonging to the canon of scripture were those originally included in the Hebrew Bible.

Protestants thus drew a distinction between the Old Testament and what they termed the “Apocrypha.” The former consisted of texts found in the Hebrew Bible, while the latter consisted of text found in Greek and Latin versions of the Bible but not in the Hebrew Bible. While some reformers allowed that the apocryphal works made for edifying reading, there was general agreement that these works could not be used as the basis of doctrine. However, Catholic theologians of the Middle Ages, followed by the Council of Trent in 1546, defined the Old Testament as “those Old Testament works contained in the Greek and Latin bibles,” thus eliminating, from the outset, any distinction between “Old Testament” and “Apocrypha.”

From the beginning, therefore, Catholics and Protestants have had quite different understandings of what the term “the Bible” means, and this difference persists, for the most part, to the present day. A comparison of current Protestant versions of the Bible — two important ones being the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) and the New International Version (NIV ) — with their Catholic counterparts, such as the Jerusalem Bible, reveals these differences.

One practical outcome of this sixteenth-century debate was the production and circulation of authorized lists of books that were to be regarded as “scriptural.” The fourth session of the Council of Trent (1546) produced a detailed list that included the works of the Apocrypha as authentically scriptural, while Protestant congregations in Switzerland, France, and elsewhere produced lists that either totally omitted any reference to these works or indicated that they were of no importance in matters of doctrine.

A 66 Book Bible, published and used as a Bible, did not exist anywhere on the planet before the 14th century. Clearly then, the Protestant 66 book canon is a man made 7 book copied subtraction. I challenge you to find one that predates the 14th century.

 

[Nondenom40]

A 66 Book Bible, published and used as a Bible, did not exist anywhere on the planet before the 14th century. Clearly then, the Protestant 66 book canon is a man made 7 book copied subtraction. I challenge you to find one that predates the 14th century.

First, there is too much in the article to correct, so i won't. The plain facts of history are;
1. Jerome rejected the apocrypha in the late 4th century. I've already cited those sources here in this thread.
2. The seven extra books catholics have in their bibles were never considered inspired scripture.
3. Trent simply elevated books that were never considered inspired and raised them to that level.

Heres what BF Wescott says regarding the canon of trent;

William Whitaker: A Disputation on Holy Scripture, pp 48

BF Wescott on the canon at Trent;

‘This fatal decree in which the Council...gave a new aspect to the whole question of the Canon, was ratified by fifty-three prelates, among whom there was not one German, not one scholar distinguished for historical learning, not one who was fitted by special study for the examination of a subject in which the truth could only be determined by the voice of antiquity. How completely the decision was opposed to the spirit and letter of the original judgments of the Greek and Latin Churches, how far in doctrinal equalization of the disputed and acknowledged books of the Old Testament it was at variance with the traditional opinion of the West, how absolutely unprecedented was the conversion of an ecclesiastical usage into an article of belief, will be seen from the evidence which has already been adduced' (BF Westcott, A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament (MacMillan: Cambridge, 1889), p. 478).

emphasis mine.

 

[Nondenom40]

It would be IMPOSSIBLE for 11 men to "teach all nations" traveling on foot, with no jets or helicopters. Either the original 11 Apostles disobeyed Jesus command, or APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION is required to fulfil Christs command to "teach all nations".

Theres no such thing as apostolic succession. An option you left out is simply as people are born again they continued to spread the gospel where ever they went. No one expected the disciples to go to the entire world. If you read acts 2 you'll see people from over a dozen regions/countries that heard and received the gospel. These people went right back to their home lands and kept sharing the gospel. Its not just the apostles. Its everyone who is born again.

 

[Nondenom40]

No, he is not. You can't escape your false definition of infallible. How many times does it have to be repeated?
No "person or human" is infallible.
I have lots of verses about infallibilty:

Show me where i even defined infallible. How can i have a 'false definition' when i never defined it?

Isa. 35:8, 54:13-17 – this prophecy refers to the Church as the Holy Way where sons will be taught by God and they will not err. The Church has been given the gift of infallibility when teaching about faith and morals, where her sons are taught directly by God and will not err. This gift of infallibility means that the Church is prevented from teaching error by the power of the Holy Spirit (it does not mean that Church leaders do not sin!)

Show me a verse in the bible regarding any 'gift of infallibility'. Spiritual gifts are in a few places in the n.t. Show us the 'gift of infallibility'. Then show us where this alleged gift is limited to faith and morals. I have to laugh every time someone says 'the church is prevented from teaching error.' Your church excels at teaching error. It is its own authority, hence it has no one to answer to. It can (and has)make up whatever it wants and bind the faithful to it.

Acts 9:2; 22:4; 24:14,22 – the early Church is identified as the “Way” prophesied in Isaiah 35:8 where fools will not err therein.

Show us the word infallible in any of these verses. And are you telling us that the myriad of scandals going on right this minute in your church are people not erring?

Matt. 10:20; Luke 12:12 – Jesus tells His apostles it is not they who speak, but the Spirit of their Father speaking through them. If the Spirit is the one speaking and leading the Church, the Church cannot err on matters of faith and morals.

Being led and following are two different things. The rcc doesn't follow God, at all.

Matt. 16:18 – Jesus promises the gates of Hades would never prevail against the Church. This requires that the Church teach infallibly. If the Church did not have the gift of infallibility, the gates of Hades and error would prevail. Also, since the Catholic Church was the only Church that existed up until the Reformation, those who follow the Protestant reformers call Christ a liar by saying that Hades did prevail.

Wow, just how many mistakes can you make in a couple of sentences? First, gates are defensive in nature. Gates never go on the offense. The gospel breaks through the gates of hell and brings people out when they are born again. Gates only prevail when a religion like the rcc preaches a watered down gospel that has no power to save. Therefore those behind the gates remain behind the gates until the true gospel blows the hinges off of the doors. Your church has a false gospel. The gates have prevailed when it comes to your church. Secondly, 'there was no church but yours prior to the reformation.' I've heard this rhetoric/propaganda before. So tell us, Jan Hus lived a hundred years before Luther and he was persecuted by your church, but he wasn't catholic. So what church did he belong to? John Wycliffe lived a hundred years before Hus, what church did he belong to? The Waldensians predated Wycliffe, what church did they belong to?

Matt. 16:19 – for Jesus to give Peter and the apostles, mere human beings, the authority to bind in heaven what they bound on earth requires infallibility. This is a gift of the Holy Spirit and has nothing to do with the holiness of the person receiving the gift.

The keys is the gospel. Doesn't require infallibility. So far you prefer eisegesis over actual facts.

Matt. 18:17-18 – the Church (not Scripture) is the final authority on questions of the faith. This demands infallibility when teaching the faith. She must be prevented from teaching error in order to lead her members to the fullness of salvation.

Why didn't you start at verse 15? Taking it to the church isn't the first thing we are told to do but the last. And people in the church submit to scripture, not the other way around. Btw, hows that working for you in your church? Your own pope wrote an objectionable letter a couple of years ago and your bishops and cardinals have been trying to bend his ear ever since. Hes completely ignored them! Take it to the church! Ya right.

Matt. 28:20 – Jesus promises that He will be with the Church always. Jesus’ presence in the Church assures infallible teaching on faith and morals. With Jesus present, we can never be deceived.

More eisegesis. Your church is greatly deceived.

Luke 10:16 – whoever hears you, hears me. Whoever rejects you, rejects me. Jesus is very clear that the bishops of the Church speak with Christ’s infallible authority.
The Biblical Church - Scripture Catholic

Show us the word 'church' in Luke 10. Show us where Jesus was speaking to bishops in Luke 10. Pentecost hadn't happened yet, no Pentecost no church.

Your personal post-modernist definition of "infallible" is in error.

I never gave a definition of infallible. This, like the rest of your post is simply you reading into the text what you want it to say, not what it actually says.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Of course you think its irrelevant. But its not. Catholics love to ignore whats right in front of them when they don't like the implications.
What else have you cited? Other than your opinion?

Your desperation is showing. I've answered questions, provided scholarly sources and refuted your weak opinions...repeatedly. You still haven't answered my citation of Jerome where he specifically calls out your apocrypha and says they are not in the canon. Then you cited another letter that Jerome didn't even write! Catholics don't care too much for studying or primary sources. Copy n paste from catholic websites...thats how most of them study.


Then youre living in denial. Your own catholic scholars reject your personal conclusions. But by all means, keep your head in the sand.

Uh huh. Keep thinking that. I provide facts which have not been refuted. We get wikipedia and personal opinion in return. But catholics do love their faux victories don't they.

Whether or not the Bishops at Hippo sent the letter to several other Bishops alongside the Pope IS irrelevant because it specifically addresses the fact that it needs ROME'S approval - NOT theirs. You can whine about that all you want - but that's the way it works.

As to my "not" showing that Jerome didn't disapprove of the Deuterocanonical Books - that's simply another one of your LIES. I have repeatedly posted his comments regarding the fact that it was the opinion of the JEWS and NOT him that those Books were not inspired. I showed you that he even went so far as to call anybody (like YOU) who puts the blame on him a "fool and a slanderer".

Jerome calls you that - not me . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Why don't you exegete those verses for us. Then define church and who comprises the church. Then show us the verse where anyone "in" the church is infallible. Christ is the head, we are the body. Your dancing around the issue.

- Jesus established ONE Church (Matt. 16:16-19). He prayed fervently that this Church remain ONE - as He and the Father are ONE (John 17:20-23). There is NO other.

- Jesus is Truth itself (John 14:6).

- Jesus promised His Church that the Holy Spirit would guide her to ALL Truth (John 16:12-15).

- Paul says that the Church is the FULLNESS of Christ (Eph. 1:22-23).

- The Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth (1 Tim. 3:15).

- The Church is the Body of Christ and He is the Head (1 Cor. 12:12-31, Eph. 4:3-6, Col. 1:8).

- Jesus identifies His very SELF with His Church (Acts 9:4-5).

These are BIBLICAL Truths about Christ's Church that you simply cannot argue your way around.

As for infallibility - it's not the Pope who is infallible - it is the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit will not allow the Pope to err in matters of teaching faith and morals. I'm not sure that YOU even understand what "infallibility" means in this regard. He's infallible - not impeccable . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Theres no such thing as apostolic succession. An option you left out is simply as people are born again they continued to spread the gospel where ever they went. No one expected the disciples to go to the entire world. If you read acts 2 you'll see people from over a dozen regions/countries that heard and received the gospel. These people went right back to their home lands and kept sharing the gospel. Its not just the apostles. Its everyone who is born again.

Spoken like a true Protestant - they left Jerusalem with no leadership and, as is the nature of men, they splintered and continued to splinter.
WRONG.

God is not the Author of Chaos. He left a Church with Leaders and Teachers. In Acts 1, we see the Apostles gathering to elect a replacement for Judas. Acts 1:20 states explicitly:
"Let another take his office."

The word used here for "office" is "Episkopay", which means BISHOPRIC. The Apostles were ALL Bishops - and Scripture, along with history assures us that the office of Bishop is indeed a successive office. Ignatius replaced Peter as Bishop of Antioch. Simeon replaced James as Bishop of Jerusalem. In his treatise, Against Heresies - Irenaeus lists ALL of the successive Bishops of Rome from Peter to his own day a hundred years later.

The idea that Apostolic Succession does not exist is simply wishful thinking on the part of you anti-Catholics . . .

 

[Nondenom40]

Whether or not the Bishops at Hippo sent the letter to several other Bishops alongside the Pope IS irrelevant because it specifically addresses the fact that it needs ROME'S approval - NOT theirs. You can whine about that all you want - but that's the way it works.

Produce the letter. And cite your source.

As to my "not" showing that Jerome didn't disapprove of the Deuterocanonical Books - that's simply another one of your LIES. I have repeatedly posted his comments regarding the fact that it was the opinion of the JEWS and NOT him that those Books were not inspired. I showed you that he even went so far as to call anybody (like YOU) who puts the blame on him a "fool and a slanderer".

Jerome calls you that - not me . . .

While it appears you can read, comprehension is still lacking. I've cited this a few times, but hey if youre unwilling to acknowledge it or read it then i'll just keep posting it.

Jerome; Prefaces of the Vulgate version of the Old Testament
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.)

If i could make it blink i would. All those books ARE NOT IN THE CANON. How many ways do you need it explained. Also the 'fool and a slanderer' comment again, for the third time does not mean what you think. You need to stop cherry picking texts and read the whole thing. Maybe your catholic website doesn't have the entire text? Primary sources seem to be kryptonite for catholics.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Produce the letter. And cite your source.

While it appears you can read, comprehension is still lacking. I've cited this a few times, but hey if youre unwilling to acknowledge it or read it then i'll just keep posting it.
If i could make it blink i would. All those books ARE NOT IN THE CANON. How many ways do you need it explained. Also the 'fool and a slanderer' comment again, for the third time does not mean what you think. You need to stop cherry picking texts and read the whole thing. Maybe your catholic website doesn't have the entire text? Primary sources seem to be kryptonite for catholics.

And anything written by Jerome that doesn't agree with YOUR position is kryptonite to YOU.
I have shown you over and over and over that Jerome DIDN'T reject the Deuterocanonical Books and how he explained the it was the JEWS and not him who rejected them as inspired. Why you refuse to accept his explanation is beyond me . . .

As for your first asinine comment above in RED - WHO told you that the Deuterocanpomical Books weren't inspired??
Was it the PRE-2nd Century Jews prior to the Destruction of the Temple - or was it the POST 2nd century Jews who deleted those Books under the leadership of Rabbi Akiva - the FALSE prophet who also declared the FALSE Christ named Simon Kokhbar??

As I stated before - they WERE part of the OPEN Jewish Canon that existed during the life of Christ and which we fins some 200 references to on the pages of the New Testament.

So, out of curiosity - WHO told you they they weren't inspired??

 

[epostle]

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.

50 MORE REFERENCES TO THE DEUTEROCANONICALS FROM ACTS TO REV. FOUND HERE

The Protestants attempt to defend their rejection of the deuterocanonicals on the ground that the early Jews rejected them. However, the Jewish councils that rejected them (e.g., School of Javneh (also called “Jamnia” in 90 – 100 A.D.) were the same councils that rejected the entire New Testament canon. Thus, Protestants who reject the Catholic Bible are following a Jewish council that rejected Christ and the Revelation of the New Testament.

 

[Enoch111]

The Protestants attempt to defend their rejection of the deuterocanonicals on the ground that the early Jews rejected them.

If it was only the early Jews who rejected them, that would be different. But since Christ Himself rejected them as being divinely inspired, that should be sufficient for both Catholics and Protestants.

This is not to say that they are of no value whatsoever. But the Bible is sufficient for Christians for all matters of faith and practice.

 

[Nondenom40]

And anything written by Jerome that doesn't agree with YOUR position is kryptonite to YOU.
I have shown you over and over and over that Jerome DIDN'T reject the Deuterocanonical Books and how he explained the it was the JEWS and not him who rejected them as inspired. Why you refuse to accept his explanation is beyond me . . .

As for your first asinine comment above in RED - WHO told you that the Deuterocanpomical Books weren't inspired??
Was it the PRE-2nd Century Jews prior to the Destruction of the Temple - or was it the POST 2nd century Jews who deleted those Books under the leadership of Rabbi Akiva - the FALSE prophet who also declared the FALSE Christ named Simon Kokhbar??

As I stated before - they WERE part of the OPEN Jewish Canon that existed during the life of Christ and which we fins some 200 references to on the pages of the New Testament.

So, out of curiosity - WHO told you they they weren't inspired??

Now youre being intentionally obtuse. I've given you citations where Jerome himself rejects your beloved apocrypha. Your 'gottcha' quote is nothing. I've explained that as well and gave the full text for you to consider which you obviously didn't. I'm not playing your games. Been there done that. Anyone reading can see clearly Jerome relegated your books as apocrypha and denied them as being in the canon. Have a good day.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Now youre being intentionally obtuse. I've given you citations where Jerome himself rejects your beloved apocrypha. Your 'gottcha' quote is nothing. I've explained that as well and gave the full text for you to consider which you obviously didn't. I'm not playing your games. Been there done that. Anyone reading can see clearly Jerome relegated your books as apocrypha and denied them as being in the canon. Have a good day.

In other words, you don't have an answer to my question. You CAN'T tell me who told YOU that the Deuterocanonicals were "uninspired".

That's what I thought . . .

 

[Nondenom40]

In other words, you don't have an answer to my question. You CAN'T tell me who told YOU that the Deuterocanonicals were "uninspired".

That's what I thought . . .

Been there done that... repeatedly. If they are not admitted to the canon, they aren't inspired...duh.