What's with this thing called THE APOCRYPHA?

[aspen]

1. I have no connection to Martin Luther or Protestantism. And I reject Reformed Theology.

2. Luther was clearly mistaken about many things, and we cannot trust everything he said or wrote. Some of the other Reformers disagreed with him also.

3. It was the Lord Jesus Christ Himself who confirmed and established the validity of the Hebrew canon since the time of Moses. Kindly read, study, and digest Luke 24. Then believe it.

Ah...the Protestant ‘get out of jail free card’

What a shock.

If you believe in Sola Scriptura, you are a Protestant and still connected by umbilical cord to Luther - regardless of your cherry picking

 

[farouk]

Whose bible? What edition, what year and what books? Cuz Luther removed nothing. Thats the only reason i'm asking.

Even in English, the Apocrypha was printed in the King James Version until the early 19th century.

 

[Nondenom40]

The Catholic bibles I have in my possession,,,a few versions...have 73 books.
The Protestant bibles I have in my possission,,,a few versions,,,have 66 books.

Where did the other 7 go?

Are the protestant bibles in your possession from the reformation era? You said;

It's my understanding that 7 books were
removed from the Protestant bible at the
Reformation.

Which is why i asked what bible, which edition and what books? Even Luthers bible had the apocrypha for hundreds of years after Luther died. Can't blame him for that can we?

Didn't the Protestant movement remove them because they believed they were not canonical? Instead the Catholics kept the 7 books that the Jews had also rejected, at some point.They are not canonical but Luther translated them anyway. Jerome translated them as well and he said not only were they apocryphal but 'not in the canon.'

Later i'm sure the apocrypha was dropped simply due to space and $$.

 

[Nondenom40]

I guess it was Akiva...who didn't even know what he was declaring as to the Messiah!

And then the Protestants took advantage of the situation since they didn't like books like the Maccabees because it spoke of praying or talking, to the dead.

Right?

Um, Gregory the Great, the late 6th early 7th century bishop of rome rejected maccabees. Cardinal Cajetan rejected the entire apocrypha. Those are catholics btw.

 

[Enoch111]

If you believe in Sola Scriptura, you are a Protestant and still connected by umbilical cord to Luther - regardless of your cherry picking

If you were really smart, you too with stick with Sola Scriptura. That would be following the example of Christ and the apostles.

 

[aspen]

If you were really smart, you too with stick with Sola Scriptura. That would be following the example of Christ and the apostles.

If only I were smart....

So did the NT Christians follow the written word of the NT?

 

[GodsGrace]

Are the protestant bibles in your possession from the reformation era? You said;
Which is why i asked what bible, which edition and what books? Even Luthers bible had the apocrypha for hundreds of years after Luther died. Can't blame him for that can we?

I have one bible from 1816.
I've never really looked into it...I just keep it like a treasure.

All my other bibles are from 1975 and on...
purchased at all different times and all different versions.

My Italian bibles are from 2,000 and on and also about 3 different versions.
I must say that the Italian bible has SLIGHTLY changed after 2008 because the prior versions were translated from Latin and now they want to use the Greek.

It's not worth me buying any new version because the changes would make no difference to what I've been taught.

 

[GodsGrace]

Um, Gregory the Great, the late 6th early 7th century bishop of rome rejected maccabees. Cardinal Cajetan rejected the entire apocrypha. Those are catholics btw.

You probably won't know this...
But in the Catholic faith what one bishop believes makes no difference.
What matters is what the CATHOLIC CHURCH believes...
This is made up of the Pope AND all the bishops combined. To this day.

Unfortunately I don't know enough about this subject matter to participate,
but I'd go with what @BreadOfLife is telling you.

 

[Nondenom40]

You probably won't know this...
But in the Catholic faith what one bishop believes makes no difference.
What matters is what the CATHOLIC CHURCH believes...
This is made up of the Pope AND all the bishops combined. To this day.

Unfortunately I don't know enough about this subject matter to participate,
but I'd go with what @BreadOfLife is telling you.

I'm just letting you know that the rejection of Maccabees or any of the apocrypha occurred long before the reformation, and during the reformation by catholics. You can't simply boil it down to a protestant reformation thing. Catholics love to do that but they dismiss a lot of history in the process.

 

[GodsGrace]

I'm just letting you know that the rejection of Maccabees or any of the apocrypha occurred long before the reformation, and during the reformation by catholics. You can't simply boil it down to a protestant reformation thing. Catholics love to do that but they dismiss a lot of history in the process.

Why do you think the Reformation rejected the 7 books that are not in the Protestant bible?

They could have chosen to keep them there.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I'm just letting you know that the rejection of Maccabees or any of the apocrypha occurred long before the reformation, and during the reformation by catholics. You can't simply boil it down to a protestant reformation thing. Catholics love to do that but they dismiss a lot of history in the process.

As GodsGrace stated – it doesn’t matter if a Bishop had a dissenting opinion of the Deuterocanonical Books before or during the Reformation. It is the decision of the CHURCH at large – not a single Bishop.

When the Canon was closed at Trent, however, the matter was closed forever. AFTER this point, if there was a dissenting Bishop – he would be in heresy, and subject to disciplinary action.

So, finding a dissenting opinion about the Canon of Scripture doesn’t add up to a hill of beans . . .

 

[Enoch111]

So did the NT Christians follow the written word of the NT?

To the best of their ability.

 

[aspen]

To the best of their ability.

The NT was not written down for decades after Christ’s death and resurrection - it took centuries after it was written to agree on which books should be included or excluded

 

[Nondenom40]

Why do you think the Reformation rejected the 7 books that are not in the Protestant bible?

They were rejected long before the reformation. Jerome in his Prefaces lists the books in the catholic o.t (apocrypha) and says they are not in the canon. This goes way back, not simply a reformation thing.

They could have chosen to keep them there.

Some did and for hundreds of years. Do all catholic bibles have the apocrypha in it?

 

[farouk]

They were rejected long before the reformation. Jerome in his Prefaces lists the books in the catholic o.t (apocrypha) and says they are not in the canon. This goes way back, not simply a reformation thing.


Some did and for hundreds of years. Do all catholic bibles have the apocrypha in it?

It's interesting that the so called Protestant Apocrypha has even more books in it than the Roman Catholic one...

 

[BreadOfLife]

Some did and for hundreds of years. Do all catholic bibles have the apocrypha in it?[/QUOTE]
Nope, but they ALL contain the Deuterocanonical Books.

 

[Nondenom40]

It's interesting that the so called Protestant Apocrypha has even more books in it than the Roman Catholic one...

Protestant apocrypha or n.t. apocrypha? List the protestant apocrypha if you would and what bibles contain them.

 

[farouk]

Protestant apocrypha or n.t. apocrypha? List the protestant apocrypha if you would and what bibles contain them.

See first paragraph:

Protestant Bible - Wikipedia

 

[Enoch111]

The NT was not written down for decades after Christ’s death and resurrection - it took centuries after it was written to agree on which books should be included or excluded

While the apostles were on earth, the churches throughout the Roman empire were (a) receiving their direct oral teachings, (b) receiving copies of their epistles which were to be circulated among all the churches, (c) as well as collecting the "Holy Scriptures" (the Tanakh whose canon was already established).

Peter wrote his second epistle around AD 68 in which he said that all of Paul's epistles (51% of the NT) were also Scripture. He also said that his own epistles were divinely inspired ("a more sure word of prophecy"). So how did Peter know of all of Paul's epistles unless he had personally read them? But he also indicates that others had read them. That tells us that Paul's epistles were already in circulation within the churches, and also that some were wresting those Scriptures. See 2 Peter 3.

By the end of the first century, the whole Bible had been completed. Before the end of the second century, there was a canon of the New Testament (the Muratori Canon), as well as a Syriac translation of the almost the whole Bible (known as the Peshitta). So how was the Peshitta put together unless the whole Bible was not already known and being read by the early Christians? While 5 or 6 of the NT books were called "disputed writings" (antilegomena) that was not meant as heretical or false, but simply uncertainty among some Christians whether they were canonical. Later on, those books were included. So it is a greatly exaggerated idea that the Bible was not complete for many centuries, and that the Catholic Church put the Bible together.

What is absolutely certain is that the Hebrew canon EXCLUDED the Apocrypha. Which means that there is no such thing as a Deutero-Canon. Even the Catholic scholar Jerome understood this when translating the Latin Vulgate.

 

[Nondenom40]

See first paragraph:

Protestant Bible - Wikipedia

No one has denied the apocrypha was included in Luthers bible or other bibles of the day. It was still considered apocryphal...i.e. not inspired scripture.