Christianity and how the bible was put together

[BRIANH]

What about Hebrews. It clearly refers to 2 Macc.

How many quotes did I originally say?

 

[DHK]

Hmmm...well, that's half of Daniel out the window then, since that's in Aramaic. So, to recap, we've lost the story of Susanna, Bel and the Dragon and the Song of the Three from Daniel; now we have to excise Dan 2-7. Not a lot left now, is there?

Yes there is a portion of Daniel that is in Aramaic, just as there are some Hebraisms in the Book of John, which we still say is written in Greek. When we speak about the OT being written in Hebrew I don't believe that people expect us to say every time "except for those five chapters in Daniel which were written in Aramaic." We know and acknowledge that.
"So to recap, we've lost the story of Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, and the Song of the Three from Daniel."
Yes, that is correct, but not exactly. If you want to be really truthful you will have to admit that you didn't lose them at all. You can't lose what you never had. And they were never in the canon to be begin with.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

How many quotes did I originally say?

you said a couple or 3 or 4 something like that.

 

[BRIANH]

you said a couple or 3 or 4 something like that.

Yes. 3 to 6.
Please give a specific verse and I will comment.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Yes. 3 to 6.
Please give a specific verse and I will comment.

Start with the Hebrews verse.

 

[BRIANH]

Start with the Hebrews verse.

Which one?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Which one?

this one that I will quote. There is a reason I bring it out. Because it is clearly a referrence to 2 Macc. I only put a part of 2 Macc here though reading the whole chapter it is evident what it is referring to. Otherwise you have to raise the question What women is the author talking about? What generally happens to closing the OT in Jesus time before the DC are rationalization gymnastics reliant on an after Jesus Jewish convention. This is a clear use of the DC in the NT.

Hebrews 11:35 Women received back their dead, raised to life again. Others were tortured and refused to be released, so that they might gain a better resurrection.
2 Mac 7: Filled with a noble spirit that stirred her womanly heart with manly courage, she exhorted each of them in the language of their forefathers with these words:
22
"I do not know how you came into existence in my womb; it was not I who gave you the breath of life, nor was it I who set in order the elements of which each of you is composed.
23
Therefore, since it is the Creator of the universe who shapes each man's beginning, as he brings about the origin of everything, he, in his mercy, will give you back both breath and life, because you now disregard yourselves for the sake of his law." Martyrdom of Mother and Sons
24
Antiochus, suspecting insult in her words, thought he was being ridiculed

 

[Darron Steele]

this one that I will quote. There is a reason I bring it out. Because it is clearly a referrence to 2 Macc. I only put a part of 2 Macc here though reading the whole chapter it is evident what it is referring to. Otherwise you have to raise the question What women is the author talking about? What generally happens to closing the OT in Jesus time before the DC are rationalization gymnastics reliant on an after Jesus Jewish convention. This is a clear use of the DC in the NT.

The story behind 2 Maccabees might have been what was referred to in Hebrews 11. Or it could have been the son of the widow when Elijah raised her son back to life in the Scriptures.

Reference to a historical account in a non-Scripture religious work does not mean that the author thought of it as Scripture. It would just mean that the narrative was thought to be true. Hebrews 11 makes some references to historical accounts that are not considered Scripture by anyone that I know of: for instance, the person sawed in two might have been Isaiah, if that referred to the Jewish story of his death.

Third, a religious work's inclusion in the Septuagint does not necessarily mean it was thought to be Scripture. Even the King James Version translators included translations of apocryphal material, but they did not consider those materials Scripture: they considered them significant.

Fourth, there is no evidence that the Council of Jamnia changed anything. So what that they rediscussed the Old Testament canon? It does not mean that anything was changed. I think they just reconfirmed the canon that Josephus reported at Against Apion 1:8 as having been fixed since the time of the Persian Empire.

Thinkingstuff: it comes down to this.

I do not understand why you are going with the so-called "deuterocanonicals." That is a Roman Catholic designation for ancient books translated in the Latin Vulgate which the Council of Trent finalized acceptance of as Scripture in the 1500's. The "deutero" means that they were added in a `second canon.'

You have been urging acceptance of some apocryphal material as Scripture on the basis of the Septuagint. The Septuagint includes different books than the Latin Vulgate. The Eastern Orthodox base their Old Testament canon on what is in the Septuagint, and they allege their added books were never added to Scripture, but were always included.

If you are going to go with the Septuagint, I would think you would be pushing for the Orthodox Old Testament canon -- not the Catholic deuterocanonicals.

Ultimately, I do not know why you are bothering with this. Very few people here are going to be convinced to add the so-called "deuterocanonical" books to the Scriptures and treat them as such. The same is true of the Orthodox material.

I am not convinced that 3 Maccabees was in what Jesus and His apostles called "Scripture." The same is true of Tobit. The same is true of all apocryphal material adopted by the Catholic Council of Trent or by the Orthodox. Since it was not Scripture to Jesus Christ and His apostles, it is not Scripture to me. I do not care one iota about conjectures or about who after them was using what.

If you are convinced you should adopt any of this apocryphal material as Scripture, then do so, but I do not understand why you feel the need to debate that with others. Are you not comfortable enough with your decision, and would feel more comfortable if you convinced someone else too? You will only frustrate yourself needlessly.

Countless Christians have accepted and do accept some of these materials as Scripture; their reasons for doing so are mistaken, but it is obviously not `wacko' to do so. You are not likely to convince most of us to adopt any of these materials as Scripture -- and you do not need to in order to legitimize your decision.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The story behind 2 Maccabees might have been what was referred to in Hebrews 11. Or it could have been the son of the widow when Elijah raised her son back to life in the Scriptures.

Reference to a historical account in a non-Scripture religious work does not mean that the author thought of it as Scripture. It would just mean that the narrative was thought to be true. Hebrews 11 makes some references to historical accounts that are not considered Scripture by anyone that I know of: for instance, the person sawed in two might have been Isaiah, if that referred to the Jewish story of his death.

Third, a religious work's inclusion in the Septuagint does not necessarily mean it was thought to be Scripture. Even the King James Version translators included translations of apocryphal material, but they did not consider those materials Scripture: they considered them significant.

Fourth, there is no evidence that the Council of Jamnia changed anything. So what that they rediscussed the Old Testament canon? It does not mean that anything was changed. I think they just reconfirmed the canon that Josephus reported at Against Apion 1:8 as having been fixed since the time of the Persian Empire.

Thinkingstuff: it comes down to this.

I do not understand why you are going with the so-called "deuterocanonicals." That is a Roman Catholic designation for ancient books translated in the Latin Vulgate which the Council of Trent finalized acceptance of as Scripture in the 1500's. The "deutero" means that they were added in a `second canon.'

You have been urging acceptance of some apocryphal material as Scripture on the basis of the Septuagint. The Septuagint includes different books than the Latin Vulgate. The Eastern Orthodox base their Old Testament canon on what is in the Septuagint, and they allege their added books were never added to Scripture, but were always included.

If you are going to go with the Septuagint, I would think you would be pushing for the Orthodox Old Testament canon -- not the Catholic deuterocanonicals.

Ultimately, I do not know why you are bothering with this. Very few people here are going to be convinced to add the so-called "deuterocanonical" books to the Scriptures and treat them as such. The same is true of the Orthodox material.

I am not convinced that 3 Maccabees was in what Jesus and His apostles called "Scripture." The same is true of Tobit. The same is true of all apocryphal material adopted by the Catholic Council of Trent or by the Orthodox. Since it was not Scripture to Jesus Christ and His apostles, it is not Scripture to me. I do not care one iota about conjectures or about who after them was using what.

If you are convinced you should adopt any of this apocryphal material as Scripture, then do so, but I do not understand why you feel the need to debate that with others. Are you not comfortable enough with your decision, and would feel more comfortable if you convinced someone else too? You will only frustrate yourself needlessly.

Countless Christians have accepted and do accept some of these materials as Scripture; their reasons for doing so are mistaken, but it is obviously not `wacko' to do so. You are not likely to convince most of us to adopt any of these materials as Scripture -- and you do not need to in order to legitimize your decision.

First off I'm not pushing anything.

secondly I'm following history and looking at evidence as I come accross it. I could care less who does what. What does consern me is that as I study history and how the bible comes together I come accross things that aren't so cut and dry as sunday school makes it out to be. Looking at historical christianity and how the bible is put together makes me wonder at modern christianity and its operation which is why I brought up this thread to begin with. I think it is significant that Hebrews refer to the events in 2 Macc. I think it is significant that the early church writers refer to other DC books and wonder at their use.
As I study Early writings I have questions and don't like pat answers (unless their true but usually they are just robotic responces) I see how Christianity developed and I have questions. My automatic assumption is that many people here are more educated than I and have seminary background and if I were in seminary I would be asking these questions. But I'm not so I'm asking them here. I don't believe the modern churches represent historical christianity and wonder at it.

As for the council of Trent argument it is clear that as Christianity progresses there are generally accepted beliefs that aren't specified such as the trinity. It is only when it becomes an issue is it defined. So it may be that the DC were generally accepted but not specified until trent because of the reformation. I'm following christian history but not trying to read back my current theology into it. I'm trying to get the theology it presents. So I have questions and want reasonable answers that can be verified not assumed.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Looking at historical christianity...makes me wonder at modern christianity and its operation...

Another interesting study, one which I am currently involved with now, is historical worship. OT Jewish liturgical worship in regard to NT Christian liturgical worship compared to todays protestant modern Christian worship, with the "traditional" and "contemporary" non-liturgical worship styles.

In XC
-

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Another interesting study, one which I am currently involved with now, is historical worship. OT Jewish liturgical worship in regard to NT Christian liturgical worship compared to todays protestant modern Christian worship, with the "traditional" and "contemporary" non-liturgical worship styles.

In XC
-

I haven't really gotten into this aspect but I do know a little. It's obvioius that the early christians had a liturgy that they practiced rather than the forum currently used. I have read the didache so I have an idea. I've also read a document that supposedly came from the Hyppolytan school of thought that is also a liturgy. Very interesting stuff.

 

[DHK]

First off I'm not pushing anything.

secondly I'm following history and looking at evidence as I come accross it.

What kind of evidence are you following? Who wrote it? Where did it come from? Is it biased? Are you looking at objective evidence? Do you actually have a Septuagint in your possession to examine. I do. It is rather old by today's standards--one of the oldest books that I possess. It was printed in 1869 by Bagster & Sons in London. One thing it does not contain is the Apocrypha. It gives a rather lengthy introduction of the history of Septuagint, and how it came to be, giving the date of 280 B.C. as its date of when they started the translation, and about 250 when it was completed. Of course, there are no apocryphal books that date back that far and could therefore never be included in the Septuagint. If they were ever included then some zealous Hellenistic copyist inserted them during or after the time of Christ. They were never in the Septuagint to begin with, and it would have been anathema for any Hebrew to put a Greek piece of literature into the Hebrew canon, a canon which was completed by 400 B.C. There is more than enough evidence available to tell us that the Jews never accepted the Apocrypha nor ever would.
We also have the evidence of the Jewish historian, Josephus that the Apocrypha was not in the Hebrew canon of Scriptures.
I also have a Hebrew OT. They are not there. I have also checked that out for myself. The Apocrypha is just not there. It is absent on all of these accounts.

Furthermore Jerome was against putting it into his translation.
It is absent in the earliest of the translations: the Itala, the Peshitta. Both of these were translated before the end of the third century, some of the earliest translations to be made.

They were never accepted by the Jewish nation in general.
They were never accepted by Protestants in general--that is those outside of the Catholic Church and its offshoots.
It was never accepted by the early churches that were outside of the Catholic Church.

So if your sources are tainted by Catholicism you obviously are looking in the wrong places. The various councils, like the Council of Trent, anathemized Biblical beliefs including salvation by faith in Christ. It is a Roman Catholic Council. Why would anyone use that as a source, is beyond me.
Most other councils are of the same nature.

Biblical history must be traced through other methods and strands of history that are not so prejudiced.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

What kind of evidence are you following? Who wrote it? Where did it come from? Is it biased? Are you looking at objective evidence? Do you actually have a Septuagint in your possession to examine. I do. It is rather old by today's standards--one of the oldest books that I possess. It was printed in 1869 by Bagster & Sons in London. One thing it does not contain is the Apocrypha. It gives a rather lengthy introduction of the history of Septuagint, and how it came to be, giving the date of 280 B.C. as its date of when they started the translation, and about 250 when it was completed. Of course, there are no apocryphal books that date back that far and could therefore never be included in the Septuagint. If they were ever included then some zealous Hellenistic copyist inserted them during or after the time of Christ. They were never in the Septuagint to begin with, and it would have been anathema for any Hebrew to put a Greek piece of literature into the Hebrew canon, a canon which was completed by 400 B.C. There is more than enough evidence available to tell us that the Jews never accepted the Apocrypha nor ever would.We also have the evidence of the Jewish historian, Josephus that the Apocrypha was not in the Hebrew canon of Scriptures.
I also have a Hebrew OT. They are not there. I have also checked that out for myself. The Apocrypha is just not there. It is absent on all of these accounts.

Furthermore Jerome was against putting it into his translation.
It is absent in the earliest of the translations: the Itala, the Peshitta. Both of these were translated before the end of the third century, some of the earliest translations to be made.

They were never accepted by the Jewish nation in general.
They were never accepted by Protestants in general--that is those outside of the Catholic Church and its offshoots.
It was never accepted by the early churches that were outside of the Catholic Church.

So if your sources are tainted by Catholicism you obviously are looking in the wrong places. The various councils, like the Council of Trent, anathemized Biblical beliefs including salvation by faith in Christ. It is a Roman Catholic Council. Why would anyone use that as a source, is beyond me.
Most other councils are of the same nature.

Biblical history must be traced through other methods and strands of history that are not so prejudiced.

I appreciate your enthusiasm however you tend to make blanket statements without evidence. BTW all protestants are offshoots of Catholicism.

I do have a copy of the LXX and it has the DC in it.

And how can you accept cannon of the NT books and not agree with the same people about the cannon of the OT? Curious.

 

[DHK]

I appreciate your enthusiasm however you tend to make blanket statements without evidence. BTW all protestants are offshoots of Catholicism.

I do have a copy of the LXX and it has the DC in it.

And how can you accept cannon of the NT books and not agree with the same people about the cannon of the OT? Curious.

The Apostles wrote the NT.
The Jews wrote the OT. They have nothing in common. The Jews do not accept the NT, not then, not today. It is the Apostles and Christ that put their stamp of approval on the OT (never the Apocrypha). In Acts 17:11 we see the Bereans searching the Scriptures daily to see if the things that Paul preached unto them were true. They were searching the OT to verify the NT message that Paul was preaching to them. It was not the Apocrypha which is devoid of the true gospel but rather preaches a heretical gospel of works, teaches demonism, and advocates the occult, as well as teaches the presence of purgatory. All of these are contrary to what the Bible teaches. Even in its historical books there are inaccuracies. There are no contradictions in God's Word, but in the Apocrypha there are many. That fact alone excludes the Apocrypha from the Word of God.

Philip opened up the Sciptures to the Book of Isaiah, where the Ethiopian Eunuch was already reading, and from there preached unto him Jesus. He used the OT to preach to him a NT message. That can't be done with the Apocrypha.

The Apocrypha can't be found in the NT. There is not one quotation of it found in the NT. It is not approved by Christ or by the Apostles anywhere, yet all of the other books are.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The Apostles wrote the NT.
The Jews wrote the OT. They have nothing in common. The Jews do not accept the NT, not then, not today. It is the Apostles and Christ that put their stamp of approval on the OT (never the Apocrypha). In Acts 17:11 we see the Bereans searching the Scriptures daily to see if the things that Paul preached unto them were true. They were searching the OT to verify the NT message that Paul was preaching to them. It was not the Apocrypha which is devoid of the true gospel but rather preaches a heretical gospel of works, teaches demonism, and advocates the occult, as well as teaches the presence of purgatory. All of these are contrary to what the Bible teaches. Even in its historical books there are inaccuracies. There are no contradictions in God's Word, but in the Apocrypha there are many. That fact alone excludes the Apocrypha from the Word of God.

Philip opened up the Sciptures to the Book of Isaiah, where the Ethiopian Eunuch was already reading, and from there preached unto him Jesus. He used the OT to preach to him a NT message. That can't be done with the Apocrypha.

The Apocrypha can't be found in the NT. There is not one quotation of it found in the NT. It is not approved by Christ or by the Apostles anywhere, yet all of the other books are.

Even this may not be correct. Tell me who wrote the book of Hebrews? Or the Revelation of John? Was Luke and Apostle?

I can show you books Christ and the apostles did not quote in the OT. Should we take them out?

Yes you have great enthusiasm. And I appreciate it.

 

[DHK]

Even this may not be correct. Tell me who wrote the book of Hebrews?

There is good evidence that the Apostle Paul wrote the Book of Hebrews although it is generally accepted that no one can know for absolutely sure. However, even the KJV translators title it: "The Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews."

Or the Revelation of John?

No one disputes the Book of Revelation. It is identified by John himself. Only the most radical liberal who tries to deny the Bible and its inerrancy would try to dispute that fact.

Was Luke and Apostle?

Luke traveled with an Apostle. He traveled closely with Paul. He was there on his missionary journeys. He was an "associate of the Apostles", just as Mark worked closely with Peter," and was an "associate of the Apostles", in that respect. To be specific then, the Apostles and their close associates wrote the NT.

I can show you books Christ and the apostles did not quote in the OT. Should we take them out?

You can try if you wish. But I can show you Scripture where Christ puts his stamp of approval on the entire OT, and that doesn't include the apocrypha, nor could it for some of the apocrypha was written after the death of Christ.

Here are some informative links you should look at that will give you the information you need.

http://www.ccel.org/olb/tolbss/components/txt/rapc.txt
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n4/why-66
http://www.brethrenassembly.com/Ebooks/Apol_004A1.pdf

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Just to let you know DHK this is the stuff I've studied:

I picked up translations of the Dead Sea Scrolls by Penguine classics. I also picked up the book 2nd Temple period writing by David Flusser. I've picked up the english translation of the apocrypha from Oxford University. I've picked up Early Christian writings the translated works of Clement, Polycarp, Ignatius, Justyn Martyr 1st and 2nd Apologies, the Epistle of Barnabas, Didache, Ireaneus against heresies, I've read on the Apostolic tradition by Hippolytus (actually its a liturgy translated primarily from a coptic text yet filled in from the latin) I've picked up an everyman's Talmud. I've reviewed Early Christian Doctrines by JND Kelly, I've read the writings of the 1st 3 Ecumminical Councils, I've read Rose publications on Christian History and Zondervans book on Christian History, I have a english translation of the LXX with the Greek in the Middle. I've actually picked up the documents of the Council of Trent just to see what they said against the reformation. I have an old testiment and New testiment survey books from college (protestant yes). I've read Dr. Chris Hall on early christian writings. And there are still more resources I want to look at. Of course I have several translations of the bible I have a study NIV a regular NIV I have a KJV and a NKJV I have NAB version and an 1855 leather bound Oxford translation of the bible with inscription from Lord Wharton that I picked up in the UK. to get a better understanding of apocalyptic writing I picked up a copy of 1 Enoch and the Assumption of Mosses. I have not yet read through the book of Jubalees. I've only read parts of Josephus and I've read entirely Eusibius. Just to get a feel of the Greek culture I've read Homer and a book about Greek Mythology. To get a feel of Roman literature I've read Aenid by Virgil. Also there is a very interesting book called "Christians how the Romans Saw them" Yes. I read a lot and often several books at once. Does that answer your question?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

There is good evidence that the Apostle Paul wrote the Book of Hebrews although it is generally accepted that no one can know for absolutely sure. However, even the KJV translators title it: "The Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews."

No one disputes the Book of Revelation. It is identified by John himself. Only the most radical liberal who tries to deny the Bible and its inerrancy would try to dispute that fact.

Luke traveled with an Apostle. He traveled closely with Paul. He was there on his missionary journeys. He was an "associate of the Apostles", just as Mark worked closely with Peter," and was an "associate of the Apostles", in that respect. To be specific then, the Apostles and their close associates wrote the NT.

You can try if you wish. But I can show you Scripture where Christ puts his stamp of approval on the entire OT, and that doesn't include the apocrypha, nor could it for some of the apocrypha was written after the death of Christ.

Here are some informative links you should look at that will give you the information you need.

http://www.ccel.org/olb/tolbss/components/txt/rapc.txt
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n4/why-66
http://www.brethrenassembly.com/Ebooks/Apol_004A1.pdf

You showed me catagories Christ referred to not specific books. Not a good argument.

 

[Darron Steele]

The story behind 2 Maccabees might have been what was referred to in Hebrews 11. Or it could have been the son of the widow when Elijah raised her son back to life in the Scriptures.

Reference to a historical account in a non-Scripture religious work does not mean that the author thought of it as Scripture. It would just mean that the narrative was thought to be true. Hebrews 11 makes some references to historical accounts that are not considered Scripture by anyone that I know of: for instance, the person sawed in two might have been Isaiah, if that referred to the Jewish story of his death.

Third, a religious work's inclusion in the Septuagint does not necessarily mean it was thought to be Scripture. Even the King James Version translators included translations of apocryphal material, but they did not consider those materials Scripture: they considered them significant.

Fourth, there is no evidence that the Council of Jamnia changed anything. So what that they rediscussed the Old Testament canon? It does not mean that anything was changed. I think they just reconfirmed the canon that Josephus reported at Against Apion 1:8 as having been fixed since the time of the Persian Empire.

Thinkingstuff: it comes down to this.

I do not understand why you are going with the so-called "deuterocanonicals." That is a Roman Catholic designation for ancient books translated in the Latin Vulgate which the Council of Trent finalized acceptance of as Scripture in the 1500's. The "deutero" means that they were added in a `second canon.'

You have been urging acceptance of some apocryphal material as Scripture on the basis of the Septuagint. The Septuagint includes different books than the Latin Vulgate. The Eastern Orthodox base their Old Testament canon on what is in the Septuagint, and they allege their added books were never added to Scripture, but were always included.

If you are going to go with the Septuagint, I would think you would be pushing for the Orthodox Old Testament canon -- not the Catholic deuterocanonicals.

Ultimately, I do not know why you are bothering with this. Very few people here are going to be convinced to add the so-called "deuterocanonical" books to the Scriptures and treat them as such. The same is true of the Orthodox material.

I am not convinced that 3 Maccabees was in what Jesus and His apostles called "Scripture." The same is true of Tobit. The same is true of all apocryphal material adopted by the Catholic Council of Trent or by the Orthodox. Since it was not Scripture to Jesus Christ and His apostles, it is not Scripture to me. I do not care one iota about conjectures or about who after them was using what.

If you are convinced you should adopt any of this apocryphal material as Scripture, then do so, but I do not understand why you feel the need to debate that with others. Are you not comfortable enough with your decision, and would feel more comfortable if you convinced someone else too? You will only frustrate yourself needlessly.

Countless Christians have accepted and do accept some of these materials as Scripture; their reasons for doing so are mistaken, but it is obviously not `wacko' to do so. You are not likely to convince most of us to adopt any of these materials as Scripture -- and you do not need to in order to legitimize your decision.

First off I'm not pushing anything.
...
So I have questions and want reasonable answers that can be verified not assumed.

I am having trouble believing this.

You have been given reason after reason by several people here as to why not to accept an expanded Old Testament canon -- I also gave you my main reason.

You have disputed most of those at length. You have been very vociferous in your assertions that an expanded Old Testament canon was a near-universal norm in the early church -- a point that has been well disputed against.

It is clear that you are beyond `asking questions.' I have asked questions to learn the `why' about positions I do not agree with before, and after I get those answers, I do nothing further except perhaps thank people. This is not remotely close to what you have done here. It is clear that you are arguing, whether you intend to or not.

As I essentially said in my prior post, this argument seems to be an attempt to justify a decision you have already made. As I essentially said in my prior post, you do not need to do this to yourself. I am curious as to which expanded canon you have adopted or are leaning toward:
a) the Catholic one from the Vulgate and Council of Trent, or
b) the Orthodox one from the Septuagint?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I am having trouble believing this.

You have been given reason after reason by several people here as to why not to accept an expanded Old Testament canon -- I also gave you my main reason.

You have disputed most of those at length. You have been very vociferous in your assertions that an expanded Old Testament canon was a near-universal norm in the early church -- a point that has been well disputed against.

It is clear that you are beyond `asking questions.' I have asked questions to learn the `why' about positions I do not agree with before, and after I get those answers, I do nothing further except perhaps thank people. This is not remotely close to what you have done here. It is clear that you are arguing, whether you intend to or not.

As I essentially said in my prior post, this argument seems to be an attempt to justify a decision you have already made. As I essentially said in my prior post, you do not need to do this to yourself. I am curious as to which expanded canon you have adopted or are leaning toward:
a) the Catholic one from the Vulgate and Council of Trent, or
b) the Orthodox one from the Septuagint?

The only "decision" I've made was 26 years ago to accept Jesus Christ as my personal savior. Off course I dispute something that I find questionable or not consistent don't you? The best argument on this thread that I have heard not to include the DC into the OT is one DHK actually made. Just one because he tends to make blanket statements. But here is his point that I found to be the most acceptable off all the arguments here that Josephus admits to only 22 books in his against Aphion and specifies his argument against the Greek view of the OT. That is good evidence So far nothing else on the other side of the argument is because they are easily contestable as I've and Matt Black have shown. Josephus quote is harder to contest and therefore make a good argument. It still begs the question however why reliance on the early church writings from these books and the methods they used. I can only speculate that by that time Christianity had substatively moved from Judiaism and became more Greek in operation and therefore the Jewish conventions were not fully accepted. But of course that is speculation. Though it would make sense since Justyn Martyr wore the philosophers robes and many of the great christian teachers were taught in Greek philisophical methods.

Your assertion that "it has been well argued against." is incorrect. The very point of this discussion. It is still debated. I hate answers that are "we've already dealt with that just accept it" That's what the catholic church said to the reformers. But obviously they had points to bring up. Why are you taking their method to prohibit healthy questions and discussion? The fact is that these arguments are continually brought up in many forums a lot more accomplished than this one. Most here don't accept evolution and the evolutionist of this world will call us ridiculous because we find fault in their findings. You seem to have the same issue here with regard to my questions and discussions for inclusion of the DC. Just because you believe something doesn't mean I do or accept your premise.

Hebrews. The story of the women source is still from the DC so it was still used in the NT. Whether it was considered canon or not is the subject of this debate.

Of course maybe you don't want to debate these issues I find relevant.