Confused, did the early christians accept the non-canonized books?

[orthodox]

The Prologue of Sirach (in part)

<snip quote>

Uh huh. So so shall I take this as a retraction of your errors?

 

[orthodox]

In Post #112 I was asked for "Proof" about my statement that the Palestinian Jewish Old Testament was shorter than the Orthodox/Catholic Old Testament. I have already listed the evidence: Josephus mentioned that the Jews had accepted only 22 books in Against Apion 1:8, and not accepted as Scripture anything after the 400's B.C.E.. I have quoted the passage in prior posts on this thread. While the Protestant 39 comes from splitting up the Jews' 22, there is no system that I know of to get the Orthodox/Catholic 46 out of those 22

If you're not aware of ways that the ancients fitted the deuterocanonical books into the 22 book count, then sadly you havn't been reading the information I have presented already in this thread.

If you'd bothered to read it, it would show that reference to 22 books is meaningless, because there is no agreement on what deuterocanonicals it may or may not include or exclude. I've documented Church Fathers including deuterocanonicals in the 22, what have you documented to say they are definitely excluded?

Orthodox, I am not Baptist. However, I am in complete disagreement with you on this. You were not approached by the operators and normal members of this board for debate -- you approached them/us.

That's not what happened exactly. Some folks asked me to come here and set a few facts right in this thread. If baptists don't want to discuss things with other denominations providing evidence for their viewpoint, may I suggest either shutting down this forum area, or staying out. If you ask for dialogue by setting up an inter-faith forum, expect to be challenged to document.

Further, documentation after documentation has been addressed to you and your comrades on this, all of which has been disregarded.

Like what? I think that's flat out false, and it's funny coming from someone who is remaining willfully ignorant of what I have documented concerning the 22 book canon.

 

[DHK]

If you're not aware of ways that the ancients fitted the deuterocanonical books into the 22 book count, then sadly you havn't been reading the information I have presented already in this thread.

If you'd bothered to read it, it would show that reference to 22 books is meaningless, because there is no agreement on what deuterocanonicals it may or may not include or exclude. I've documented Church Fathers including deuterocanonicals in the 22, what have you documented to say they are definitely excluded?

If you want documentation as to what we all know for common knowledge here it is:

The Bible, Its History, Infallibility and Authority

​

"But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."
2 Timothy 3:14-17 (NIV
​

Summary:

The presupposition of Christianity is that the Bible, as originally written down by people inspired by God, is the infallible word of God in written form. The Bible contains the divine answer to the problems we humans face throughout our lives, as well as the directives of God concerning how He is to be worshiped and served. While some problems of translation do exist, Christians believe that God Himself maintains the integrity and accuracy of His words through the work of the Holy Spirit.
General Information: The Bible contains 66 different books by various authors. The 39 books of the Old Testament were written in Hebrew, and the 27 books of the New Testament were written in Greek and Aramaic. Below is a list of the books of the Bible and their possible authors (if known).
Book(s) -- Author(s)

• Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus,Numbers,Deuteronomy -- Moses
• Joshua-- Joshua and Eleazar
• Judges-- Unknown
• Ruth-- Unknown
• 1,2 Samuel-- Unknown
• 1,2 Kings-- Unknown
• 1,2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah-- Ezra, perhaps
• Esther-- Unknown
• Job-- An Unknown Israelite
• Psalms-- David, mostly
• Proverbs-- Solomon, Agur son of Jakeh, and King Lemuel
• Ecclesiastes Song of Songs-- King Solomon
• Isaiah-- Isaiah son of Amoz
• Jeremiah-- The Prophet Jeremiah
• Lamentations-- Jeremiah, perhaps
• Ezekiel-- Ezekiel
• Daniel-- Daniel
• Hosea Hosea son of Beeri
• Joel-- Joel son of Pethuel
• Amos-- Amos
• Obadiah-- Obadiah
• Jonah-- Jonah son of Amittai, probably
• Micah-- Micah
• Nahum-- Nahum
• Habakkuk-- Habakkuk
• Zephaniah-- Zephaniah, a descendent of Hezekiah
• Haggai-- Haggai
• Zechariah-- Zechariah
• Malachi-- Malachi, probably
• Matthew-- Matthew
• Mark-- John Mark
• Luke-- Luke
• John-- Apostle John
• Acts-- Luke
• Romans, 1,2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1,2 Thessalonians, 1,2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon-- Paul
• Hebrews-- Unknown
• James-- James, brother of Jesus
• 1,2 Peter-- Simon Peter
• 1,2,3 John-- John
• Jude-- Jude
• Revelation-- John

Just as infallible Jesus was born, by the work of the Holy Spirit, through a sinful woman, so was the infallible scripture born of the preceding list of authors by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
Why do we have the particular 66 books listed?
The collection of the 66 books which we know as the Bible, is divided into the Old Testament and the New Testament. The collection of the Old testament books is known as the Canon of the Old Testament and the collection of the New Testament books is known as the Canon of the New Testament. The word "canon" means standard or rule, and as applied to the scripture means that those particular books which are "canonized" have been granted authority as a rule of faith. By whom? is the natural next question. The answer is by God, Himself.
To quote Edward J. Young, "When the Word of God was written it became Scripture and, inasmuch as it had been spoken by God, possessed absolute authority. Since it was the Word of God, it was canonical. That which determines the canonicity of a book, therefore, is the fact that the book is inspired of God." The concept of canonicity only has validity in the context of Christian theism. The following outline organizes the various assertions that Christians must make about the authority and infallibility of the Bible.
The Authority of Scripture

1. The Bible proclaims its own authority
   1. Scripture is inspired by God
      (II Timothy 3:14-17)
   2. Belief in Scripture is necessary and commanded
      (I Corinthians 14:36-38, John 5:46-47, I John 4:1-6)
   3. God has promised to preserve His word for His people in all generations
      (Matthew 5:17-18, John 10:35, Isaiah 59:21)
   4. The New Testament writers all referred to the Old Testament as authoritative
   5. The New Testament claims the same authority for itself as the Old Testament
      (2 Peter 3:14-16)
   6. "As Christians we receive the Bible as the Word of God which cannot be judged by any higher standard. The Word of God speaks for itself; it is not verified by any other than the self-verifying Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."
2. The External World cannot prove that the Bible is incorrect when it speaks of the world
   1. There has never been a proven contradiction between what the Bible says and the reality of the world
   2. There has never been a proven contradiction between the historical accountscontained in the Bible and in other recorded histories.
3. Personal Experience proclaims the Bible
   1. Christians accept the Word of God because of the Holy Spirit's testimony to their hearts that the Bible's own claim is true.
   2. Christians are allowed to believe in the Authority of the Scripture because of the spirit of discernment granted by the Holy Spirit, and because the Christian does not presuppose that he himself has the authority which God possesses to render something authoritative or not.

• Note: Points B and C are taken nearly verbatim from Every Though Captive by Richard Pratt.

Again, however, it is necessary to note that points A,B, and C can only be valid in the context of Christianity. It is God Who speaks to Christians through the Bible and Who allows the devil to make the Bible seem foolish to non-Christians: "For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God" (I Corinthians 1:18, NIV) and "...by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. The god of this age [Satan] has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God" (II Corinthians 4:2-4, NIV).
Why do Protestants not accept the Apocryphal books as authoritative?
The Apocryphal books are about 15 books which were composed during the last two centuries before the birth of Christ and the first century afterwards. The Apocryphal books are:

• The First Book of Esdras
• The Second Book of EsdrasTobit
• Judithl
• The Additions to the book of Esther
• The Wisdom of Solomon
• Ecclesiasticus, or The Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach
• Baruch
• The letter of Jeremiah
• The Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Young Men
• Susanna
• Bel and the Dragon
• The Prayer of Manasseh
• The First Book of the Maccabees
• The Second Book of the Maccabees

Since 1546, the Roman Catholic Church has considered some of these books to be inspired and has included them with the Old Testament. These are, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, I and II Maccabees, and some supplements to Esther and Daniel. The Roman Catholic Church and a few other churches are the only religious groups which consider any of the Apocryphal books to be divinely inspired scripture. The following outline gives reasons why most protestant Christians do not believe in the Apocryphal books as authoritative.
The Primary reason is that The Jewish Canon, that Scripture which Jesus Himself believed in did not include the Apocryphal books.

1. The number of books in the Hebrew Old Testament is 24 in the Hebrew method of counting which is equivalent to the 39 books we have in our English translations with our English methods of counting.
2. The apocryphal books were only included in the Old Testament as late as the non-Christian Greek translation called The Septuagint. In other words, the Jewish Old Testament that Jesus believed to be authoritative did not contain the Apocryphal books. The Septuagint was translated around 300 B.C. while the earliest copies that we have are from 300 A.D. and it was between these 600 years that the Apocryphal books crept into the Greek Canon, yet they never appeared in the Hebrew Canon, nor did Jesus ever quote them or consider them to be authoritative.
   1. No New Testament book references an Apocryphal book as authoritative.
   2. Jesus says in Luke 24:44, "He said to them, 'This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms" (NIV).

 

[DHK]

continued

The noted theologian Cornelius Van Til captures the attitude that all Christians should possess concerning the Bible in his book Why I Believe in God , which is written as a letter to an atheist:
"So I readily grant that there are some 'difficulties' with respect to belief in God and His revelation in nature and Scripture that I cannot solve. In fact there is mystery in every relationship with respect to every fact that one faces, for the reason that all facts have their final explanation in God Whose thoughts are higher than my thoughts, and Whose ways are higher than my ways."

And further...
"Without such a God, without the God of the Bible, the God of authority, the God who is self-contained and therefore incomprehensible to men, there would be no reason in anything. No human being can explain in the sense of seeing through all things [limited world view of humanity], but only he who believes in God has the right to hold that there is an explanation at all. By my belief in God I do have unity in my experience. Not of course the sort of unity that you want. Not a unity that is the result of my own autonomous determination of what is possible. But a unity that is higher than mine and prior to mine. On the basis of God's counsel I can look for facts and find them without destroying them in advance. On the basis of God's counsel I can be a good physicist, a good biologist, a good psychologist, or a good philosopher. In all these fields I use my powers of logical arrangement in order to see as much order in God's universe as it may be given a creature to see. The unities, or systems that I make are true because [they are] genuine pointers toward the basic or original unity that is found in the counsel of God."

For further information about this subject, the following books are highly commended because of their attention to detail, and their authors' commitment to hold tightly to the doctrines of God as set forth in the Bible. Sources Used: Why I Believe in God Cornelius Van Til
Revelation and the Bible Edited by: Carl F.H. Henry
God's Inerrant Word Edited by: John Warwick Montgomery
Basic Christianity John R.W. Stott
Every Thought Captive Richard L. Pratt, Jr.
In Defense of the Faith Cornelius Van Til
The New Testament Documents Are They Reliable? F.F. Bruce "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.. .. The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth." John 1:1,14 (NIV) Return to the Bible Page at CRTA

http://www.reformed.org/bible/bible-intro.html

I trust this will satisfy you, even though it is the same basic information that we have been posting all along.
DHK

 

[orthodox]

If you want documentation as to what we all know for common knowledge here it is:

I have no interest in your beliefs, except in so far as you wish to attempt to *PROVE* them as being more reliable than the Church that Jesus Christ founded (aka, the Orthodox Catholic Church).

If all you want to do is pontificate about whatever it is you believe, whether it be the heresies of protestantism, hinduism, mormonism, or whatever ism you happen to follow, but you don't want to substantiate it, then it is a waste of time.

 

[Eliyahu]

I think this thread has already exposed the fundamental differences between Roman Catholic and the Christians.

I don't count Roman Catholic as Christians.

You will see the following differences:

Roman Catholic believes and performs:


1) Salvation by Grace + Works
2) Salvation by baptism
3) Idol making for Mary or Joseph or Jesus
4) Idol worshipping for those statues
5) Immaculate Conception
6) Perpetual Virginity of Mary
7) Assumption : Ascension of Mary
8) Theotokos : calling Mary Mother of God, meaning God the Son of Mary.
9) Mary as Mother of Church
10) Queen of Heaven
11) Clergy system with hierarchy
12) Compulsory Celibacy
13) Papacy
14) Papal infallibility – Why does Benedict 16 apologize to Muslims if he is infallible ?
15) Whorish Tradition of so-called holy tradition ( against Col 2:8 after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ)
16) No Salvation outside Roman Catholic Church:
http://www.geocities.com/orthopapism/eens_papal.html
17) Purgatory : Even the Robber at the Cross went to the Paradise directly !
How miserable the Roman Catholics are !
18) Limbo
19) Mass which is ever asking forgiveness of the sins without bringing the Gospel that such sins were already forgiven at the Cross. If they believe that all the sins were already forgiven at the Cross, they will find no reason to perform the mock-sacrifice show from next week ! since the sacrifice was done at the Cross once for ALL)
20) Transubstantiation ( Magic performance by Catholic Priests)
21) Confession to priests ( NOT to GOD)
22) Extreme unction, Extreme Unction after death
23) Prayer to the dead
24) Prayer for the dead (For this Roman Catholic need Apocrypha which is not the true part of the Words of God)
25) Prayer to Mary (Prayer to the Dead woman by 1.3 billion Catholics, Is Mary Omni-present ? When did she become so much powerful like that if she didn’t accept the prayers from all over the world while she was living? )
26) Pray with Rosario ( Typical paganism among Muslim, Buddhists)
27) all the signs of pagan origin such as ankh cross, mark of IHS, threefold hats for the pope, etc.
28) Chemarim costumes ( Black costumes used for Idol worshipping priests) – Zephaniah 1:4
29) Believing Apocrypha as Bible canon.
30) Crusade – Killling Albigenes and Jews, Plundering and Raping women.
31) Inquisition – Does Bible teach that Church should torture and kill the people if they are found Heretic ? Where is the teachings of Love Your Enemy ?
32) Indulgence – Typical Roman Catholic Business
33) Proxy wars thru Nazis, Aramada, etc.


True Christians believe,

Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura, Sola Gratia, Solus Christus, Solis Deo Gloria
Reject the authority of Apocrypha as the Bible Canon, even though they may be referred to as an extra information. When AP contradicts Bible, it shouldn't and cannot override or supersede the Bible.
Christians believe God is the Creator of all the people and of the universe, while Roman Catholic believe god is the son of Mary, so the god of Roman Catholic is different from the God of True Christian believers.

If Roman Catholic believe that OT teaches the Genocide, it is extremely ridiculous.
God commanded the ethnic cleansing because God knew all the sins of the Canaanites and therefore they had to be cleansed as the divine punishment. But did Adolf Hitler or Crusaders received the commandments from God to perform the Holocaust and to kill the Jews and Christians ?
http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm

Did God command Catholics to perform the Inquisition ?
Torturing and Killing Christians were the hobby of Roman Catholics !
Now they are gearing up for another stage of Inquistion under Anti-Christ, the coming Pope!

Actually RC believes goddess decorated with the name of Mary, and their god is the son of goddess mary.
RC is not Christian. RC and Christians are too much different to be called one religion. One is Fake Christians, the other is True Christians as we see the difference between fake money and genuine bills.

 

[orthodox]

I think this thread has already exposed the fundamental differences between Roman Catholic and the Christians.

I've been following this thread very closely, and as far as I know, there are no Roman Catholics participating in this thread.

So call me slow, but I fail to see how this thread can "expose" anything about Roman Catholics, any more than it could expose things about Hindus or Buddists.

Like most protestant utterances in this thread, things don't compute.

 

[Eliyahu]

I've been following this thread very closely, and as far as I know, there are no Roman Catholics participating in this thread.

So call me slow, but I fail to see how this thread can "expose" anything about Roman Catholics, any more than it could expose things about Hindus or Buddists.

Like most protestant utterances in this thread, things don't compute.

Actually that was the question from the beginning.
When some of the issues which are common to RC were raised, you advocated RC and moreover what you posted were exactly the same as RC mostly so far. Therefore I presumed that your faith is the same as RC.

Now tell me what is the difference between your faith and RC.
Are you Greek Orthodox or Coptic Orthodox or Eastern Orthodox?

If you are not RC, you don't have to defend them.

 

[El_Guero]

Orthodox

Having discussed theology with an Orthodox priest - I believe that he and I had (and have) much more in common then you and I have.

You read like a disgruntled and burned out Christian that has picked up the moniker of orthodox to hide behind.

 

[DHK]

I have no interest in your beliefs, except in so far as you wish to attempt to *PROVE* them as being more reliable than the Church that Jesus Christ founded (aka, the Orthodox Catholic Church).

If all you want to do is pontificate about whatever it is you believe, whether it be the heresies of protestantism, hinduism, mormonism, or whatever ism you happen to follow, but you don't want to substantiate it, then it is a waste of time.

So why are you here?
First you demand documentation of our beliefs
Then you contradict yourself by stating that you have no interest in our beliefs. If that is true and you are only here to advertise your own beliefs, and/or proselize, I will notify the administration immediately suggest a banning. That type of activity is not permitted on the Baptist Board.
Why are you here? Be honest.
I have stated my beliefs. I have documented as you have reqested.
Now, what will you do with them.
It is your obligation to come up with a viable solution to show how they are Biblically wrong, for our final authority in all matters of faith and doctrine is the Bible. Appeal to the Word of God. Wherein are we wrong?
Can you with any certain authority state that any NT author quoted from the LXX?
Can you with any certain authority state that any NT author quoted from the apocrypha?
If so where? Don't just give the reference. Give a detailed explanation, of how it is so, and why the author could not be quoting the MT, or even be making his own translation. Show that you have eliminated all other possibilities like any other scientist would in his field, instead of blindly accepting what your church authority tells you to believe.

If you are just a sounding board, an advertising board for your church you should find somewhere else to peddle your wares. This forum is for honest debate.
DHK

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Actually that was the question from the beginning.
When some of the issues which are common to RC were raised, you advocated RC and moreover what you posted were exactly the same as RC mostly so far. Therefore I presumed that your faith is the same as RC.

Now tell me what is the difference between your faith and RC.
Are you Greek Orthodox or Coptic Orthodox or Eastern Orthodox?

If you are not RC, you don't have to defend them.

FYI, the Eastern Orthodox community, while pretty much united in its theology, is divided up along national or ethnic lines. So, a member of the Russian Orthodox church, a member of the Greek Orthodox Church, and a member of the Serbian Orthodox Church hold to the same basic doctrines. They just look to their own patriarches and attendent hierarcies for guidence.

Add to that, the Eastern Orthodox Churches have historically held their services in the local language. The EO didn't have a Latin (or in their case Greek) everywhere policy.

 

[Taufgesinnter]

The last part is historical error

If you want documentation as to what we all know for common knowledge here it is:
[/list]
[/list]

The RCCs haven't held since 1546 that the other books of Scripture listed there were Scripture. They responded to the Protestants' cutting out parts of the Bible by reiterating what constitutes the canon (although the list at Trent was, admittedly, a bit shorter than what was originally canonical). The RCCs have held since their founding in 1054 that those books were Scripture. They inherited that canon from the undivided Church whose councils in the 4th century proclaimed them to be canonical, at the same time that they decided what constitutes the NT.

 

[Taufgesinnter]

I'm not even Catholic, yet I saw a whole slew of mistakes and misinformation in that description of RCC doctrines and practices. That said, you did have several things right. To know what Catholics really believe, you need to read the CCC.

 

[David Michael Harris]

The Septuagint was used in the early Church, it's just a Greek translation of the Hebrew. Nothing wrong with it, I have one.

Other NT writings quote verses from non Protestant Bible books. Do not get too hung up on it.

Cling to your Bible but read the Apocrypha as a matter of interest, the book of Sirach especially, why that is not next to Proverbs in the Protestant Bible I will never know, it's brilliant.

Although it's important not to upset peoples faith, the Bible as we have it is suffienct to Salvation, all else is a bonus and great fun to read.

David

 

[DHK]

The RCCs haven't held since 1546 that the other books of Scripture listed there were Scripture. They responded to the Protestants' cutting out parts of the Bible by reiterating what constitutes the canon (although the list at Trent was, admittedly, a bit shorter than what was originally canonical). The RCCs have held since their founding in 1054 that those books were Scripture. They inherited that canon from the undivided Church whose councils in the 4th century proclaimed them to be canonical, at the same time that they decided what constitutes the NT.

One of the biggest mistakes that people make is to get sucked into the lie that the RCC church is and has been the guardian of the Bible. They are not, and have been anything but. The same holds true for the Orthodox. Throughout history God has never left himself without a witness. That witness has come through various groups of Bible believing Christians under different names, all opposing the heresies of the RCC.
Go back into history:
Who murdered John Huss, Wycliffe? William Tyndale, persecuted Luther, and many others who have stood for the Word of God. The Catholic Church throughout the annals of history has tried to keep the Bible from the hands of the common history.
When Tyndale came out with his translation of the Bible, the RCC gathered as many copies of it as possible and burned them all. They didn't want the common person to be able to read the Bible for themselves. Then they went after Tyndale himself and murdered him. This is the true character of the Catholic Church. They were never the guardians of the Bible.

God entrusted the keeping of the Bible to true believers who knew which books were inspired before the Catholic Councils were ever convened. In 2Pet.3, Peter refers to Paul's epistles as Scripture. He also refers to the apostles and prophets in the same verse telling his readers to take heed to the writings of both, putting the writings of the Apostles on the same level as the Old Testament writings. It appears that Peter, during his time, knew which books (up to that time) were inspired, and which were not. Paul knew (out of his many letters) which ones were inspired and which were not. He let his readers know. The early Christians knew (through the teachings of the Apostles) which books were inspired. The Bible was basically being canonized as it was being written.
The doubtings and disputations (which Timothy was commanded to avoid listening to), came when certain false teachers crept into the church and tried to corrupt the Word of God. They tried to pass off their own writings as Scripture when they were not; they were the writings of false teachers. Paul refers to the false teachers in the church of Corinth. He warns the Ephesian elders of the false teachers that would invade their church. Jesus warns in Mat.7 how false teachers would come. In fact every NT writer warns of false teachers to come. And you wonder why there are apocryphal books today?
The Catholic Church has been a destroyer of the Bible, not a guardian.
DHK

 

[Taufgesinnter]

*Please* let's keep to fact, *not* fiction

One of the biggest mistakes that people make is to get sucked into the lie that the RCC church is and has been the guardian of the Bible. They are not, and have been anything but. The same holds true for the Orthodox.

Why are you suddenly picking on Orthodox Christianity?

God entrusted the keeping of the Bible to true believers who knew which books were inspired before the Catholic Councils were ever convened.

The councils of God's Church convened in the fourth century, more than half a millennium before the RCC came into existence, so I agree with you.

Paul knew (out of his many letters) which ones were inspired and which were not. He let his readers know.

Speculation.

Jesus warns in Mat.7 how false teachers would come. In fact every NT writer warns of false teachers to come. And you wonder why there are apocryphal books today?

And yet the books of Holy Scripture some call Apocrypha were written long before.

 

[Taufgesinnter]

Dhk

Where I wrote, " Why are you suddenly picking on Orthodox Christianity?" I intended to add: The vast majority of the NT manuscripts we have today were preserved by the Orthodox, who regard the Received Text as the official NT of the Church.

 

[DHK]

One of the biggest mistakes that people make is to get sucked into the lie that the RCC church is and has been the guardian of the Bible. They are not, and have been anything but. The same holds true for the Orthodox.

Why are you suddenly picking on Orthodox Christianity?

What do you call Orthodox Christianity? If it is either the RCC or its eastern counterpart, the Orthodox Church--which has basically the same doctrine, then I don't consider that a Christian Church at all. They are not the bearers of truth, but of heresy. They have not existed since the apostles, but came from Constantine in the 4th Century.

Paul knew (out of his many letters) which ones were inspired and which were not. He let his readers know.

Speculation.

And why should this be speculation?

2 Peter 3:15-16 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
--Peter knew of the epistles of Paul, and apparently which ones were Scripture.

2 Peter 3:2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:
--Note Peter puts the words of the Apostles (not the authors of the Apocrypha) on the same level, the same importance, as the prophets of the OT. This was a very important step for Jewish Christians seeing that they regarded the prophets of the Old Testament with very high esteem.

If you read through the epistles of Paul, over and over again you will find the phrase "by the commandment of the Lord." Paul wrote according to the command of the Lord. It was inspired. The Apocrypha was not.

For example:
1 Timothy 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope;

2 Thessalonians 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.

--Paul's word was authoritative. It was done in the name of Christ. It was the command of God. It was the inspired word of God. There is no disputing this fact. It is not mere speculation. He knew when he was speaking the inspired Word of God.

So did the OT prophets:
2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Jesus warns in Mat.7 how false teachers would come. In fact every NT writer warns of false teachers to come. And you wonder why there are apocryphal books today?

And yet the books of Holy Scripture some call Apocrypha were written long before.

They also quote from a Cretian philosopher and a Greek poet. So what. They also quote from the very words of Satan himself which you can read of in Genesis chapter 3 and Job chapter 1. Inspiration simply means that the words recorded in Scripture were recorded accurately just as God wanted them to be recorded. It does not mean that the entire source from where they originated was inspired. For example:
All the writings of the Cretian philosophers are not inspired.
All the writings of the Greek poets are not inspired.
All the words of Satan are not inspired.
All the words recorded in the LXX are not inspired.

There is no evidence anywhere in Scripture that any book of the Apocrypha, as the Apocrypha stands today, is ever quoted in Scripture. No evidence whatsoever. In every thread on this board no one has been able to quote one reference to any book that has been accurately quoted in the NT.
DHK

 

[Taufgesinnter]

Shame on you

What do you call Orthodox Christianity? If it is either the RCC or its eastern counterpart, the Orthodox Church--which has basically the same doctrine, then I don't consider that a Christian Church at all. They are not the bearers of truth, but of heresy. They have not existed since the apostles, but came from Constantine in the 4th Century.

Shame on you! In the last 100 years, over 100 million Christians died as martyrs for their faith in Christ. Over 99% of them were Orthodox! Don't cheapen the blood of millions of martyrs for Christ with such utter nonsense.

What do the dictionary and everyone else call Orthodox Christianity (when both words begin with capitals)? Ordinarily it does refer to the Orthodox Church, but not to Roman Catholicism or its counterpart, Protestantism (not when both words are capitalized to indicate a proper name).

You don't consider a Church that professes the name of Christ a Christian Church, even when such a Church confesses His full humanity and deity, His atonement for sin, His resurrection and ascension bodily, the Trinity, the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit, that we should fulfill God's commands out of love but not to merit salvation, that as we grow in grace we increasingly partake of the divine nature...I could go on, but it would be no use. You won't accept an obviously Christian church as being so if you disagree with it. That's very, very sad.

It's also sad that you make all these pronouncements about history while clearly knowing so little of it. You couldn't make those kinds of outrageous, Jack-Chickian assertions if you actually had studied church history in any depth or breadth. Do you believe in the Trinity? Thank the Orthodox Church and the first four of her councils for that, because almost all of the details are found there, not in Scripture. Do you observe Christmas? Probably not, but if you do, you're welcome.

The apostles and their own disciples (Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp) and those who shortly came after them (Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Hippolytus), as well as all the noted "greats" (Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, John Chrysostum, Basil the Great, Ambrose of Milan, Cyprian, et al.), held all the same basic doctrines, save one or two. They all taught baptismal regeneration but realized God made exceptions as necessary. They all taught the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. By the end of the apostolic age, apostolic succession and the "monarchical" bishopric were already settled matters of doctrine and practice. There is a clearcut continuity from the apostles past Constantine. Constantine didn't found a church, or even establish one as a state church.

Do you consider Arianism a heresy? Sabellianism? Monophysitism? Nestorianism? Manichaeanism? Marcionism? Ebionism? If so, you're welcome.

The antiquity of the Orthodox Church is not doubted by genuine historical scholars, although there are arguments about identifying the OC to the exclusion of the RCC or whether the undivided Church should be considered the root of both instead. But that the same Church that was founded by the apostles triumphed over various and sundry heresies, wrote the Nicene Creed, and held at least seven ecumenical councils, the overwhelming majority of serious scholars, regardless of denomination, are agreed. That's where the historical evidence compels them.

It was the Orthodox Church that preserved and copied the Greeek manuscripts of the NT. The Received Text is the official NT of Orthodoxy.

The liturgies used by the Orthodox Church include those that predate Constantine, esp. that of James of Jerusalem, which is attributed to circa A.D. 60-100. Those of Basil and John Chrysostum follow Constantine's time but still adhere to the same pattern of temple-synagogue-early church worship in style and format, and represent slight elaboration but mostly abridgment of the ante-Nicene liturgies.

If you are rooted in Monophysitism, then you may be an adherent of its offspring, Iconoclasm, by which you would declare the Incarnation-based use of icons and their reflection of the redemption of creation as heretical. I understand that.You may also not see that you are surrounded by so great cloud of witnesses absent from the body, and thus detest asking intercessory prayers of the saints who are face to face with the Lord. I can relate. You may also feel that a person's fate is sealed upon death, even though Judgment Day has not yet come, and think prayers on behalf of the departed are wrong. OK. Still, there's not a lot that an ordinary Christian with a healthy open mind and humbly open spirit can seriously fault the Orthodox Church for doctrinally. In practice, has it been faultless? Neither has yours. Neither has any.

As for having basically the same doctrine as the RCC, I consider papal supremacy and infallibility, the Immaculate Conception, the filioque, purgatory, Augustinian original sin, indulgences, transubstantiation, mandatory clerical celibacy, among several other points, rather basic differences. Serious ones.

And why should this be speculation?....

If you read through the epistles of Paul, over and over again you will find the phrase "by the commandment of the Lord." Paul wrote according to the command of the Lord. It was inspired. The Apocrypha was not.

Non sequitur. Thanks for playing.

For example:
1 Timothy 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope;

2 Thessalonians 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.

--Paul's word was authoritative. It was done in the name of Christ. It was the command of God. It was the inspired word of God. There is no disputing this fact. It is not mere speculation. He knew when he was speaking the inspired Word of God.

Yes, but he did not know, as you claimed, as far as anyone can know, when he was writing canonical Scripture. His other letter to the Corinthians, for example, lost to us, was, for him, an occasional letter addressing specific concerns that arose and making judgments about them with apostolic authority. So were the two we still have. There is nowhere in the Bible that indicates he ever considered any of his individual letters as a whole on a level with Exodus or Daniel, or some of them so and some not. That's what I meant by speculation on your part. Nothing else.

 

[Eliyahu]

I wonder why RC delete the second Esdras in their Apocrypha? Is it because the Second Esdras condemn the Idolatry vehemently?
RC include the AP for their convenience of Idol worship and goddess worship. Why don't they include all the APocrypha?

I think DHK rightly pointed out that many RC misunderstand that RC preserved the Bible in the history, which is contrary to the fact.

Satan hates the people's reading the bible.
If we simplify the history between RC and Bible, RC vehemently prohibited her people from reading the Bible. When she failed, she disturbed the Bible by spreading the Bible contaminated with false, manipulated words.