The fifteen Apocryphal books which the Roman Catholics have included in their bibles come from a collection of about eighteen or more books written during the inter-testamental period. This period of four hundred years began with God giving the last book of the old testament which was Malachi. The inter-testamental period ended with the coming of christ and the writing of the New Testament. During this four hundred years God sent no prophets to Israel and was silent giving no written revelation.

The word 'Apocryphal' means 'of questionable authenticity'. This are called non-canonical books because when the canon of scriptures(the sixty six books of the old and New Testaments) was accepted by the early christians, they recognised that these books contained spurious materials and therefore were not inspired of God. Other names for these books are ''hidden'' or ''deuterocanonical'' books. These books are also called ''pseudepigraphal'' meaning ''false writings'' to designate them as spurious and unauthentic books of the late centuries B.C. and early centuries A.D. These books contains religious folklore and have never been considered inspired of God by biblical christians from the earliest times of churches history.
Some have referred to these books as the missing books of the bible and conclude they are new discovers which are part of God's revelation. Nothing could be further from the truth. The sixty six books that comprise the old and New Testament are God's revelation to man and when John completed the book of Revelation, God's word to man was complete. GOD has not added to his revelation since. The content of these spurious books shows them to be inspired of man not God. It is also noteworthy that the Roman church which is a false church with false doctrines and pagan teachings accepts these books as scripture. No biblical christians or churches have ever accept them as such. The fact is there is no lost books in the bible.

These books or writings from the apocrypha that the Roman catholic church claims are inspired are Tobit, Judith, wisdom of solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, 1 & 2 Maccabees, letters of Jeremiah, Addition to Esther, prayer of Arariah, Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon. Three other Apocryphal books in the septuagint, the prayer of Manasseh, 1&2 Esdias are not considered canonical by the Roman Catholic church. These books were not accepted by the Roman catholic church until 1546 in the Council of Trent. Therefore for over 1300years since the inception of the Roman Catholic church in the fourth century, even they did not considered them inspired.

To be cont....

This church that you are up in arms against put the whole bible together and named it bible. This is the oldest church known to man and all the other churches broke out of this Catholic Church.

Why not just abandon the whole bible and go look for you own book?

Next you will be blaming God for making Catholic church the first church.

Demain_man: This church that you are up in arms against put the whole bible together and named it bible. This is the oldest church known to man and all the other churches broke out of this Catholic Church.

Why not just abandon the whole bible and go look for you own book?

Next you will be blaming God for making Catholic church the first church.

u are just deceiving urself

Demain_man: This church that you are up in arms against put the whole bible together and named it bible. This is the oldest church known to man and all the other churches broke out of this Catholic Church.

Why not just abandon the whole bible and go look for you own book?

Next you will be blaming God for making Catholic church the first church.

de fact is, no cathoic is deemed to make heaven

Demain_man: This church that you are up in arms against put the whole bible together and named it bible. This is the oldest church known to man and all the other churches broke out of this Catholic Church.

Why not just abandon the whole bible and go look for you own book?

Next you will be blaming God for making Catholic church the first church.

Gbam... Case closed EOD.

Why do biblical christians and churches reject the Apocrapha as being inspired of God.

1. They abound in historical and geographical inaccuracies and anachronisms.

2. They teach doctrines which are false and foster practices which are at variance with inspired scripture.

3. They resort to literary types and display an artificiality of subject matter and styling out of keeping with inspired scripture.

4. They lack the distinctive elements which give genuine scripture their divine character.

5. The Jews are the ones who canonized the books of the Old Testament and they did not include them. They have always excluded these Apocryphal books because the material in these books is heretical and contains gross doctrinal errors.

Some of these gross doctrinal errors are: prayers for the dead(macc. 12:45-46), and salvation by works.(Tobit 12:9). Praying for the dead is not biblical as Hebrews 9:27 plainly state. There is no second chance after death. Ephesians 2:8-9 clearly states that salvation is not by works or merited by man.

The stories in the Apocryphal books are extra biblical, fanciful and clearly pure fiction and demonic and so should be rejected.

Ukuts gp: u are just deceiving urself

How?

Which church was before the Catholic church?
Who put the Bible together and named it bible?
Which is the oldest church?

The way Nigeria 'Christians' are going, one day you guys will just wake and start writing you own Holy book with such claims like 'the bible as it currently is is full of lies'

I heard that the Nigeria anglican church is now independent of the UK church very soon dem go disown the KJV of the bible and start writing their own since it does not make sense to continue to use 'my thing' (KJV) if you don break-up with me.

The only time you guys agree is when you criticize the Catholic church. any other time na serious argument among una selves like the 'self service' case.

One thing i know for sure is that if Jesus should come back tomorrow as a Nigerian, oyiboman will never accept him and they will even try to kill him again for the second time

Same as if Jesus Christ were to come back as an Ibo man, 99.9999% of yorubas will go to HELL FIRE including the god of men. If you reverse it, it will be like 65%

Demain_man:

How?

Which church was before the Catholic church?
Who put the Bible together and named it bible?
Which is the oldest church?

The way Nigeria 'Christians' are going, one day you guys will just wake and start writing you own Holy book with such claims like 'the bible as it currently is is full of lies'

I heard that the Nigeria anglican church is now independent of the UK church very soon dem go disown the KJV of the bible and start writing their own since it does not make sense to continue to use 'my thing' (KJV) if you don break-up with me.

The only time you guys agree is when you criticize the Catholic church. any other time na serious argument among una selves like the 'self service' case.

One thing i know for sure is that if Jesus should come back tomorrow as a Nigerian, oyiboman will never accept him and they will even try to kill him again for the second time

Same as if Jesus Christ were to come back as an Ibo man, 99.9999% of yorubas will go to HELL FIRE including the god of men. If you reverse it, it will be like 65%

abeg help me ask the mumu.The question should be who removed the 7 books from the bible and not who added them

The first church council that decided the books of the bible at hippo in 393 CE chose 73 books and not 66 books.This decison was re-iterated by the councils of carhage in 397CE,419CE and the council of trent in 1546 CE.The catholics did not add any books to the bible rather it as the protestants that bremoved the 7 books from the bible.

Martin luther did not just want to remove just these 7 books but also NT books like Jude,revelation,Hebrew and James which he called "an epistle of straw| because it taught about works.

Thi is a comminique of the council of Carthage in 419CE confirming the canon of the bible as agreed by the church

Canon 24. (Greek xxvii.)

That nothing be read in church besides the Canonical Scripture

Item, that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture.

But the Canonical Scriptures are as follows:
•Genesis.
•Exodus.
•Leviticus.
•Numbers.
•Deuteronomy.
•Joshua the Son of Nun.
•The Judges.
•Ruth.
•The Kings, iv. books.
•The Chronicles, ij. books.
•Job.
•The Psalter.
•The Five books of Solomon.
•The Twelve Books of the Prophets.
•Isaiah.
•Jeremiah.
•Ezechiel.
•Daniel.
•Tobit.
•Judith.
•Esther.
•Ezra, ij. books.
•Macchabees, ij. books. ◦The New Testament. ■The Gospels, iv. books.
■The Acts of the Apostles, j. book.
■The Epistles of Paul, xiv.
■The Epistles of Peter, the Apostle, ij.
■The Epistles of John the Apostle, iij.
■The Epistles of James the Apostle, j.
■The Epistle of Jude the Apostle, j.
■The Revelation of John, j. book.



Let this be sent to our brother and fellow bishop, Boniface, and to the other bishops of those parts, that they may confirm this canon, for these are http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3816.htmthe things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church.

Ah, Carthage again! And the false claim about Hippo!

A propos Carthage, here is one I made earlier. https://www.nairaland.com/1478018/why-churches-different-doctrines-denominations/23#19111959

So our friends like to claim that they "ratified" Carthage. They hang this on a quotation allegedly included in the acts of Carthage. But that is the very one that experts said (two posts above edit follow link on first line of this post) is probably not original. What is more, our friends have their own way of translating the passage to English as if the Africans were subjecting their canon to the "authority" of Rome. That is:

"However, the sentence "Let this be made known also to our brother and fellow-priest Boniface, or to other bishops of those parts, for the purpose of confirming that Canon" cannot belong to either of these councils."

Meanwhile a late leading Roman Catholic historian (and bishop to boot), i.e. Hefele, admits (in agreement with other experts) that the true translation of the passage is not as the #masterforgers like to claim!

Again, from here http://www.bible-researcher.com/carthage.html

"In connection with this, it has been observed that at least one manuscript indicates that the original wording of the sentence was “De confirmando isto canone transmarina ecclesia consulatur” (“For the confirmation of this canon the church across the sea shall be consulted”). This is the reading adopted by Hefele for his reconstruction of the council of Hippo, and Westcott mentions it in a note. 9 More recent authors tend to present the canon of the third council of Carthage with this emendation."

Again, #masterforgers we salute!

Martin Luther on the book of the Revelation

"About this book of the Revelation of John, I leave everyone free to hold his own opinions. I would not have anyone bound to my opinion or judgment. I say what I feel. I miss more than one thing in this book, and it makes me consider it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic.

First and foremost, the apostles do not deal with visions, but prophesy in clear and plain words, as do Peter and Paul, and Christ in the gospel. For it befits the apostolic office to speak clearly of Christ and his deeds, without images and visions. Moreover there is no prophet in the Old Testament, to say nothing of the New, who deals so exclusively with visions and images. For myself, I think it approximates the Fourth Book of Esdras; 8 I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it.

Moreover he seems to me to be going much too far when he commends his own book so highly -- indeed, more than any of the other sacred books do, though they are much more important -- and threatens that if anyone takes away anything from it, God will take away from him, etc. Again, they are supposed to be blessed who keep what is written in this book; and yet no one knows what that is, to say nothing of keeping it. This is just the same as if we did not have the book at all. And there are many far better books available for us to keep.

Many of the fathers also rejected this book a long time ago; 9 although St. Jerome, to be sure, refers to it in exalted terms and says that it is above all praise and that there are as many mysteries in it as words. Still, Jerome cannot prove this at all, and his praise at numerous places is too generous.

Finally, let everyone think of it as his own spirit leads him. My spirit cannot accommodate itself to this book. For me this is reason enough not to think highly of it: Christ is neither taught nor known in it. But to teach Christ, this is the thing which an apostle is bound above all else to do; as Christ says in Acts 1, "You shall be my witnesses." Therefore I stick to the books which present Christ to me clearly and purely."



Martin Luther on the Books of Jude and James
Preface to the Epistles of St. James and St. Jude (1522)

Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, 1 I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God. However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle; and my reasons follow.

In the first place it is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works. It says that Abraham was justified by his works when he offered his son Isaac; though in Romans 4 St. Paul teaches to the contrary that Abraham was justified apart from works, by his faith alone, before he had offered his son, and proves it by Moses in Genesis 15. Now although this epistle might be helped and an interpretation 2 devised for this justification by works, it cannot be defended in its application to works of Moses' statement in Genesis 15. For Moses is speaking here only of Abraham's faith, and not of his works, as St. Paul demonstrates in Romans 4. This fault, therefore, proves that this epistle is not the work of any apostle.

In the second place its purpose is to teach Christians, but in all this long teaching it does not once mention the Passion, the resurrection, or the Spirit of Christ. He names Christ several times; however he teaches nothing about him, but only speaks of general faith in God. Now it is the office of a true apostle to preach of the Passion and resurrection and office of Christ, and to lay the foundation for faith in him, as Christ himself says in John 15, "You shall bear witness to me." All the genuine sacred books agree in this, that all of them preach and inculcate [treiben] Christ. And that is the true test by which to judge all books, when we see whether or not they inculcate Christ. For all the Scriptures show us Christ, Romans 3; and St. Paul will know nothing but Christ, I Corinthians 2. Whatever does not teach Christ is not apostolic, even though St. Peter or St. Paul does the teaching. Again, whatever preaches Christ would be apostolic, even if Judas, Annas, Pilate, and Herod were doing it.

But this James does nothing more than drive to the law and to its works. Besides, he throws things together so chaotically that it seems to me he must have been some good, pious man, who took a few sayings from the disciples of the apostles and thus tossed them off on paper. Or it may perhaps have been written by someone on the basis of his preaching. He calls the law a "law of liberty," though Paul calls it a law of slavery, of wrath, of death, and of sin. 3

Moreover he cites the sayings of St. Peter: "Love covers a multitude of sins," and again, "Humble yourselves under the hand of God;" also the saying of St. Paul in Galatians 5, "The Spirit lusteth against envy." And yet, in point of time, St. James was put to death by Herod in Jerusalem, before St. Peter. 4 So it seems that this author came long after St. Peter and St. Paul.

In a word, he wanted to guard against those who relied on faith without works, but was unequal to the task in spirit, thought, and words. He mangles the Scriptures and thereby opposes Paul and all Scripture. 5 He tries to accomplish by harping on the law what the apostles accomplish by stimulating people to love. Therefore, I will not have him in my Bible to be numbered among the true chief books, though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases, for there are otherwise many good sayings in him. One man is no man in worldly things; how, then, should this single man alone avail against Paul and all the rest of Scripture? 6

Concerning the epistle of St. Jude, no one can deny that it is an extract or copy of St. Peter's second epistle, so very like it are all the words. He also speaks of the apostles like a disciple who comes long after them and cites sayings and incidents that are found nowhere else in the Scriptures. This moved the ancient fathers to exclude this epistle from the main body of the Scriptures. Moreover the Apostle Jude did not go to Greek-speaking lands, but to Persia, as it is said, so that he did not write Greek. Therefore, although I value this book, it is an epistle that need not be counted among the chief books which are supposed to lay the foundations of falth."


http://www.bible-researcher.com/antilegomena.html
"
""

This is to prove to you that you protestants have been in the business of removing books from the bible right from the days of your founding father Martin Luther.You met an already canonised catholic bible and decided to remove 7 books(though martin luther wanted it to be 12) and now you turn back to accuse catholics of adding to the bible.What Impudence!!!

see the way martin luther denigrated those scriptures the same way you do to the deuterocanons smh for you peeps

chukwudi44: This is to prove to you that you protestants have been in the business of removing books from the bible right from the days of your founding father Martin Luther.You met an already canonised catholic bible and decided to remove 7 books(though martin luther wanted it to be 12) and now you turn back to accuse catholics of adding to the bible.What Impudence!!!

see the way martin luther denigrated those scriptures the same way you do to the deuterocanons smh for you peeps

those books were never accepted by the early christian due to the reason given in my ealier post. They are mere story books and are fictional. They are nt inspired by God. The catholic added it to support their evil and barbaric tradition of men.

Ukuts gp: those books were never accepted by the early christian due to the reason given in my ealier post. They are mere story books and are fictional. They are nt inspired by God. The catholic added it to support their evil and barbaric tradition of men.

do you mind naming the early xtains who did not accept them and give me proof for that.I will also provide books about other contested books of the bible including the ones in the protestant canon.

The fact is irrespective of the initial disagreement among the church fahers about which books should be in the canon.A church council met and selected books that should be in the canon.This canon is what later became the bible.The first bible in effect had 73 books and no 66.It is too late to attempt to change history.Even books like 2 peter,Jude,James,Revelation,Hebrews etc were also contested among the church fathers and not just the deuteronocanons.Individuals do not chose canons ,a church council does.It would amount to anarchy to allow people to start chosing their individual canons

[/quoteThey are mere story books and are fictional] [quote]

dude seriously? you call the story of Judas Macabees a work oif fiction? Judas Macabees is one of the most influential men in jewish history.He instituted the feast of Hanukkah also called the rededication of the temple(attended by Jesus Christ in John 10:22) which is celebrated by the jews to these day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maccabeus,_Judas

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanukkah

I am busy now. But know that those books are fiction of imagination.

Ukuts gp: I am busy now. But know that those books are fiction of imagination.

My friends google is still your best friend in this case. Don't even attempt to change Church history. Thank God that those evidence are still well kept and documented by the Oyibos. I bet, if nigeria pentecostal christians can lay their hands on such important documents they would have since destroyed them all in their quest to delete the Christian Church history showing Catholic church as the compiler of the whole bible.

And by the way we a talking 'dated documents' here not just anyhow book!

The apocryphal books existed before the new testament times, yet there is not one single quotation from the apocrypha is in the new testament.
Jesus quoted from twenty four of the old testament books and the new testament quotes from thirty four books of the old testament.
The question are why are those books not quoted in the new testament?
Why are the main characters such as susanna in the book of sussana not ever mention in the new testament?

Ukuts gp: The apocryphal books existed before the new testament times, yet there is not one single quotation from the apocrypha is in the new testament.
Jesus quoted from twenty four of the old testament books and the new testament quotes from thirty four books of the old testament.
The question are why are those books not quoted in the new testament?
Why are the main characters such as susanna in the book of sussana not ever mention in the new testament?

Paul did quote from the book of wisdom in his letter to the romans.Jesus also did attend the festival of the rededication of the temple instituted by Judas Macabees.

Besides there is also no NT quotation of books like Obadiah,esther,ezra,zepheniah,Ruth,songs of solomon and eclesiaticus,should we also say these books are not scriptures? What about books like Enoch quoted in the NT but not contained in the bible

chukwudi44:

Paul did quote from the book of wisdom in his letter to the romans.Jesus also did attend the festival of the rededication of the temple instituted by Judas Macabees.

Besides there is also no NT quotation of books like Obadiah,esther,ezra,zepheniah,Ruth,songs of solomon and eclesiaticus,should we also say these books are not scriptures? What about books like Enoch quoted in the NT but not contained in the bible

where are the chapter and verse

The apocryphal books support magic, incantation, occultic practices, suicide, immoral acts, mary born sinless(immaculate conception), purgatory, salvation by works or merit etc true or false

Ah, I had forgotten this thread! Hopefully I can come back to it. All it should take to debunk the Roman Catholic falsehoods and chicanery is further copy and paste from some I made earlier.

In the meantime my attention is preoccupied with papal infallibility here https://www.nairaland.com/1522201/defend-catholic-teachings-here/12#19820136

Enigma: Ah, I had forgotten this thread! Hopefully I can come back to it. All it should take to debunk the Roman Catholic falsehoods and chicanery is further copy and paste from some I made earlier.

In the meantime my attention is preoccupied with papal infallibility here https://www.nairaland.com/1522201/defend-catholic-teachings-here/12#19820136

ok. Those guy are expert in lying o

[quote author=Ukuts gp] where are the chapter and verse[/qu
http://www.davidlgray.info/blog/2011/06/in-romans-st-paul-quoted-themed-heavily-from-the-book-of-wisdom/


check up John 10:22 for Jesus attenting the fest of the rededication of the temple instituted by Judas Macabees.

BTW Not every scripture even in your protestant OT is quoted in the NT.

revelation. 22 vs 18-19 explains it all

Mellin: revelation. 22 vs 18-19 explains it all

I just pray you are even aware that those verses refer to the book of the Apocalypse alone.

It would be a shame if you think it refers to the Bible as a whole.

I just pray.

Wisdom-Me:
de fact is, no cathoic is deemed to make heaven

when senseless people like you quote, i measure their ignorance in inches


mango!


Hope u knw the meaning of "deem"

At OP it won't be a bad idea going through this thread

https://www.nairaland.com/1224167/contra-bibliolatreia-ii-septuagint

Hopefully you will get a clearer view of the journey of the bible and compare it with what you wrote.

You can also read this too.
https://www.nairaland.com/1035878/did-catholic-church-give-us

The apocrypha book was never inspired of God.

Ukuts gp: The apocrypha book was never inspired of God.

Says who? Are you God? or Jesus?