ysyowel:
the books are good for reading but are never part of the CANON and Jesus Christ never quoted from them

he knew them very well. Remember when some saducees came to him to ask him about who the woman will get married to in heaven after marrying 7 brothers on earth. They were actually telling the story in tobit

OLAADEGBU:


Can you tell me which apostle or prophet that was used in penning the Scriptures that was not Jew?

was Luke jew? What about the writer of Hebrews, was he jew?

MiddleDimension:


was Luke jew? What about the writer of Hebrews, was he jew?

I believe only Dr. Luke wasn't a Jew but he must have relied on his Jewish contemporaries to pen the gospel. The writer of Hebrews was most likely a Jew as it was addressed to the Jewish brethren.

easymancfc:


1.If they are "false writings" then why are they quoted or alluded to at all by the apostles of Jesus if they were not considered to be true.... and why would they be recorded in scripture as fact if they were not true since the bible contains truths only....

Does the fact that the Scriptures quoted satan mean that satan is saying the truth? The fact that Paul alluded to the poets in athens doesn't mean that all the works of the poets is true it just means that the part they quoted is true.

easymancfc:


2. If the only thing that qualifies a statement as authoritative then Jesus not saying "thus says the Lord" or "scriptures says" would mean Jesus' statement in places involving Old testament characters would also not be authoritative quotes...

Jesus did not have to say thus says the Lord because He himself is the Lord and that's why you will hear Him say words like "Verily, verily I say to you" Whatever Jesus says and quotes is authoritative and inspired of God.

OLAADEGBU:


I believe only Dr. Luke wasn't a Jew but he must have relied on his Jewish contemporaries to pen the gospel. The writer of Hebrews was most likely a Jew as it was addressed to the Jewish brethren.

of course he relied heavily on what he heard from all those who "saw those things first hand" as can be seen in his gospel chapter 1 verse 1-4. That is why he was the only one who gave a the most detailed account of all that happened before the birth of Jesus. He heard from Mary the mother of Jesus. We can be absolutely sure of this from the quotation i gave you earlier as well as from John's gospel when Jesus gave mary to the desciple as his mother and he took her to be with them. Also that Mary was with them at the upper room when they recieved the Holyghost. Her contribution to the ospel of christ and by extention, the entire deposit of faith of the faithfuls is well documented in the bible.

The writter of Hebrews was probably apolos since he was well deep into the traditions of the jews.

MiddleDimension:


of course he relied heavily on what he heard from all those who "saw those things first hand" as can be seen in his gospel chapter 1 verse 1-4. That is why he was the only one who gave a the most detailed account of all that happened before the birth of Jesus. He heard from Mary the mother of Jesus. We can be absolutely sure of this from the quotation i gave you earlier as well as from John's gospel when Jesus gave mary to the desciple as his mother and he took her to be with them. Also that Mary was with them at the upper room when they recieved the Holyghost. Her contribution to the ospel of christ and by extention, the entire deposit of faith of the faithfuls is well documented in the bible.

It is also possible that Dr. Luke might have been a Jew of the dispersion, so the jury is still out whether he was a Jew or not.

MiddleDimension:


The writter of Hebrews was probably apolos since he was well deep into the traditions of the jews.

There are many candidates for the epistle to the Hebrews such as Barnabas, Paul, Silas, Apollos and even Luke but Paul has been viewed as the most likely to have written it (See Hebrews 13:23).

OLAADEGBU:


Does the fact that the Scriptures quoted satan mean that satan is saying the truth? The fact that Paul alluded to the poets in athens doesn't mean that all the works of the poets is true it just means that the part they quoted is true.



Jesus did not have to say thus says the Lord because He himself is the Lord and that's why you will hear Him say words like "Verily, verily I say to you" Whatever Jesus says and quotes is authoritative and inspired of God.

Jesus is truth personified so he would not refer to anything false... Jesus alluded to Many things in the deuterocanonica.. He didn't have to say it is written or verily verily unless he was trying to emphasize something... He made allusions to Jonah and Noah, Sidon, tyre etc without saying making such emphasis
1. Am curious Where does Jesus quote Satan?

2. Paul when he quotes the poet actually says that he quotes the poet..

but the allusions to the deuterocanonica are so plain and obvious that the Jews must be familiar with them...

You're right.. whatever Jesus says is authoritative.. Even when he alludes to the deuterocanonica...

MiddleDimension:


he knew them very well. Remember when some saducees came to him to ask him about who the woman will get married to in heaven after marrying 7 brothers on earth. They were actually telling the story in tobit

saducees quoted from it, but what Jesus said "you didn't know the scripture "

easymancfc:


Jesus is truth personified so he would not refer to anything false... Jesus alluded to Many things in the deuterocanonica.. He didn't have to say it is written or verily verily unless he was trying to emphasize something... He made allusions to Jonah and Noah, Sidon, tyre etc without saying making such emphasis

There are no clear, definite New Testament quotations from the Apocrypha by Jesus or the apostles. If there are then prove me wrong.

easymancfc:


1. Am curious Where does Jesus quote Satan?

Why would Jesus quote satan?

easymancfc:


2. Paul when he quotes the poet actually says that he quotes the poet..

Those are your own words not mine.

easymancfc:


but the allusions to the deuterocanonica are so plain and obvious that the Jews must be familiar with them...

You're right.. whatever Jesus says is authoritative.. Even when he alludes to the deuterocanonica...

Where in the apocrypha does it say "Thus saith the Lord"?

OLAADEGBU:


There are no clear, definite New Testament quotations from the Apocrypha by Jesus or the apostles. If there are then prove me wrong.



Why would Jesus quote satan?



Those are your own words not mine.



Where in the apocrypha does it say "Thus saith the Lord"?

1. I have showed you one instance already but you cleverly avoided it..

2. Mistake.. You said scripture not Jesus. but just to correct that conception.. Scripture doesn't directly quote Satan but it gives a narrative where Satan was involved.. The narrative or what the devil says in the narrative is indeed inspired... because Mathew or Mark or Luke John etc where not there for example when the devil tempted Jesus.. yet they quoted him in their narrative... Therefore the "devil's quote" in the narrative is inspired by God as is all other scripture for it to be in scripture..

"Does the fact that the Scriptures quoted satan mean that satan is saying the truth? The fact that Paul alluded to the poets in athens doesn't mean that all the works of the poets istrue it just means that the part they quoted is true".

3. You were the one who said that Paul quoted the poets and that doesnt make them inspired... I only exposed you by proving that Paul acknowledges that he quotes the poet not scripture in that place...

4. There are many other books that don't contain thus say the Lord, but you acknowledge them as scripture... where does it say that a book must contain "Thus says the Lord" for it to be inspired...

easymancfc:


1. I have showed you one instance already but you cleverly avoided it..

2. Mistake.. You said scripture not Jesus. but just to correct that conception.. Scripture doesn't directly quote Satan but it gives a narrative where Satan was involved.. The narrative or what the devil says in the narrative is indeed inspired... because Mathew or Mark or Luke John etc where not there for example when the devil tempted Jesus.. yet they quoted him in their narrative... Therefore the "devil's quote" in the narrative is inspired by God as is all other scripture for it to be in scripture..

"Does the fact that the Scriptures quoted satan mean that satan is saying the truth? The fact that Paul alluded to the poets in athens doesn't mean that all the works of the poets istrue it just means that the part they quoted is true".

3. You were the one who said that Paul quoted the poets and that doesnt make them inspired... I only exposed you by proving that Paul acknowledges that he quotes the poet not scripture in that place...

4. There are many other books that don't contain thus say the Lord, but you acknowledge them as scripture... where does it say that a book must contain "Thus says the Lord" for it to be inspired...

Where did Jesus quote from the apocrypha?

OLAADEGBU:


Where did Jesus quote from the apocrypha?

1. Who says Jesus has to quote a book for it to be authoritative and with what authority does that person say it..

2. Where did Jesus quote songs of Solomon, or Esther.. Point is.. there are quite a few books that you accept that are not quoted by Jesus

EWELEEE

OLAADEGBU:
Reasons why the apocrypha does not belong in the Bible

Jesus, the apostles, the Jews and the early church all rejected the books in the Apocrypha as being inspired books on the same level of scripture.

https://carm.org/reasons-why-apocrypha-does-not-belong-bible

Apostles quoted from them

petra1:


Apostles quoted from them

Where?

easymancfc:


1. Who says Jesus has to quote a book for it to be authoritative and with what authority does that person say it..

2. Where did Jesus quote songs of Solomon, or Esther.. Point is.. there are quite a few books that you accept that are not quoted by Jesus

The truth is that the Jews did not acknowledge the apocrypha as part of the OT canon and that explains why the Jews have not included it up till this day.

OLAADEGBU:


Where?

peter and jude quoted from the book of enoch and the book of Jasher

petra1:


peter and jude quoted from the book of enoch and the book of Jasher

Are those books part of the apocrypha?

OLAADEGBU:


Are those books part of the apocrypha?

Jude quoted from chapter 2 of the book of Enoch here
Jude 1:14-15
14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, 15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.

Peter also made references to articles from the book of Enoch

Paul was making reference to the book of Jasher here
2 Timothy 3:8
8 -- Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.

OLAADEGBU:


The truth is that the Jews did not acknowledge the apocrypha as part of the OT canon and that explains why the Jews have not included it up till this day.

The Jews accepted the Septuagint... which contains the deuterocanonica... which Jesus and the apostles used...
The Septuagint contains the deuterocanonica...

Can you provide a historical document that says all Jews rejected the deuterocanon

Oladeegbu does not even know the apocryphal books or the Bible. FYI the canon of the scriptures today called the Bible did not exist until the fourth century CE.Saying the seven books in the Catholic canon is not in the Bible is plain ridiculous. As the first Christian canon was compiled by the Catholic church and contained 73 books and not 66.Anyone saying those books are not in the Bible is making a fool of himself.

The first Christian canon that was first called the Bible had 73 books.So if your "Bible" does not have 73 books then Better look for another name to describe it because it is certainly not the Bible.

Oladeegbu does not even know the meaning of the apocryphal books imagine him asking if the the books of Enoch and Jasher are amongst the apocryphal books.

The fact is that the words scriptures and Bible are not synonymous, there probably hundreds of scriptures but out of this only 73 scriptures was canonised by the church fathers. This implies that there are other scriptures that are not even in the 73books canon.The Bible made mention of lots of them including the lost books of jasher,Nathan, books of Enoch, etc.

Anyone saying only 66 books were inspired is only making a fool of himself.

The Jewish canon was established in the Jewish council of jamnia in 100 CE where the current 39 books in the Protestant OT was established.This council equally rejected Jesus and the entire NT.The Protestants are thus using a hybrid canon which is a combo of the Jewish council of jamnia and the Catholic council of Carthage.They picked their OT from the Jewish canon and their NT from the Catholic canon

petra1:


Jude quoted from chapter 2 of the book of Enoch here
Jude 1:14-15
14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, 15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.

Peter also made references to articles from the book of Enoch

Paul was making reference to the book of Jasher here
2 Timothy 3:8
8 -- Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.

Are you saying that those books (Enoch and Jasher) are part of the apocrypha? Why did't you quote those books?

easymancfc:


The Jews accepted the Septuagint... which contains the deuterocanonica... which Jesus and the apostles used...
The Septuagint contains the deuterocanonica...

Can you provide a historical document that says all Jews rejected the deuterocanon

Don't confuse yourself with the Septuagint which was an interpretation of the Jewish writings. The truth is that none of the books of the apocrypha was included in both the Old and New Testament Canon.

PaChukwudi44:


Oladeegbu does not even know the apocryphal books or the Bible. FYI the canon of the scriptures today called the Bible did not exist until the fourth century CE.Saying the seven books in the Catholic canon is not in the Bible is plain ridiculous. As the first Christian canon was compiled by the Catholic church and contained 73 books and not 66.Anyone saying those books are not in the Bible is making a fool of himself.

The first Christian canon that was first called the Bible had 73 books.So if your "Bible" does not have 73 books then Better look for another name to describe it because it is certainly not the Bible.

I know that the books of Enoch and Jasher are not part of the apocrypha that you roman Catholics added to the Bible, if they are please correct me. Even the Roman Catholics did not include the apocrypha into the Bible until recently. See excerpts from the OP below:

6. The Catholic Church has not always accepted the Apocrypha. The Apocrypha was not officially accepted by the Catholic Church at a universal council until 1546 at the Council of Trent. This is over a millennium and a half after the books were written, and was a counter reaction to the Protestant Reformation.4

PaChukwudi44:


Oladeegbu does not even know the meaning of the apocryphal books imagine him asking if the the books of Enoch and Jasher are amongst the apocryphal books.

Are those books part of what you have in your Bible?

PaChukwudi44:


The fact is that the words scriptures and Bible are not synonymous, there probably hundreds of scriptures but out of this only 73 scriptures was canonised by the church fathers. This implies that there are other scriptures that are not even in the 73books canon.The Bible made mention of lots of them including the lost books of jasher,Nathan, books of Enoch, etc.

This thread is about the apocrypha. Are you saying that the so called lost books are in part of the apocrypha that you included in your Bible?

PaChukwudi44:


Anyone saying only 66 books were inspired is only making a fool of himself.

The Jewish canon was established in the Jewish council of jamnia in 100 CE where the current 39 books in the Protestant OT was established.This council equally rejected Jesus and the entire NT.The Protestants are thus using a hybrid canon which is a combo of the Jewish council of jamnia and the Catholic council of Carthage.They picked their OT from the Jewish canon and their NT from the Catholic canon

Thank God that you cannot lie that you canonized the Jewish Canon as you erroneously believe that you canonised the NT. Why can you not find a single book of the apocrypha in the Jewish Canon? The Jewish Canon and the OT of the Bible are the same, there are no apocrypha books there. The NT books were regarded as Scripture close to the time they were written but Origen was the first to compile almost all the 27 books at a later date but that was not the time it was regarded as Scripture. The apostles and the early church regarded them as Scripture when it was written.

Tampinu:


See me see trouble o!
I say see me see pelemo o!

"Affirmati Non Neganti Incumbit Probatio"

(Please Google the meaning of that Legal Maxim above or speak to a Lawyer/Solicitor/Attorney/Barrister to explain the meaning and application with regards to your post and the burden of proof)

Ok, the part that I disagree with is all the parts that you have identified as "false teachings", therefore, the sooner you let me know the parts that you ID as false teachings, the quicker the Onus will be on me to explain what part of your comments/assertions that I disagree with.

You came and posted some article about why Apocrypha is NOT in the Bible, and the onus is supposed to be on ME to explain why not?
What kind of reasoning is this? You referred me to the article, I disagreed with it and then you are still asking me to tell you why I object.

The onus and duty is incumbent on you to SPELL OUT what is wrong with Apocrypha especially as you have stated that it is "False teachings". I have specifically asked you what is "false teachings" about it and I expect you to say:

"The false teachings are: "A, B, C & D etc"

Not for you to ask me to say what is correct about it...see me?

Look, I am not here to win arguments as I am here to state what is truth and fact. Which part of Apocrypha are you familiar with for a start, ok, then which part of the sections that you are familiar with is "False Teachings"?

Truth is a spirit and it will only associate with those who practice it; it may be better for you to remove the post until such time that you are able to defend the assertions contained in the post; don't just relay other people's materials and post links to their website unless you can defend what you are promoting. Or it may be better to say "People, do you agree with these articles".

Better still it may be better to say in your post:

"These are not my views but the link below says such and such and such...I am unsure and still investigating!"....That way you can be excused for being unable to answer specific questions regarding the post.

Unless you are able to identify the sections of Apocrypha that is "false teachings", you are either a liar or one who knows not what they are talking about or dealing with and either way, this would represent the end of my correspondence regarding the matter.

I await your reply.

Thank you

Are you new here? Don't you know who Op is?

Tampinu:


See me see trouble o!
I say see me see pelemo o!

"Affirmati Non Neganti Incumbit Probatio"

(Please Google the meaning of that Legal Maxim above or speak to a Lawyer/Solicitor/Attorney/Barrister to explain the meaning and application with regards to your post and the burden of proof)

Ok, the part that I disagree with is all the parts that you have identified as "false teachings", therefore, the sooner you let me know the parts that you ID as false teachings, the quicker the Onus will be on me to explain what part of your comments/assertions that I disagree with.

You came and posted some article about why Apocrypha is NOT in the Bible, and the onus is supposed to be on ME to explain why not?
What kind of reasoning is this? You referred me to the article, I disagreed with it and then you are still asking me to tell you why I object.

The onus and duty is incumbent on you to SPELL OUT what is wrong with Apocrypha especially as you have stated that it is "False teachings". I have specifically asked you what is "false teachings" about it and I expect you to say:

"The false teachings are: "A, B, C & D etc"

Not for you to ask me to say what is correct about it...see me?

Look, I am not here to win arguments as I am here to state what is truth and fact. Which part of Apocrypha are you familiar with for a start, ok, then which part of the sections that you are familiar with is "False Teachings"?

Truth is a spirit and it will only associate with those who practice it; it may be better for you to remove the post until such time that you are able to defend the assertions contained in the post; don't just relay other people's materials and post links to their website unless you can defend what you are promoting. Or it may be better to say "People, do you agree with these articles".

Better still it may be better to say in your post:

"These are not my views but the link below says such and such and such...I am unsure and still investigating!"....That way you can be excused for being unable to answer specific questions regarding the post.

Unless you are able to identify the sections of Apocrypha that is "false teachings", you are either a liar or one who knows not what they are talking about or dealing with and either way, this would represent the end of my correspondence regarding the matter.

I await your reply.

Thank you

I didn't even bother to read your lengthy post until someone quoted you a few minutes ago. If you had read the link in the OP you would have saved yourself from all this necessary pain. Read the excerpts below and tell us why it is not true.

False Teachings
9. The Apocrypha contains a number of false teachings (see: Errors in the Apocrypha). (To check the following references, see http://www.newadvent.org/bible.)

The command to use magic (Tobit 6:5-7).
Forgiveness of sins by almsgiving (Tobit 4:11; 12:9).
Offering of money for the sins of the dead (2 Maccabees 12:43-45).
Not Prophetic
10. The Apocryphal books do not share many of the chararacteristics of the Canonical books: they are not prophetic, there is no supernatural confirmation of any of the apocryphal writers works, there is no predictive prophecy, there is no new Messianic truth revealed, they are not cited as authoritative by any prophetic book written after them, and they even acknowledge that there were no prophets in Israel at their time (cf. 1 Macc. 9:27; 14:41).

I hope the above excerpt helps to answer your question.

OLAADEGBU:


Don't confuse yourself with the Septuagint which was an interpretation of the Jewish writings. The truth is that none of the books of the apocrypha was included in both the Old and New Testament Canon.

You are the confused on... the Septuagint is not an interpretation of the Jewish Scriptures but a TRANSLATION of the Jewish scriptures into Greek because of the Hellenistic Jews who could not read Hebrew.. And the Original Christian Old testament canon used the Septuagint because they could read Greek and the Churches they created and people they evangelized could only read Greek because Greek was the lingua franca of the time...

The Septuagint had 47 books including the deuterocanonica..
Google is your friend...

easymancfc:


You are the confused on... the Septuagint is not an interpretation of the Jewish Scriptures but a TRANSLATION of the Jewish scriptures into Greek because of the Hellenistic Jews who could not read Hebrew.. And the Original Christian Old testament canon used the Septuagint because they could read Greek and the Churches they created and people they evangelized could only read Greek because Greek was the lingua franca of the time...

The Septuagint had 47 books including the deuterocanonica..
Google is your friend...

The truth is that the Jewish Canon and the OT are the same and does not include the apocrypha. Simples.

OLAADEGBU:


Are you saying that the those books (Enoch and Jasher) are part of the apocrypha? Why did't you quote those books?

Enoch 2:1
Behold, he comes with ten thousands of his saints, to execute judgment upon them, and destroy the wicked, and reprove all the carnal for everything which the sinful and ungodly have done, and committed against him

Jasher 79:27
And when they had gone Pharaoh sent for Balaam the magician and to Jannes and Jambres his sons, and to all the magicians and conjurors and counsellors which belonged to the king, and they all came and sat before the king.


Yet to locate where Peter quoted from in Enoch

petra1:


Enoch 2:1
Behold, he comes with ten thousands of his saints, to execute judgment upon them, and destroy the wicked, and reprove all the carnal for everything which the sinful and ungodly have done, and committed against him

Jasher 79:27
And when they had gone Pharaoh sent for Balaam the magician and to Jannes and Jambres his sons, and to all the magicians and conjurors and counsellors which belonged to the king, and they all came and sat before the king.


Yet to locate where Peter quoted from in Enoch

You are yet to prove that the books you quoted above are part of the apocrypha.

OLAADEGBU:


The truth is that the Jewish Canon and the OT are the same and does not include the apocrypha. Simples.

PROVE IT.. NAME A CREDIBLE HISTORICAL OR ACADEMIC SOURCE SOURCE...

easymancfc:


PROVE IT.. NAME A CREDIBLE HISTORICAL OR ACADEMIC SOURCE SOURCE...

All you need to do is to take the Jewish Scriptures, the Torah and see whether the books contained in them differ from the authorised version of the Bible. You will see for yourself that they don't contain the apocrypha books that are present in the Roman Catholic Bibles.