The apocrypha

[sheltiez]

What do you think about this thing called the apocrypha or sometimes called Dueterocanonical books. If you do not know what they are, they are books that were not put in the Protestant bible but are in the Catholic one. I know some people say they are satanic and never to touch them and others say they are just second class to the Bible. I should also say that the early church used these books and that Protestants from the Reformation to about 1920's used them as well they just published them seperate from the Bible.

[HannahJ.]

I have 0 idea. I don't think I'd like it. I am not Catholic and our believes don't go hand in hand so I would say it's un necessary.. What do you think,Sheltiez?

[ArnoldtheRubberDucky]

I, frankly, did not understand a word you said. However, I am not Catholic; I am Methodist, so I doubt I would.

[Pound Foolish]

Okay, understand I'm not trying to start an argument here. Nor am I saying this just to prove Hannah wrong, although in this forum that's what we sometimes seem to be trying to do to each other lately. The Bible was put together centuries ago. It is considered holy. It's not really up to us to try to revise it. The Protestant Reformation wasn't destroying the Bible, or reinventing it, it was simply making their own Bible, one without some of the original documents. If we think stuff should be left out, we are saying a decision made for us should be made BY us. We aren't historical geniuses who can just decide an ancient document is worthless. We're just believers. Let's believe then.
That's my two cents. I have NO problem with people who disagree with me, but just know, I'm not going to make ten posts defending my position if you try to change my mind. This website is all opinion, there's this writer's opinion.

[Striped Leopard]

What do you think about this thing called the apocrypha or sometimes called Dueterocanonical books. If you do not know what they are, they are books that were not put in the Protestant bible but are in the Catholic one. I know some people say they are satanic and never to touch them and others say they are just second class to the Bible. I should also say that the early church used these books and that Protestants from the Reformation to about 1920's used them as well they just published them seperate from the Bible.

I believe the apocrypha can be beneficial to Christians, but it should not be treated as Scripture. It is not infallible or inspired by God. It can potentially be a great history lesson, but not much more than that.

Most, if not all, of the apocryphal books were writings used by the Jews before the advent of Christ. And some of them even made it into their Greek translation of the Old Testament (the Septuagint). And they were even viewed as "holy" writings by some. But, as a general rule, and as evidenced by a Jewish council in the first century (I think), these were not held by the Jews as Scripture.

Thus, Martin Luther, when compiling his Bible during the early years of the Protestant Reformation, because he trusted that the Jews would be good judges about which of their holy books were inspired by God and which one's weren't, did not include the deuterocanonical books, but instead compiled them separately as the apocrypha.

The earliest record of the 66 books of the Bible that we have today being recognized exclusively as Scripture is AD 367 by the church father Athanasius. So really, even as early as the fourth century, the 39 books of the Old Testament were set in stone as part of the Biblical canon.

[Eleventh Doctor]

Actually the canon of the Church was decided by the Synod of Hippo in 393 and 397. St. Athansius would have used the Septuagint as did Christ and the Apostles. The canon complied by Luther is the Masoretic text not complied until over 100 years after the death of Christ, this Jewish council as you refer to it does not testify to what the Hebrew canon looked liked during the time of Christ.