What is the “Apocrypha”?

Fr. John Whiteford's Commentary and Reflections ^ | 07-19-2019 | Fr. John Whiteford

[daniel1212]

If i should even indulge.... You tried this before and your argument is even more vain now then it was then.

And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication, and it was winter. And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon's porch. Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly. (Joh 10:22-24) The Lord went up to the Feast at Jerusalem to minister the Word, as that is all John 10:22-40 describes Him as doing. And He was not in the Temple itself, but "in Solomon's porch ," a porch on the eastern side of the Temple's Outer Court (Women's Court). Which was thus later able to be used by the early church to meet.

The Lord thus at least made use of a cultural celebration to minister the Word, as I often have myself (including Catholic feasts, though I was no more welcome than the Lord was here) and some cultural celebrations are honorable. However, even if the presence of the Lord at the FoD infers giving sanction of it, even as a required observance, this does not affirm, as Scripture, a source which describes its institution, nor does Paul sanctifying a Truth spoken by a pagan on Mar's Hill, or the veracity of the source of the news about eighteen upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, (Luke 13:4) or appealing to Roman law as required observance. (Acts 22:25) Simply affirming a source as stating something Truthful, even as requiring observance, does not make it Scripture, versus invoking Scripture as "Scripture," "It is written," "thus saith the Lord," and the like statements of Divine authority.

But again, the issue of the greater antiquity of the Prot canon of Scripture had already been well-established before you showed up with you end-around attempts to get some yardage. However, as usual, I expect you to continue to flail away no matter how often you are cut down. Just do not expect me to accommodate such.

[FreshPrince]

>>By what authority did other Catholic scholars have for not accepting all the canon that you hold to now?

Individually, they had none.

>>What infallible, indisputable canon did Luther differ from

Luther removed books that were accepted as canonical. The infallablility declaration is often made to only formalize what was already deemed as such when someone like Luther goes heretic.

>>What books of your Bible did Luther not include in his translation?

He effectively did this to the deauteronical(sp) by saying they were not inspired.

>>What binding canon did Luther set forth?

Nothing he did was “binding” on anyone.

>>By what authority did a man in a hairy garment who are insects have in reproving those who sat in the seat of Moses?

Sorry, Luther was no John the Baptist

[af_vet_1981]

And He was not in the Temple itself,...

The scripture reads:

καὶ περιεπάτει ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ (Jesus walked in the temple)

Four other translations besides the Authorized Version have it the same: "in the temple" ..., so the argument that the KJV is a mistranslation of the Greek is unpersuasive.

[af_vet_1981]

And He was not in the Temple itself,...The Lord thus at least made use of a cultural celebration to minister the Word, as I often have myself ...

Postulating what the Messiah did because one did something two thousand years later is an example/fallacy of cultural bias. There is no evidence in the scripture that the Feast of the Dedication at the Holy Temple was a cultural celebration. There is no other place in scripture that explains the Feast of the Dedication except Second Maccabees and the Gospel of John, which every Christian must accept as inspired by the Holy Spirit, explicitly mentioned the Feast of the Dedication (Re-dedication) of the Holy Temple in the context of the presence of the Messiah. One might consider this very significant and not filler.

[daniel1212]

More ignorance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Temple#Herod%27s_Temple

[daniel1212]

Individually, they had none.

Meaning they did not need authority to differ, since they had freedom to do so, down thru centuries. Right into Trent. Which can only presume ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as that is a novel and unScriptural premise. As already stated.

Luther removed books that were accepted as canonical.

Luther removed no books that were dogmatically defined as canonical, which Florence did not do, as already stated here fromm Catholic sources.

The infallablility declaration is often made to only formalize what was already deemed as such when someone like Luther goes heretic.

"Often" but not always, and here Trent settled things that were accepted subjects of debate among Catholics, which included the canon. Luther's rejection of over 7 books on was not even cited as a reason for the excommunication of him as a heretic by the heretical RCC. It only condemns "Purgatory cannot be proved from Sacred Scripture which is in the canon." Which is true, as already shown here since 2 Mac. 12 does not teach it, which even Catholic scholars admit.

What books of your Bible did Luther not include in his translation?

He effectively did this to the deauteronical(sp) by saying they were not inspired.

Meaning they were part of the Bible as one of your comrades effectively argued, but not Scripture as per the most ancient authoritative Jewish canon. As much substantiated already.

>>What binding canon did Luther set forth?

Nothing he did was “binding” on anyone.

Except Catholic seem to think the canon etc. was.

>>By what authority did a man in a hairy garment who are insects have in reproving those who sat in the seat of Moses?

Sorry, Luther was no John the Baptist

Far less are your popes, however the principle remains, that if dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses can be justified, even though dissent from its formal judgments was a capital crime, then much so can dissent from the presumed authority of the RCC Whose distinctive Catholic teachings not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation. which best shows the NT church understood the OT and gospels).

All told you are very late to this debate and short on any prevailing polemic.

[af_vet_1981]

The scripture reads:

καὶ περιεπάτει ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ (Jesus walked in the temple) Four other translations besides the Authorized Version have it the same: "in the temple" ...,

Denying Jesus walked in the temple is a denial of the scripture.

[daniel1212]

Four other translations besides the Authorized Version have it the same: "in the temple" ..., so the argument that the KJV is a mistranslation of the Greek is unpersuasive.

This is the type of thing I mean as trying to gain a foothold when you lost the war. I did not argue the KJV is a mistranslation, but made a distinction btwn the temple itself, as meaning the holy place of prayer and Solomon's porch in the "the Temple's Outer Court" (of the Gentiles) though that is also included in the phrase "in the Temple." (Mark 11:15)

When the Jews cried out, "Men of Israel, help: This is the man, that teacheth all men every where against the people, and the law, and this place: and further brought Greeks also into the temple, and hath polluted this holy place" (Acts 21:28; cf. Luke 1:9) they were not protesting a Gentile being in the Court of the Gentiles, but bring him "into the temple."

To the east of the court was Solomon's Porch, and to the north, the soreg, the "middle wall of separation",[cf. Ephesians 2:14] a stone wall separating the public area from the inner sanctuary where only Jews could enter, described as being 3 cubits high by Josephus (Wars 5.5.2 [3b] 6.2.4).

The point which you missed in your quest for a jot was that Christ is not at all described as going into the inner sanctuary to taker part in worship, but to teach in Solomon's Porch which this opportunity provided Him.

Postulating what the Messiah did because one did something two thousand years later is an example/fallacy of cultural bias. There is no evidence in the scripture that the Feast of the Dedication at the Holy Temple was a cultural celebration. There is no other place in scripture that explains the Feast of the Dedication except Second Maccabees and the Gospel of John, which every Christian must accept as inspired by the Holy Spirit, explicitly mentioned the Feast of the Dedication (Re-dedication) of the Holy Temple in the context of the presence of the Messiah. One might consider this very significant and not filler.

This is supposed to be an argument?! Cultural bias? Because the Dedication at the Holy Temple was not a cultural celebration? Yes, it certainly was a cultural celebration just as the Catholic feasts of St. Anthony etc. I have gone to are, for (surprise) religion usually goes together with culture. And ministering the Word at such or even affirmatively recognizing it simply does not translate into making the record of its institution Scripture. Thus the weight of evidence as shown is that before the church began leadership did not class it as Scripture.

You were given too many chances, and now you really will be ignored, but will give your new-found comrade another chance.

[af_vet_1981]

1. The scripture reads "Jesus walked in the temple" so the contention that And He was not in the Temple itself, is false.
2. The Feast of the Dedication was a holy celebration, called out in the scriptures. Trying to relegate it to a cultural celebration not in the scriptures is false.

[daniel1212]

Supplemental for those who strain at a semantical gnat while swallowing a camel ("into" as temple proper vs. in Herod's temple complex, a distinction manifest in Scripture texts forbidding Gentiles from entering into the temple).

Solomon's Temple: - https://www.shannonmullins.com/equipped-for-the-work-5-2-2/

Herod's temple: https://www.pinterest.com/pin/429812358166982719/?nic=1

This temple area was called the ' Court of the Gentiles'; it was not part of the temple proper, and therefore not sacred soil, consequently any one might enter it. (John Chisholm Lambert: A Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels: Labour-Zion, with appendix and indexes, p. 709

We let some strangers in our house - on the porch - others (like family) into the house.

Regardless of "in" vs. "into" the point remains that affirming something testified to by a source does not itself make the latter Scripture (whether it be prophecy or holy celebrations), and that the weight of evidence testifies to the Deuteros not being part of the most authoritative body of inspired texts in the 1st century - the Palestinian canon which Catholic sources affirm corresponds to the Prot OT canon - of which the Lord only quoted from. Case closed.

Other news: The American grandson of an indigenous ex-shaman was appalled when he saw a video of an Amazonian religious ceremony that took place in the Vatican this week. ..- https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/ex-shamans-grandson-on-vatican-pagan-ritual-i...couldnt-believe-my-eyes

[jjotto]

https://www.timesofisrael.com/ancient-temple-mount-warning-stone-is-closest-thing-we-have-to-the-temple/

[daniel1212]

https://www.timesofisrael.com/ancient-temple-mount-warning-stone-is-closest-thing-we-have-to-the-temple/

Thank you. .

Two millennia ago, the block served as one of several Do Not Enter signs in the Second Temple in Jerusalem, delineating a section of the 37-acre complex which was off-limits for the ritually impure — Jews and non-Jews alike. Written in Greek (no Latin versions have survived), they warned: “No foreigner may enter within the balustrade around the sanctuary and the enclosure. Whoever is caught, on himself shall he put blame for the death which will ensue.”

Thus the "Crying out, Men of Israel, help: This is the man, that teacheth all men every where against the people, and the law, and this place: and further brought Greeks also into the temple, and hath polluted this holy place. (For they had seen before with him in the city Trophimus an Ephesian, whom they supposed that Paul had brought into the temple.)" (Acts 21:28-29)

Into the temple; that is, into the court of the Jews, which is so far unlawful, that they might have killed a Roman if he had come in there; and everyone was warned by an inscription upon the pillars, Mh dein allofulon entov tou agiou parienai, That no stranger or foreigner might come into that holy place. ( MATTHEW POOLE COMMENTARY)

Gentiles were not only welcome to ascend the Temple Mount, they were also permitted, if not encouraged, to donate animals for sacrifice....Marcus Agrippa and other gentiles could enter the Temple compound, just not the area where holy rituals took place.

True.

“The exclusion of the gentiles, according to the inscription, is a kind of compromise between allowing them into the Temple but still excluding them from the inner temple, which is the properly holy ground,” Orian said.

Despite the Herodian-era status quo, in which gentiles and Jews mingled atop the Temple Mount, most rabbis today maintain the tradition that the entire complex is holy ground and Jewish entry is forbidden. That ban stems from uncertainty over where precisely the Holy of Holies stood.

All of which enables greater (to the redeemed by faith) appreciation of,

But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; (Ephesians 2:13-14; cf. Hebrews 9:12)

[FreshPrince]

>>Meaning they did not need authority to differ, since they had freedom to do so, down thru centuries.

Yes, they could disagree among themselves but questions were eventually settled under the guidance under the Holy Spirit. Not so with Luther. He thought he was correct because he said so and wanted to ram it down the Church’s throat. I will accept the declarations of the Christ’s Church, even if they take hundreds of years to discern, over some fallible and disturbed monk and his man-made church.

[daniel1212]

Yes, they could disagree among themselves but questions were eventually settled under the guidance under the Holy Spirit.

So you presume, since Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.

But if being the historical magisterial stewards of Scripture means that it is their judgment on the canon that should be followed, then you need to stick with the most authoritative ancient canon.

“the protocanonical books of the Old Testament correspond with those of the Bible of the Hebrews, and the Old Testament as received by Protestants.” “...the Hebrew Bible, which became the Old Testament of Protestantism.” (The Catholic Encyclopedia>Canon of the Old Testament; htttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm) The Protestant canon of the Old Testament is the same as the Palestinian canon. (The Catholic Almanac, 1960, p. 217)

Not so with Luther. He thought he was correct because he said so and wanted to ram it down the Church’s throat.

You must be another victim of RC propaganda, which is an argument against becoming an RC. For rather wanting to "ram it down the Church’s throat," he actually expressed that his views on the canon were simply his non-biding opinion For instance in his Preface to the Revelation of St. John Luther states ,

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.

And in his Preface to the Epistles of St. James,

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.

Read more here on Luther and the canon, and also see the section (right side) on Popular Entries on Martin Luther before you fall victim to more lies about him. There is enough that is true that can be criticized among attributes, but as regards the canon, as said, reality, scholarly disagreements over the canonicity (proper) of certain books continued down through the centuries and right into Trent, until it provided the first "infallible," indisputable canon  after the death of Luther.

Thus Luther was no maverick but had substantial RC support for his non-binding canon.

I will accept the declarations of the Christ’s Church, even if they take hundreds of years to discern, over some fallible and disturbed monk and his man-made church.

You must will to accept what really is her fallible judgment in order to be a faithful RC (well, at least based on the letter of the law, vs. how Rome manifestly considers what passes for faithfulness now). Thus if anyone is ramming the canon down the throat, it is your elitist erroneous church .