Replies

Answering your post one by one. I am not incorrect. Regarding Origen. Here is his list. I have taken the liberty of numbering the books he considered Scripture. Please count them. 22 in all.

"The twenty-two books of the Hebrews are the following: That which is called by us [1]Genesis, but by the Hebrews, from the beginning of the book, Breshith, which means 'in the beginning'; [2]Exodus, Welesmoth, that is, 'these are the names'; [3]Leviticus, Wikra, 'and he called'; [4]Numbers, Ammesphekodeim; [5]Deuteronomy, Eleaddebareim 'these are the words'; [6]Joshua the son of Nun, Josoue ben Noun; [7]Judges and [8]Ruth, among them in one book, Saphateim; the [9]first and second of Kings, among them one, Samoel, that is, 'the called of God'; the [10]third and fourth of Kings in one, Wammelch David, that is, 'the kingdom of David'; of the Chronicles, [11]the first and second in one, Dabreiamein, that is, 'records of days'; Esdras, [12]first and second(a) in one, Ezra, that is, 'an assistant';[13] the book of Psalms, Spharthelleim; the [14]Proverbs of Solomon, Meloth; [15]Ecclesiastes, Koelth;[16] the Song of Songs (not, as some suppose, [Songs of Songs), Sir Hassirim; [17]Isaiah, Jessia;[18] Jeremiah, with Lamentations and the Epistle(b) in one, Jeremia; Daniel, [19]Daniel; [20]Ezekiel, Jezekiel; [21]Job, Job; [22] Esther, Esther; And outside of these there are the Maccabees, which are entitled Sarbeth Sabanaiel."

In other words, the Maccabees are OUTSIDE of the Canon of Scripture. Origen named the Maccabees but SPECIFICALLY STATED they were outside of the Canon of Scripture. More later.

i find the whole protestants hate the extra books thing interesting because their chief complaint is that catholics use them to substantiate crazy things like puirgatory which the orthodox dont have anyway.

lets be honest is this more about whats scripture or finding a lame way to refute catholic innovations which would be easily dispensed with by noting that rome is 1 of the 5 original sees which split with the rest!

As to your thoughts on Origen, I have already shown that he thought that the Deuts were inspired by God. You seem to have skipped over the part where I explained that the word "Canon" didn't mean the same thing it means today during Origen's time.

Proof of this is in the fact that Origen quotes from Scriptures to prove a point - in some cases, noting 3 Protocanonicals verses and one Deuterocanonical verse to theologically show that the Word of God is to be interpreted in the way he describes. There is no point in claiming otherwise. One wouldn't use the Iliad to prove a theological point regarding the Word of God from the Scriptures. One wouldn't use an Apocrypha in the same sentence as Scripture - it would weaken the argument entirely!

Regards