JFJ Forums

Well Ginger2

First of all more churches than only the Katholic Church found them inspired. It's just that the protestants came much later, and had all kind of discussions about it, also the Church of England etc.

For Jews. Writings are writings.
If the book of Esther... Is not from a prophet, and it's not in Torah given by God... what does inspired than mean...? The book of Esther is written by man, with a huge knowledge and feeling that the whole story God was hidden but was there... etc.
for Job it was a discussion if it was clear enough, and I think also Songs of Songs. But still it are writings, not at the same level as prophets or Torah....

So I red somewhere (i think on this forum). That if Paul knew that his letters to the comunities would be in the NT, than he might have written them differently. Where it just letters or how much where they inspired...?

Maybe some Jews for Jesus will see Revelations on the level of prophets, the main part of the NT are just writings...
did the Messianic Jews Thomas, or Judas find their own testemonies also inspired themselves. I think so...
But if the Church starts to decide who has the spirit or not... than it is also more obvious that Christians started to use other definitions than Jews about what inspired meant etc.

What I consider is The Apocrypha books hold some  agnostic beliefs.


some Apocrypha go directed against what the NT says.


More info on this link.   http://www.carm.org/catholic/apocrypha_errors.htm  What I find confuse about is some of these apocrypha hold agnostic beliefs and yet The rcc claim to fight against such beliefs.

In my quest to learn about Scriptures vs Apocrypha I have discovered much.

I will attempt to summarize my findings, however, my journey has taught me above all else, when it comes to religious matters, most people will believe what they choose to regardless of reality. (Curiously, the same is true of politics)

The oldest canon of the Jewish OT is 2 Esdras (Vg:4 Esdras):

It claims 24 OT books (Vulgate & Peshitta).

Flavius Josephus: [37- 100 ] claims 22 books, but names them only the categories: 5 Law, 13 History, 4 Hymns.

Melito of Sardis (d 170 ad) also claims 22 books.
The Catholic Encyclopedia says: " St. Jerome, speaking of the canon of Melito, quotes Tertullian's statement that he was esteemed a prophet by many of the faithful." and "St. Melito, Bishop of Sardis (c. 170), first drew up a list of the canonical books of the Old Testament ......."

The illusion of a discrepancy is due to how the books were counted. The above lists appear to be in agreement.

Since the earliest Jewish canon agrees with the current Jewish canon, I conclude the Jewish canon of Divinely inspired Scriptures is the correct and complete list.

Not that that information would surprise any Jew, but it does expose the error of any gentile who claims Jewish Scriptures are incomplete.

None of the above lists includes any Apocrypha or otherwise referred to as deuterocanical books. Only the Torah, prophet and Psalms are legitimately part of the OT.

In addition, the story about the LXX appears to be at least 90% fiction.

It is based on a pseudepigraphc (sp?) letter. I can't find any evidence that doesn't depend solely on this fake letter to support the LXX as being what is claimed.

Finally, there is no evidence to support the claim of the Council Jamnia. (Which has been used to defend adding extra Biblical books to the Bible) The idea of this hypothetical council came into existence in the late 1800's. There is no mention in history before that time.

To be quite blunt, I am disappointed with all the religious beliefs that have formed based solely on pseudo- writings and mere speculation in attempts to justify what we wish were true.

It is to be noted that the Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox disagree with one another on the Old Testament Canon as well. The Eastern Orthodox has Psalm 151 and 3rd Maccabees while the RCC rejects them. See The Orthodox Study Bible. Anglicans do not consider the Deuterocanicals as inspired Scripture or part of the Old Testament Canon. See The Thirty-Nine Articles and also An Anglican systematic theology book called THE PRINCIPLES OF THEOLOGY: AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES by Dr. W.H. Griffith Thomas.

The Old Testament consisted of a threefold division which is known as the Law of Moses, the prophets and the writings. It was written by chosen men of God whom were prophets by office or had the prophetic gift or was a prophet by Office and had the prophetic gift

Here is a listing of the Hebrew Canon of Jews In Palestine and Protestant OT Canon listing.

DIVISION of the Old Testament Books. : The thirty-nine books of the OT were anciently divided by the Hebrews into three distinct classes: ( 1 ) The law ( Torah ) , which consisted of the five books of Moses- Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. These are the oldest of the biblical books, Mosaic in origin but incorporating much earlier material. ( 2 ) The Prophets ( Nevi'im ) , Which embraced the four earlier Prophets, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings and the four later prophets, Isaiah, Jermiah, Ezekiel, and the twelve- Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah. These were believed to have been written by those who had the prophetic office as well as the prophetic gift. ( 3 ) The Writings ( Kenthuvim ) , which consisted of ( a ) poetical books- Psalms, Proverbs, Job; ( b ) the Rolls- Song of Solomon, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, and Esther; and ( c ) prophetical-historical books- Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, and Chronicles. The Heb. books number twenty-four and are identical in content with the thirty-nine of the English order, the difference being made up by the division of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles into two books respectively instead of one, and by counting the twelves minor prophets individually instead of as one. ( THE NEW UNGER'S BIBLE DICTIONARY,pg 169-170 )

Proper arguments againist the Apocrypha as not being part of the Old Testament Canon is based on :

1 ) It was not included within the threefold division of the Hebrew Canon which consist of the law of Moses, the prophets and the Writings.

2 ) The Apocrypha was not written by one who was a prophet by office or had the prophetic gift or both.

Your claim there by contradicted by the New Testament itself. Luke 24:44 list the law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms. That is the complete Old Testament which is in the listing I provided in my previous post. This is the threefold division the Jews had with regard to the OT.




The LXX did have them but the Deuterocanical books were not Scripture. It was read for the edification of the people, but not for authority to prove the doctrines of religion. This was the position of Jerome in it's use in the Christian Church. They were viewed as historical books but not inspired Scripture itself. The Jews in the Disapora had the same OT Canon as the Jews in Palestine. Their OT Canon was the Law of Moses, the Prophects and the Psalms.




That still does not prove that the Deu-can books were viewed as inspired Scripture. As they are not included in the OT Canon of the Jews. And in fact begs the question on the issue of it.




The learned church fathers rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture and it was the Council of Trent that was out of step historically on it. Many held to the position set forth by Saint Jerome that it was read in the Church for edification but not for authority to prove doctrines of religion. This was the position of the Reformers.