This is not a profitable debate at this point.

<Ohio>, <tga> wants to argue the <SS> point and you've been on the other side of that argument on these pages.

We've been given the 66 books of the bible right out of the first century and these writings were considered scripture and were therefore considered authoritative.

<tga> thinks that Catholics can invent more scripture and that it's binding and authoritative.

It seems to the argument should be with <tga> in the affirmative, arguing that it's okay to add to the scriptures and that they are binding and authoritative.

He should make his case with supporting points and title or number his supporting points to keep it orderly.

Then it would be your job to refute those supporting points by showing what is wrong with them.

You both already agree that the 66 books of the bible are scripture, so the question is, can Catholics write more scripture.

Exactly!
All this <trying to score points>, makes it look weak.

Here's an idea, have a discussion.
If something isn't addressed, address it.
(That was easy)

<optimal play: Why don't you open your forum?>

Never felt the need, look at what it took to even bring it up.

A guy who should be embracing freedom isn't and BP needs quite.

Even this guy: <<The loser in the casino lacks: <skill, intelligence, discipline, emotional control>> wouldn't place that bet. :)

<gezafan: White people are being attacked all over.

Where's the outrage?>

The Catholic Church, at the Council of Rome (382), settled the list of Scripture (46 books in O.T., 27 books in N.T., total 73 books).

After Marty nailed his 95 complaints to the Church door at Wittenberg, he went on a narcissistic frenzy and decided to make up a new Bible.

He got away with eliminating seven books from the Old Testament he didn't like, but when he also tried to eliminate Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation from the New Testament, that's when his Protestant buddies finally had to rein him in and put a stop to his madness.

There was simply no rational justification for eliminating books from the Bible.

Now, as regards "sola scriptura", this was another Protestant invention.

Are Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation part of "sola scriptura"?

If so, then why did Marty try to eliminate them?

Why are there so many disagreements over Scripture passages?

Why are there so many different translations and interpretations?

How could ordinary people know the Word of God before the advent of the printing press and general literacy?

"Sola scriptura" results in nutty pronouncements such as:

"The entire gospel of Jesus was only supposed to be in effect for a couple decades"

"Paul taught a different gospel than Jesus"

"The universe is only 6,000 years old"

"The pope is the anti-Christ"

"Dinosaurs and koalas actually roamed about the Garden of Eden"

"Two animals of every kind on earth actually marched into Noah's ark"

"Joshua actually stopped the sun"

"Christmas and Easter is not biblical and therefore should not be celebrated"

"Jonah actually spent three days inside a whale"

And a whole lot of other whacky stuff.

Whatever the Catholics did in the year 382 wasn’t necessary. They gave us nothing we didn’t already have.

All we need to do is look at the fruit of the Catholic Church to know that it’s not Christian. From the top down, they have orchestrated not only the rape and molestation of thousands of young boys, but also the management and coverup that went in for decades if not centuries.

From the top down, the same top that writes new scripture for Catholics that they hold in even greater esteem than the Bible.

They pray to the dead.
They pray to Mary.
They consider Mary to be another intercessor.
They think they can buy their way out of purgatory. They think their priests forgive sins.
They write their own scriptures as they see fit, to make money selling get out of purgatory notes. They call other men Father, in the spiritual sense (like a priest), when the Bible says not to do that.

The Catholics have massive blood on their hands, waging war in the name of Christ like a Muzzie waging jihad.

Catholics are not Christians, just as Mormons and JW’s aren’t.

Everything about them testifies to this fact.

Catholicism is pure religion made for people who want religion in their lives. It’s not a relationship with the living God. It is not the way to salvation.

It is a satanic heresy with its own gospel and a different Jesus, yet it appeals to those who feel they need the trappings of such heavy religiosity and <works>, because they’re rightly disgusted by their lives and feel they must somehow do their part to <earn> some of that salvation and <be steeped> in religiosity to prove one’s repentance.

It’s tragic.

Catholics need to leave that church and become Christians. Leave all that religion behind and trust in the gospel (1 Cor. 15:1-4).

Catholics make up the <many> who are on the wide road to destruction.

This is not a profitable debate at this point.>

As I already said, IMO the debate was over 3 weeks ago.

<<Ohio>, <tga> wants to argue the <SS> point>>

Actually, I <wanted> to argue ss (past tense), and did. I consider the topic "wrapped up".

<<tga> thinks that Catholics can invent more scripture and that it's binding and authoritative. >

Exactly!
All this <trying to score points>, makes it look weak.>

Not trying to "score points". At all.

I consider it profitable to challenge a false claim made against me. Maybe you don't mind your credibility challenged by a falsehood in a public setting. I do.>

Big Pawn chessforum (kibitz #5273)

You responded immediately here:

Big Pawn chessforum (kibitz #5274)

And I quote:

<OhioChessFan: Lame. Just like the Catholics, the Orthodox simply can't get past their circular reasoning, eg, Who says the Orthodox tradition is right? The Orthodox do. Wow, that's persuasive.

At 1:45, Trenham claims the nature of <<<Sola Scriptura>>> is related to the tradition of the church. Who says? Besides him, I mean.

He makes the point that because Protestantism is wrong, <<<Sola Scriptura>>> is wrong.>

I replied again, same day:

Big Pawn chessforum (kibitz #5276)

And I will quote from my reply:

<<<<Sola scriptura>>> doctrine does not encompass a great body of oral-only teaching. For example, St. Paul the Apostle taught the church at Thessaloniki for over a year. Yet his canonized writings to them consist of only 2 books, 8 chapters. So are we to believe that upon the death of St. Paul that all his oral teaching should be discarded??? And only the written part retained?>

Still on the same day, you replied here:

Big Pawn chessforum (kibitz #5279)

And we were just getting started, as the number of posts from both of us multiplied rapidly, responding to each others' supporting points.

A bit more than 3 weeks later, after some lulls in the discussion, we got back into it, here:

Big Pawn chessforum (kibitz #5408)

<thegoodanarchist: <<< OhioChessFan: This is your baby. Own it.>>>

Well, I've disavowed nothing and retracted nothing in this discussion, so I am not sure why you would reply like this, other than it is your habit to do so. Same applies to your "concession speech" approach.

Sola scriptura is an important topic, deserving of a dignified discussion. This is why I have criticized your most recent comments.>

You obviously didn't remember all the debate from 12/5/2020, since you posted this on the 29th:

Big Pawn chessforum (kibitz #5420)

< OhioChessFan:

<<<tga: Irrelevant to the topic of sola scriptura. >>>

Excuse me, who said that was the topic?>

And in reply I reminded you:

Big Pawn chessforum (kibitz #5423)

In summary, you engaged in the ss debate on 12/5/2020. Then you forgot, so I reminded you of the fact on 12/29/2020.

Then I reminded you again yesterday, 1/26/2021, and you accuse me of a falsehood??

Up until the fourth century there were numerous texts circulating, with many local churches using a variety of "scripture" including The Didache, The Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of Peter, The Epistle of Barnabas, The Epistle of Clement, The Sheperd of Hermas, and dozens of other writings.

It was the Council of Rome in 382 which, based on church history, and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, resolved the canon of the Church and established the Bible we have today, other than the abbreviated version used by Protestants since the 16th century.

<All we need to do is look at the fruit of the Catholic Church to know that it’s not Christian.>

You mean the millions upon millions of people right around the world who have been brought to Christ via Catholic missionaries?

You mean the schools, hospitals and universities established by Catholics all around the world?

You mean the basis of European civilisation, the renaissance, and western culture?

<It is a satanic heresy with its own gospel and a different Jesus>

You're skating on thin ice now and need to be very careful when you're ranting and raving.

'And the teachers of the law who came down from Jerusalem said, “He is possessed by Beelzebul! By the prince of demons he is driving out demons.” ... Truly I tell you, people can be forgiven all their sins and every slander they utter, but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin.”' (Mark 3)

In short, your entire post is a tedious protestant fundamentalist rant, devoid of facts, logic and common sense.

It is incoherent raving in the same vein as that from Larry, Nozzle, Posoo and Kurakotsaba.

On Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement it's barely level 1.

The church elders were analyzing and deciding which writings had apostolic authority in the first century, long before the "church councils" were formed.

Paul cites Luke's Gospel as Scripture (1 Tim. 5:18). Peter referred to Paul's writings as Scripture (2 Pet. 3:15-16). Paul commanded the Thessalonians to have his letter read to all the brethren (1 Thes. 5:27). John promised a blessing to all those who read the Revelation (Rev. 1:3). To the Colossians Paul wrote "have this letter read in the church of the Laodiceans (Col. 4:16).

As long as the apostles were alive, everything could be verified, because they were eyewitnesses to everything Christ said and did.

The Bible was complete and "once for all delivered to the Saints" in the first century

< Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.> (Jude 3)

Furthermore, when the church of Rome decided for themselves which books should be included in the canon, it was because these books were already regarded as authoritative. They didn't become authoritative because the Church put them on a list.

No.

They were put on the list <because> they were already recognized as authoritative.

You mean the basis of European civilisation, the renaissance, and western culture?>

Catholics teach people to pray to statues and dead people. They teach them that they have to go to mass every week or else it's anathema and you go to hell. They teach them about this thing called purgatory, which is not in the bible, but which they sell "get out of jail free cards" for.

Catholics teach that Christ's death on the cross was not enough for your salvation, because you need to do <good works> to earn your way there, making Christ's sacrifice insufficient and leaving his work <unfinished> instead of <finished> as Christ said on the cross.

The Catholics brought the sword, like the Muslims, and spilled blood in the name of their God, like the Muslims. That's not Christian. That's Catholic.

Catholics have dominated a worldwide sex trafficking scheme for decades if not centuries, from the top down - the same top that gets to <write more scriptures> as they see fit.

They name their churches after Mary.

They lead people away from the gospel and teach them to be Catholics, not Christians.

<'And the teachers of the law who came down from Jerusalem said, “He is possessed by Beelzebul! By the prince of demons he is driving out demons.” ... Truly I tell you, people can be forgiven all their sins and every slander they utter, but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin.”' (Mark 3)> " Catholics blaspheme against the Holy Spirit when they teach that you have to do all these things in order to be saved, when it's really just by grace through faith that we are saved. Catholics blaspheme the finished work of Christ on the cross when they say you have to eat the wafer every week to make up for your sins, just like the Jews had to make a sacrifice for their sins.

The truth is, Catholics have invented a whole bunch of religious stuff to do that has nothing to do with salvation at all, and it makes a mockery of Christ's work on the cross. This is the blasphemy you should beware of.

But we shouldn't be surprised, given the history, the bloody and evil history of the Catholic church, and I'm not talking about fringe events, but events schemed by the church leaders and the entire hierarchical organization.

They sell get out of hell tickets, which made them among the wealthiest organization in the world.

It is incoherent raving in the same vein as that from Larry, Nozzle, Posoo and Kurakotsaba.>

This doesn't take issue with what I posted. You are generalizing about my tone, which is bottom level on Graham's Hierarchy.

1. The bible says to judge by the fruit, which is why I wrote this:

<All we need to do is look at the fruit of the Catholic Church to know that it’s not Christian. From the top down, they have orchestrated not only the rape and molestation of thousands of young boys, but also the management and coverup that went in for decades if not centuries. >

Then I said that Catholics are not Christians, but I didn't just say it and leave. I have reasons for it and stated the <facts> that you lied about and said I neglected to state:

<They pray to the dead.
They pray to Mary.
They consider Mary to be another intercessor.
They think they can buy their way out of purgatory. They think their priests forgive sins. They write their own scriptures as they see fit, to make money selling get out of purgatory notes. They call other men Father, in the spiritual sense (like a priest), when the Bible says not to do that.

The Catholics have massive blood on their hands, waging war in the name of Christ like a Muzzie waging jihad.

Catholics are not Christians, just as Mormons and JW’s aren’t. >

Catholics have more in common with Muzzies than Christians.

Now you are just making up lies about me. That is not appreciated.>

It's not a lie. If I am wrong, then state clearly what your position is, because I'm obviously lost in the quagmire of posts between you and <ocf>. I may be wrong, but I'm not lying.

I don't need to lie.

If you do not think that Catholics get to invent more scripture, then explain who gets to invent more scripture.

I'm of the understanding that no one gets to invent more scripture because the bible was complete in the first century.

Mormons and Catholics think otherwise. They think any old dude that wears a funny hat can write new bible, as it were. New scriptures that they hold to be authoritative.

They can make stuff up and say, "there, it is written!" and it's like Moses wrote it, or Paul.

For many centuries, the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics read from the same 66 books. Then when the Roman church was challenged to find biblical support for purgatory and indulgences, they couldn't, so they went to Maccabees and decided to add that to the bible in the 1600s!

Amazing!

Okay, so there are some things that the Orthodox don't agree with the Romans on, but if you are arguing that the bible as given to us in the first century is not the only authoritative source of scripture, then you by default are in the camp that thinks you can invent more scripture.

Read Acts.

First century church.

Do you see any priests forgiving sins?

Do you see them praying to dead people?

Do you see them making statues to Mary?

Do you see them selling indulgences?

How about talking about Purgatory?

No, you don't see that.

This is what you get when you allow men with funny hats to <write more scripture>, as it were, and fundamentally change everything.

You see Paul doing any Hail Mary's? Rosary beads?

No, but when you make up your own bible stuff, this is what you get.

The Catholic church is creepy! They got statues of Mary everywhere. They pray to Mary.

They count on those beads!

They pray to dead people!

They orchestrate international schemes to traffic young boys for homosexual sex.

They sold indulgences! Get out of jail free cards for sinners!

This is what happens when you get to write more scripture. Well, they don't call it scripture, but it's equal to scripture.

They make themselves equal to GOD!

The Catholic church is a completely different church from the one we read about in Acts.

Catholics are the libs of Christianity.

My heart goes out to them, truly. I want every Catholic to convert to Christianity and be saved and come out of that church, leaving all of that invented legalism behind.

I find it sad and difficult to discuss with Catholics because I have such great pity for them.

Mary,
Statues,
Indulgences,
Purgatory,
Inventing scriptures equal to God,s word
Changing the gospel,
Rosary beads,
Sex trafficking,
Calling priests "Father"
Priests forgiving sins,
Infallible Pope,
Praying to dead people,
More than one intercessor,
Adding books to the bible,
Crusades,
Inquisition,
Political scandal,

The list goes on and on.

<They are still circulating.> They're not read in the churches.

<The church elders were analyzing and deciding which writings had apostolic authority in the first century, long before the "church councils" were formed.>

Yes, but it took an ecumenical council to definitively establish the canon.

And the first church council is referenced in Acts 15, before the New Testament had even been written.

<Paul cites Luke's Gospel as Scripture (1 Tim. 5:18).>

1 Tim. 5:18 is not a citation of Luke's Gospel, it is a reference to Deuteronomy 25:4 and Leviticus 19:13

<Peter referred to Paul's writings as Scripture (2 Pet. 3:15-16).>

2 Pet. 3:15-16 refers to Paul's letters, which were spread out all over the Empire.

<Paul commanded the Thessalonians to have his letter read to all the brethren (1 Thes. 5:27).>

Yes, of course he did. What's your point?

<John promised a blessing to all those who read the Revelation (Rev. 1:3).>

Yes, again how does that discredit the Council of Rome?

<To the Colossians Paul wrote "have this letter read in the church of the Laodiceans (Col. 4:16).>

Yes, and he also says they should read the letter he wrote to them.

So where is Paul's Letter to the Laodiceans?

<As long as the apostles were alive, everything could be verified, because they were eyewitnesses to everything Christ said and did.>

Again, what's your point?

<The Bible was complete and "once for all delivered to the Saints" in the first century>

The canon of the Bible was not determined until the fourth century.

<<Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.> (Jude 3)>

Jude makes reference to the Book of Enoch and The Assumption of Moses, neither of which were included in the Bible.

<Furthermore, when the church of Rome decided for themselves which books should be included in the canon, it was because these books were already regarded as authoritative. They didn't become authoritative because the Church put them on a list. No. They were put on the list <because> they were already recognized as authoritative. The council's job was to research which books were approved to be read by which churches, and then compile a list. These scriptures were already considered scripture. They did not become scripture because the Church put them on a list.>

Wrong!

<They teach them that they have to go to mass every week or else it's anathema and you go to hell.>

Wrong!

<They teach them about this thing called purgatory, which is not in the bible, but which they sell "get out of jail free cards" for.>

Wrong!

<Catholics teach that Christ's death on the cross was not enough for your salvation, because you need to do <good works> to earn your way there, making Christ's sacrifice insufficient and leaving his work <unfinished> instead of <finished> as Christ said on the cross.>

Wrong!

<The Catholics brought the sword, like the Muslims, and spilled blood in the name of their God, like the Muslims. That's not Christian. That's Catholic.>

Wrong!

<Catholics have dominated a worldwide sex trafficking scheme for decades if not centuries, from the top down - the same top that gets to <write more scriptures> as they see fit.>

Wrong!

<They name their churches after Mary.>

Finally, you got something right!

Either Mary or one of the saints.

<They lead people away from the gospel and teach them to be Catholics, not Christians.>

You're an idiot!

<Catholics blaspheme against the Holy Spirit when they teach that you have to do all these things in order to be saved, when it's really just by grace through faith that we are saved.>

Big Pawn chessforum (kibitz #5542)

<Catholics blaspheme the finished work of Christ on the cross when they say you have to eat the wafer every week to make up for your sins, just like the Jews had to make a sacrifice for their sins.>

Your display of ignorance is truly astounding!

<The truth is, Catholics have invented a whole bunch of religious stuff to do that has nothing to do with salvation at all, and it makes a mockery of Christ's work on the cross. This is the blasphemy you should beware of. But we shouldn't be surprised, given the history, the bloody and evil history of the Catholic church, and I'm not talking about fringe events, but events schemed by the church leaders and the entire hierarchical organization. They sell get out of hell tickets, which made them among the wealthiest organization in the world. It's not a surprise that they've got it all wrong, is it?>

You're ranting again.

<This doesn't take issue with what I posted. You are generalizing about my tone, which is bottom level on Graham's Hierarchy.>

You posted nonsense whilst I have consistently posted facts.

Every single calumny you have thrown against Christ's Church I have repeatedly discredited, yet for some reason known only to yourself, you remain intransigent in your ignorance and hatred.

For this people’s heart has become calloused;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts
and turn, and I would heal them

<OCF: Evidence? Be sure to cite your specific identification of that as the issue, and my specific agreement to such.>

It's not a lie.>

Yes, it is a lie. You have made a FALSE accusation, namely <<tga> thinks that Catholics can invent more scripture and that it's binding and authoritative.>

Yet you have not linked to any post of mine, nor quoted any post of mine, to substantiate this assertion. The reason? Because you cannot! Because it is a lie.

<If I am wrong, then state clearly what your position is,>

Which of my posts is not clear to you? Cite a specific post, quote from it, and I will clarify it.

<because I'm obviously lost in the quagmire of posts between you and <ocf>.>

This is understandable, but it is NOT a license to make stuff up.

<I may be wrong, but I'm not lying.>

You made the assertion, so now you need to bring evidence to support the assertion or else retract it. Same rules you talked about in Rogoff, over and over ad nauseum, for YEARS.

<I don't need to lie.>

He's going to take my diatribe apart.

<<They are still circulating.> They're not read in the churches.>

They are still circulating, glad you agree. So this point does not refute any part of my post.

<<The church elders were analyzing and deciding which writings had apostolic authority in the first century, long before the "church councils" were formed.>

Yes, but it took an ecumenical council to definitively establish the canon.

And the first church council is referenced in Acts 15, before the New Testament had even been written>

The canon was established by God Himself. The letters were already authoritative and did not need a council to <establish> them. They were already established and verified by the apostles when they were alive, being read in the churches.

The Jerusalem council is not a precedent for future councils, as the Catholics claim. It was unique in that it was held by the apostles themselves, who were living witnesses. More importantly, it was held because there was confusion as they entered the new dispensation of grace. The Jews had always been of the dispensation of the law and suddenly, all at once, they were being told that Gentiles are not under the law, but were saved by grace.

In the past, when Gentiles were converted to Jews, they had to get circumcised. The council was all about Paul telling the apostles and elders about the signs and wonders they performed, which is the proof they needed to further convince the apostles that Paul was an apostle too, and that his letters were scripture.

This was a unique, critical point where the old dispensation was on its way out and the new dispensation was on its way in, and the members of the council were living witnesses, people who performed miracles that proved they were legitimate.

So this idea that since there was a council in Acts 15 that further Catholic councils are authoritative in the same way is bunk.

<<Paul cites Luke's Gospel as Scripture (1 Tim. 5:18).>

1 Tim. 5:18 is not a citation of Luke's Gospel, it is a reference to Deuteronomy 25:4 and Leviticus 19:13>

??

"The laborer deserves his wages"

In Luke 10:7 we find the exact phrase with the Greek word order preserved just as Saint Paul cites it:

<And remain in the same house, eating and drinking what they provide, for the laborer deserves his wages. Do not go from house to house> (Luke 10:7).

Paul cites <Luke> on equal footing with Deuteronomy!

You've not refuted anything with these three points so far.

<<Peter referred to Paul's writings as Scripture (2 Pet. 3:15-16).>

2 Pet. 3:15-16 refers to Paul's letters, which were spread out all over the Empire.

<Paul commanded the Thessalonians to have his letter read to all the brethren (1 Thes. 5:27).>

Yes, of course he did. What's your point? >

Your question does not refute any of my points.

So far we have <five> responses from you in your post and none of them <take my diatribe apart> in the least.

<<John promised a blessing to all those who read the Revelation (Rev. 1:3).>

Yes, again how does that discredit the Council of Rome?

<To the Colossians Paul wrote "have this letter read in the church of the Laodiceans (Col. 4:16).>

Yes, and he also says they should read the letter he wrote to them.>

And no disagreement from you here either.

This is all proof that the scriptures were considered scriptures in the first century.

You wrote a long post and on first glance one would think that a nice long post like that must critically address all of my points, confidently, and refute them.

But you didn't refute anything. You even got the bit wrong about Paul referencing Luke as scripture.

Let's finish up.

<<The Bible was complete and "once for all delivered to the Saints" in the first century>

The canon of the Bible was not determined until the fourth century.>

Jude disagrees with what you Catholic priests have taught you. I will go with Jude, thanks.

<Jude makes reference to the Book of Enoch and The Assumption of Moses, neither of which were included in the Bible.>

OCF: Anyone think <tga> did that?>

The following is my reply to <OCF> in his forum:

< OhioChessFan: <<<tga: I brought up ss here: Big Pawn chessforum (kibitz #5273)>>>

Uh, no, you posted a link to a video.>

I brought up the topic of sola scriptura by posting a link to a video ABOUT SOLA SCRIPTURA.

<One part, not all of it, was about ss.>

That is not going to fly. The <title> of the video is "Sola Scriptura vs. Holy Tradition".

Prior to 1054 A.D., there was "One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic" Christian church.

In that year, the One church had a schism and split in two: The Eastern Christian church is known as the Eastern or Greek Orthodox Church.

The Western Christian Church is known as the Roman Catholic, or Latin, church [RCC].

So to answer your question, it depends on how you want to label the two halves of Christendom.

What's this invented scripture you're talking about?

The seven books of the Old Testament which Marty ripped out are Baruch, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Sirach, Tobit and Wisdom, along with parts of Daniel and Esther.

They were written before Christ.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DD9...

<For many centuries, the Orthodox and the Roman Catholics read from the same 66 books.>

Wrong.

They read from the same 73 books.

You are severely lacking in any knowledge of church history.

In fact it seems everything you write about church history, scripture and theology is wrong!

I've never come across anybody so clueless about these things and yet so seemingly unaware of how wrong he is!?

I'm beginning to suspect the person behind <Big Pawn> is actually a conservative Catholic who is trolling as a protestant fundamentalist nutjob just to make protestants look bad.

Like how on Nozzle's playpen I recall that a political conservative would use a sockpuppet in order to troll as a liberal and make the most stupid idiotic posts in order to highlight the ridiculousness of the liberal position.

In the same way, it seems that <Big Pawn> is a sockpuppet for a conservative Catholic doing the same thing to fundamentalist protestants.

The apocryphal books were never a part of the early church canon because they contain geographical and historical errors, proving they are not divinely inspired.

They also teach doctrines that are at odds with scripture.

Christ and his disciples quoted frequently from the scriptures and <never once> quoted the apocryphal books.

Furthermore, they were never included in the Jewish canon which is extremely important because God entrusted his word to the Jews.

Paul wrote, "(The Jews) were entrusted with the oracles of God" (Rom 3:1-2)

Jerome completed his version of the bible in 405 and in the middle ages, the Vulgate was the de facto bible of the west. The manuscripts clearly identified some of the works as non-canonical. He specifically mentions Maccabees, Wisdom, Judith, Tobias, and the Shepherd are "not in the canon".

The New Testament had similar tests to determine if they were canonical. Was the book or letter written by an apostle or a close associate of the apostle? The people all knew who the apostles were and who their close associates were. Luke, for instance, was not an apostle but was a close associate of Paul's, and Mark was written by Mark who also was not an apostle, but was a close associate of Peter's.

So when the apostles wrote and claimed inspiration, the people were sure of the veracity of their claims, because they knew the apostles, their signs and wonders, and their close associates.