Thread 24670222

Protestant here. Is the Apocrypha worth reading? (For literary value, of course.)

>>24670222 (OP)
no it's just made up. Read the regular Bible

It is a missing link between the Old and New Testaments with a handful of extraneous detail.

1 Maccabees is perfectly fine history. 2 Maccabees is strange. The rest of the books lie somewhere between the two types; either they are perfectly fine, or not.

>>24670337
>Maccabees is history

>>24670348
>filtered by: The Bible
surely not.

>>24670354
It is a challenging read.

>>24670222 (OP)
Depends on what you mean. The deuterocanon was a part of the bible for most of christian history. they aren't in the masoretic text and aren't canonical to jews, but they are in the septuagint, which is the most popular version used in judea at the time of Christ, it is what was cited in the New Testament itself. Luther removed them because they weren't in the "Hebrew bible," but who cares what the jews think? They aren't the continuation of Israel, the Church is.

>>24670580
>aren't in the masoretic text
Sorta similar to another more popular section..

What do you guys think of the books of Enoch? The Ethiopian Church recognizes some of them, and they're also references in the New Testament several times.

>>24670228
buddy, i've got bad news

>>24670222 (OP)
>to violate any of the laws poses challenges for the theologian
>to speak of ancient sources will frequently incur a response of what does this do for me from the crowd
>to speak of modern sources produces an effete image and impotence

Every theologian must decide between the unity of the church or being correct.

>the law of no decision making was born of revelation and it is the only law born of revelation which is to say since none of it can be tested it was revealed there is no reason to test anything

The unity of the congregation is all that matters to a theologian. This leaves the adherents interested in truth entirely on their own.