J-M's History Corner

I've mentioned in a couple posts now how Protestant apologists often claim that most of the early Church Fathers explicitly rejected the Apocrypha (also known as the Deuterocanon) - usually naming names such as Origen - when in fact most of them (such as the ones Protestants name) explicitly accepted them as Scripture.  But I haven't actually provided examples (excluding the link in The Canon of Scripture, Part 1: The Apocrypha ). (Note: since I'm not going to list the books of the Apocrypha/Deuterocanon here for those who don't know what they are, I'd suggest taking a quick look at the list at the top of the above link.) FIRST OFF , here are some direct quotes from anti-Apocrypha apologists making this claim, so you can see I'm not taking them out of context: Contrary to the popular proclamations made by Roman Catholic apologists, the most primitive Christians were far from unanimous regarding whether the Apocrypha should be included in the canon of Scriptu...

Here is a collection of a few different, persistent, and very frustrating myths, misconceptions, or even outright lies that circulate in connection with Christianity.  I thought I'd gather a few into one place and set the record straight. "Constantine/the Council of Nicea invented Jesus/Jesus' divinity/the doctrine of Hell in 325 AD" Whoever came up with this one either didn't bother to do any research, or was simply dishonest.  Or perhaps was simply an author of fiction whom some idiots mistook for an author of fact. (The above graphic - used to illustrate the claim - is taken from the novel The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown.  I can't speak for the book - which I haven't read - but in the movie, the character of Teabing is shown to be at least partly wrong, and his opinions are simply his opinions.  It's a good movie, by the way.) The following graphic does a good job refuting part of the claim: Additionally, we have New Testament manuscripts f...