Refuting Sola Scriptura - Why the Bible Alone is Not Sufficient

[BobRyan]

Notice that none of those Bible texts says "scriptures and by that I mean whatever might someday centuries from today finally be declared to be scriptures"

 

[Albion]

The idea that scriptures have no meaning until blessed by the Catholic church -- is never found in the actual Bible.

Put another way, it's a myth--a popular one in certain quarters, to be sure--that the Catholic Church made the Scriptures what they are.

In reality, what was done there was to recognize the Scriptures, not to give them any authority they didn't otherwise have.

 

[BobRyan]

And they had to have been "recognized" in Mark 7:6-13, Luke 24:27 and Acts 17:11 for them to be doing what they were already doing in those verses.

 

[Rick Otto]

By the way, I do find it regrettable that Christians would prioritize Rabinnical doctrine over Holy Tradition. However the fact that we are even discussing Josephus, St. Jerome, et al, shows that sola scriptura is an untenable position; if the Bible were monolithic like the Quran it might work, but since the Bible consists of individual books and lacks a table of contents, one is forced to resort to Tradition in order to be able to identify it as such.

You have made a categorical error in assigning authority.
The authority of Judaism is over Judaism. The authority over Christianity is not the authority over Judaism, or we would be Jews, not Christians.. The Jews chose their own authority of tradition over God's. RCs have simply followed suit.

 

[Wgw]

The Catholic church never "owned the OT" - they did not write it, it was not inspired by them and Christ read no RCC document to his disciples in Luke 24 when he was explaining 'all scripture' to them.

As we all agree.

It is Orthodox doctrine to regard the Church as being properly speaking the continuation of the ancient religion. I assume Roman Catholics have a similiar view. However I fail to see entirely what bearing this has on Josephus having no authority over Christians. Only thise Jews alive during and after the ministry of Christ who accept Him have views that are worth considering, which is why for example we venerate the Apostles but not Josephus. I mean really, one might just as well search out the opinions of Caiaphas.

What is more - Christ was not reading or speaking in Greek in Luke 24 - but rather Hebrew as this was the language of the Jews in Israel. The whole point of the LXX was for Jews outside of Israel who lost the ability to speak and read Hebrew.

details matter.

That statement is counter factual.

Hebrew text, Hebrew language spoken, yet translated by Luke into Greek for those readers outside of Israel

Luke 24 in no sense contradicts my point that the opinion of Jews who reject Christ is irrelevant from the perspective of Christian theology.

Additionally, it is accepted by scholars that our Lord would have spoken Hebrew only in limited contexts; his vernacular language was certainly Gallilean Aramaic. He most likely would have spoken Judean Aramaic with a Gallilean accent while in Jerusalem. He probably spoke Koine Greek, which was the language of Roman administration in the Eastern Empire (owing to the pre-existant Hellenized cultures in the region, including in Judea the signifigant population of Hellenic Jews), on various occasions; the dialogue with Pontius Pilate seems a prime candidate (it seems implausible to imagine a Roman governor condescending to speak Aramaic, and the use of Latin in the Eastern provinces in such a context is unlikely).

However it is certainly uncontroversial that Hebrew in the second century was a liturgical language existing alongside various Aramaic dialects, so to the extent our Lord and His apostles did not speak Koine Greek, Aramaic would have been spoken, except in certain liturgical contexts relating to Jewish observances. The relationship of Hebrew with Yiddish among the Ashkenazi Jews of Northern Europe, or the relationship of Hebrew with Ladino among the Sephardim, should convey a sense of the linguistic scenario.

Lastly, the Gospel of Luke shows no evidence of beig a translation. It is uncontroversial that the four Gospels in their present form were composed in Greek; it is possible that one or more Aramaic sources existed which were referred to by St. Luke (the "Q" hypothesis, for example), but I myself subscribe to the view that St. Luke was most likely working from oral tradition, which would explain the minor inconsistencies between the Synoptics (it is traditionally accepted in the Church that Luke based his Gospel on the teaching of St. Paul, St. Mark on the teachings of St. Peter, with Ss. John and Matthew having personal knowledge).

 

[Wgw]

You have made a categorical error in assigning authority.
The authority of Judaism is over Judaism. The authority over Christianity is not the authority over Judaism, or we would be Jews, not Christians.. The Jews chose their own authority of tradition over God's. RCs have simply followed suit.

I think you misread my post. In any event my position is on behalf of the Orthodox, not my RC friends.

 

[98cwitr]

MOD HAT ON

Thread has been cleaned. The Staff at Christian Forums would like to encourage and remind you that our site rules call you to address one another with respect. I am posting the rule for everyone's review

Flaming and Harassment
Please treat all members with respect and courtesy through civil dialogue. Refrain from insulting, inflammatory, or goading remarks. When you disagree, remember to address the content of the post and not the poster personally.
If you are flamed, do not respond in-kind. Alert staff to the situation by utilizing the report button.
Stating or implying that another member or group of members who have identified themselves as Christian are not Christian is not allowed.
Be considerate and do not make another member's experience on this site miserable. This includes making false accusations or persistently attacking them in the open forums.
Respect another member's request to cease personal contact.


If your post is missing, it is due to a violation of the above rule or because you quoted a post containing this violation.

Again, please be kind to one another, as Christ has called us to do.

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[Root of Jesse]

*please note I think I accidently deleted part of your quote. It was not intentional*
If you want to make that excuse then we can just say anyone who causes any division wasn't following sola scripture so case closed and you were just trying to create division by starting this thread. I'm guessing you don't want to say that. No double standards in your views will be accepted by me. Others may fall for it but I won't.

I didn't start the thread. But Christ Himself prayed to the Father that the Church be one in John 17. There is no double standard, Christ said "Whoever isn't with me is against me."

Way epileptics were treated. In any case that the practice went for so long without being condemned by church leaders and was actually actively encouraged and promoted by priests shows that it was part of their belief. You can make excuses all you like but it doesn't change facts.

That's not a matter of faith and morals, and doesn't fall under Sacred Tradition. Human beings do make mistakes.
Can you prove, though, your assertion as to how epileptics were treated and that the Church actually encouraged and promoted this behavior?

Do you feel it is necessary to resort to petty comments. My personal belief on this is that the church is not a building or organisation but group of believers which is made up of people from all different denominations. If you want to talk about it as a organisation founded by Jesus then there is just as much evidence to prove orthodox was the one founded by Jesus as there is for RCC. More importantly anyone who wants to focus on petty stuff like this is missing the point on christianity.

The Church is not a building or organization. But denominationalism is anti-Biblical.

What is also entertaining is that you claim the papcy is not a difference between orthodox & RCC. If this is so can you explain why Orthodox do not generally accept the bishop of Rome is the leader of the christian church?

I'll let them speak for themselves, but they do agree, generally, that Peter was the head apostle, from this fact, we get the Papacy.

Have a look at what I wrote again and you will see it was a joke comment not meant to be responded to.

Whatever.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Well in that case - Christ is the "Guide" I pick - not an RC Pope coming along centuries later.

And Christ said this - about "Sola Scriptura" testing of church tradition and doctrine.


Mark 7

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
8 For laying aside the Commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.
9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.
12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;
13 Making the Word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.



1. The Holy Spirit did not say that the apocrypha is scripturel
2. The Holy Spirit did not say that Josephus' statement about the canon was wrong.
3. I did not say that the Holy Spirit makes mistaks. Rather I said that Christ tells the truth.

so then ... sola scriptura testing it is.

The council that chose the Deuterocanon was inspired by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit didn't say Josephus was right, either.
The Holy Spirit and Christ are equally God. The Holy Spirit tells the Truth, as well.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Careful 'brother', its a dangerous thing to attribute that which Christ Jesus by/through the Holy Spirit hath done, to the devil, for even the Pharisees stated that Christ Jesus himself was devil possessed, even as they had of John the Baptist:

Matthew 11:18 KJB - For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, He hath a devil.

Luke 7:33 KJB - For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine; and ye say, He hath a devil.

John 8:48 KJB - Then answered the Jews, and said unto him, Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil?

John 10:20 KJB - And many of them said, He hath a devil, and is mad; why hear ye him?
​

Therefore:

John 8:49 KJB - Jesus answered, I have not a devil; but I honour my Father, and ye do dishonour me.​

John 8:26 KJB - I have many things to say and to judge of you: but he that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of him.​

Proof that your 'conversion' is from the Holy Spirit? You're one of those who says we can all be 'fooled' by the devil...

 

[BobRyan]

I didn't start the thread. But Christ Himself prayed to the Father that the Church be one in John 17. There is no double standard, Christ said "Whoever isn't with me is against me."

Paul states in 1Cor 11 that factions would come up.
Acts 20 -- again predicting that errors would come in.
1Tim 1 - Paul leaves Timothy in Ephesus to try and keep a lid on apostasy already creeping into the church of Ephesus.

Those Catholics that started the Protestant reformation were quite correct. Errors had come up.

 

[BobRyan]

The council that chose the Deuterocanon was inspired by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit didn't say Josephus was right, either.
The Holy Spirit and Christ are equally God. The Holy Spirit tells the Truth, as well.

And the Holy Spirit did not say that the Apocrypha was correct or that the extra-Biblical councils that sought to introduce that Jewish text were correct.

In fact the Apocryphal writers admit that during their day - there was no inspired text being written.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Paul states in 1Cor 11 that factions would come up.
Acts 20 -- again predicting that errors would come in.
1Tim 1 - Paul leaves Timothy in Ephesus to try and keep a lid on apostasy already creeping into the church of Ephesus.

Those Catholics that started the Protestant reformation were quite correct. Errors had come up.

Did Paul say the factions were good or bad? What's the context? Acts, same question. Jesus told the apostles that he would send the Paraclete to guide His Church into ALL TRUTH. So when factions and errors pop up, we are to turn away from them.
The errors in the Catholic Church were not errors of faith and morals. They were human errors, which the Church had been working on for some time, already. So once again, it's a few people saying "I think" rather than "Christ says"...

 

[Root of Jesse]

And the Holy Spirit did not say that the Apocrypha was correct or that the extra-Biblical councils that sought to introduce that Jewish text were correct.

Actually, the Holy Spirit did. He guides His Church into ALL TRUTH, remember? You think, after Pentecost, the Holy Spirit just went away?

In fact the Apocryphal writers admit that during their day - there was no inspired text being written.

No, they don't.

 

[BobRyan]

from http://www.bible.ca/catholic-apocrypha.htm

"The Jewish canon, or the Hebrew Bible, was universally received, while the Apocrypha added to the Greek version of the Septuagint were only in a general way accounted as books suitable for church reading, and thus as a middle class between canonical and strictly apocryphal (pseudonymous) writings. And justly; for those books, while they have great historical value, and fill the gap between the Old Testament and the New, all originated after the cessation of prophecy, and they cannot therefore be regarded as inspired, nor are they ever cited by Christ or the apostles" (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, book 3, chapter 9)

21 reasons why the Apocrypha is not inspired:

1. The Roman Catholic Church did not officially canonize the Apocrypha until the Council of Trent (1546 AD). This was in part because the Apocrypha contained material which supported certain Catholic doctrines, such as purgatory, praying for the dead, and the treasury of merit.
2. Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.
3. Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.
4. These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord.
5. They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian Church.
6. They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many different places.
7. The Apocrypha inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead who in rebellion against God die in idolatry
   And the day following Judas came with his company, to take away the bodies of them that were slain, and to bury them with their kinsmen, in the sepulchers of their fathers. And they found under the coats of the slain some of the donaries of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbiddeth to the Jews: so that all plainly saw, that for this cause they were slain. Then they all blessed the just judgment of the Lord, who had discovered the things that were hidden. And so betaking themselves to prayers, they besought him, that the sin which had been committed might be forgotten. But the most valiant Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves from sin, forasmuch as they saw before their eyes what had happened, because of the sins of those that were slain. And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachmas of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection, (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead,) And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them. It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins. (2 Maccabees 12:39-46)
8. The apocrypha contains offensive materials unbecoming of God's authorship.
   Ecclesiasticus 25:19 Any iniquity is insignificant compared to a wife's iniquity. Ecclesiasticus 25:24 From a woman sin had its beginning. Because of her we all die. Ecclesiasticus 22:3 It is a disgrace to be the father of an undisciplined, and the birth of a daughter is a loss.
9. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation.
10. The apocryphal books themselves make reference to what we call the Silent 400 years, where there was no prophets of God to write inspired materials.
    And they laid up the stones in the mountain of the temple in a convenient place, till there should come a prophet, and give answer concerning them. (1 Maccabees 4:46)And there was a great tribulation in Israel, such as was not since the day, that there was no prophet seen in Israel. (1 Maccabees 9:27)And that the Jews, and their priests, had consented that he should be their prince, and high priest for ever, till there should arise a faithful prophet. (1 Maccabees 14:41)
11. Josephus rejected the apocryphal books as inspired and this reflected Jewish thought at the time of Jesus
    "From Artexerxes to our own time the complete history has been written but has not been deemed worthy of equal credit with the earlier records because of the failure of the exact succession of the prophets." ... "We have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine..."(Flavius Josephus, Against Apion 1:8)
12. The Manual of Discipline in the Dead Sea Scrolls rejected the apocrypha as inspired.
13. The Council of Jamnia held the same view rejected the apocrypha as inspired.
    They debated the canonicity of a few books (e.g., Ecclesiastes), but they changed nothing and never proclaimed themselves to be authoritative determiners of the Old Testament canon. "The books which they decided to acknowledge as canonical were already generally accepted, although questions had been raised about them. Those which they refused to admit had never been included. They did not expel from the canon any book which had previously been admitted. 'The Council of Jamnia was the confirming of public opinion, not the forming of it.'" (F. F. Bruce, The Books and Parchments [Old Tappan, NJ.: Fleming H. Revell, 1963], p. 98])
14. Although it was occasionally quoted in early church writings, it was nowhere accepted in a canon. Melito (AD 170) and Origen rejected the Apocrypha, (Eccl. Hist. VI. 25, Eusebius) as does the Muratorian Canon.
15. Jerome vigorously resisted including the Apocrypha in his Latin Vulgate Version (400 AD), but was overruled. As a result, the standard Roman Catholic Bible throughout the medieval period contained it. Thus, it gradually came to be revered by the average clergyman. Still, many medieval Catholic scholars realized that it was not inspired.
16. The terms "protocanonical" and "deuterocanonical" are used by Catholics to signify respectively those books of Scripture that were received by the entire Church from the beginning as inspired, and those whose inspiration came to be recognized later, after the matter had been disputed by certain Fathers and local churches.
17. Pope Damasus (366-384) authorized Jerome to translate the Latin Vulgate. The Council of Carthage declared this translation as "the infallible and authentic Bible." Jerome was the first to describe the extra 7 Old Testament books as the "Apocrypha" (doubtful authenticity). Needless to say, Jerome's Latin Vulgate did not include the Apocrypha.
18. Cyril (born about A.D. 315) - "Read the divine Scriptures - namely, the 22 books of the Old Testament which the 72 interpreters translated" (the Septuagint)
19. The apocrypha wasn't included at first in the Septuagint, but was appended by the Alexandrian Jews, and was not listed in any of the catalogues of the inspired books till the 4th century
20. Hilary (bishop of Poictiers, 350 A.D.) rejected the apocrypha (Prologue to the Psalms, Sec. 15)
21. Epiphanius (the great opposer of heresy, 360 A.D.) rejected them all. Referring to Wisdom of Solomon & book of Jesus Sirach, he said "These indeed are useful books & profitable, but they are not placed in the number of the canonical."

 

[BobRyan]

In any case the Apocrypha discussion is a red herring - the topic is 'sola scriptura' and even the Catholics agree that the 39 books of the OT as we all have them today - are indeed scripture.

so back to the topic.

 

[Root of Jesse]

from http://www.bible.ca/catholic-apocrypha.htm

"The Jewish canon, or the Hebrew Bible, was universally received, while the Apocrypha added to the Greek version of the Septuagint were only in a general way accounted as books suitable for church reading, and thus as a middle class between canonical and strictly apocryphal (pseudonymous) writings. And justly; for those books, while they have great historical value, and fill the gap between the Old Testament and the New, all originated after the cessation of prophecy, and they cannot therefore be regarded as inspired, nor are they ever cited by Christ or the apostles" (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, book 3, chapter 9)

21 reasons why the Apocrypha is not inspired:

1. The Roman Catholic Church did not officially canonize the Apocrypha until the Council of Trent (1546 AD). This was in part because the Apocrypha contained material which supported certain Catholic doctrines, such as purgatory, praying for the dead, and the treasury of merit.

1. False. Councils of Rome, Carthage, Hippo.

   [*]Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.

   So what? Where does it ever say that Hebrew is the only language the OT could be written in?

   [*]Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.

   Neither do many of the NT writers.

   [*]These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord.

   Again, so what? Why must we go by what the Jewish Church says, when they don't acknowledge Christ as their Lord and Savior?

   [*]They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian Church.

   What do you take from this false 'fact'?

   [*]They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many different places.

   And there's two different, and in some ways conflicting, versions of Creation, too...

   [*]The Apocrypha inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead who in rebellion against God die in idolatry

   The fact that they're included in our Bible makes the doctrines not at variance...the NT also documents intercessory prayer.

   And the day following Judas came with his company, to take away the bodies of them that were slain, and to bury them with their kinsmen, in the sepulchers of their fathers. And they found under the coats of the slain some of the donaries of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbiddeth to the Jews: so that all plainly saw, that for this cause they were slain. Then they all blessed the just judgment of the Lord, who had discovered the things that were hidden. And so betaking themselves to prayers, they besought him, that the sin which had been committed might be forgotten. But the most valiant Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves from sin, forasmuch as they saw before their eyes what had happened, because of the sins of those that were slain. And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachmas of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection, (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead,) And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them. It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins. (2 Maccabees 12:39-46)
   [*]The apocrypha contains offensive materials unbecoming of God's authorship.
   Ecclesiasticus 25:19 Any iniquity is insignificant compared to a wife's iniquity. Ecclesiasticus 25:24 From a woman sin had its beginning. Because of her we all die. Ecclesiasticus 22:3 It is a disgrace to be the father of an undisciplined, and the birth of a daughter is a loss.

   Your opinion is noted...

   [*]It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation.
   [*]The apocryphal books themselves make reference to what we call the Silent 400 years, where there was no prophets of God to write inspired materials.
   And they laid up the stones in the mountain of the temple in a convenient place, till there should come a prophet, and give answer concerning them. (1 Maccabees 4:46)And there was a great tribulation in Israel, such as was not since the day, that there was no prophet seen in Israel. (1 Maccabees 9:27)And that the Jews, and their priests, had consented that he should be their prince, and high priest for ever, till there should arise a faithful prophet. (1 Maccabees 14:41)
   [*]Josephus rejected the apocryphal books as inspired and this reflected Jewish thought at the time of Jesus
   "From Artexerxes to our own time the complete history has been written but has not been deemed worthy of equal credit with the earlier records because of the failure of the exact succession of the prophets." ... "We have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine..."(Flavius Josephus, Against Apion 1:8)
   [*]The Manual of Discipline in the Dead Sea Scrolls rejected the apocrypha as inspired.
   [*]The Council of Jamnia held the same view rejected the apocrypha as inspired.
   They debated the canonicity of a few books (e.g., Ecclesiastes), but they changed nothing and never proclaimed themselves to be authoritative determiners of the Old Testament canon. "The books which they decided to acknowledge as canonical were already generally accepted, although questions had been raised about them. Those which they refused to admit had never been included. They did not expel from the canon any book which had previously been admitted. 'The Council of Jamnia was the confirming of public opinion, not the forming of it.'" (F. F. Bruce, The Books and Parchments [Old Tappan, NJ.: Fleming H. Revell, 1963], p. 98])
   [*]Although it was occasionally quoted in early church writings, it was nowhere accepted in a canon. Melito (AD 170) and Origen rejected the Apocrypha, (Eccl. Hist. VI. 25, Eusebius) as does the Muratorian Canon.
   [*]Jerome vigorously resisted including the Apocrypha in his Latin Vulgate Version (400 AD), but was overruled. As a result, the standard Roman Catholic Bible throughout the medieval period contained it. Thus, it gradually came to be revered by the average clergyman. Still, many medieval Catholic scholars realized that it was not inspired.
   [*]The terms "protocanonical" and "deuterocanonical" are used by Catholics to signify respectively those books of Scripture that were received by the entire Church from the beginning as inspired, and those whose inspiration came to be recognized later, after the matter had been disputed by certain Fathers and local churches.
   [*]Pope Damasus (366-384) authorized Jerome to translate the Latin Vulgate. The Council of Carthage declared this translation as "the infallible and authentic Bible." Jerome was the first to describe the extra 7 Old Testament books as the "Apocrypha" (doubtful authenticity). Needless to say, Jerome's Latin Vulgate did not include the Apocrypha.
   [*]Cyril (born about A.D. 315) - "Read the divine Scriptures - namely, the 22 books of the Old Testament which the 72 interpreters translated" (the Septuagint)
   [*]The apocrypha wasn't included at first in the Septuagint, but was appended by the Alexandrian Jews, and was not listed in any of the catalogues of the inspired books till the 4th century
   [*]Hilary (bishop of Poictiers, 350 A.D.) rejected the apocrypha (Prologue to the Psalms, Sec. 15)
   [*]Epiphanius (the great opposer of heresy, 360 A.D.) rejected them all. Referring to Wisdom of Solomon & book of Jesus Sirach, he said "These indeed are useful books & profitable, but they are not placed in the number of the canonical."

I can refute these point by point as either false, or irrelevant. But I don't have time.

 

[thecolorsblend]

So what? Where does it ever say that Hebrew is the only language the OT could be written in?

Yeah really, I'm going to need to see chapter and verse from Mr. Sola Scriptura on that.

 

[Wgw]

from http://www.bible.ca/catholic-apocrypha.htm

"The Jewish canon, or the Hebrew Bible, was universally received, while the Apocrypha added to the Greek version of the Septuagint were only in a general way accounted as books suitable for church reading, and thus as a middle class between canonical and strictly apocryphal (pseudonymous) writings. And justly; for those books, while they have great historical value, and fill the gap between the Old Testament and the New, all originated after the cessation of prophecy, and they cannot therefore be regarded as inspired, nor are they ever cited by Christ or the apostles" (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, book 3, chapter 9)

21 reasons why the Apocrypha is not inspired:

1. The Roman Catholic Church did not officially canonize the Apocrypha until the Council of Trent (1546 AD). This was in part because the Apocrypha contained material which supported certain Catholic doctrines, such as purgatory, praying for the dead, and the treasury of merit.
2. Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.
3. Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.
4. These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord.
5. They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian Church.
6. They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many different places.
7. The Apocrypha inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead who in rebellion against God die in idolatry
   And the day following Judas came with his company, to take away the bodies of them that were slain, and to bury them with their kinsmen, in the sepulchers of their fathers. And they found under the coats of the slain some of the donaries of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbiddeth to the Jews: so that all plainly saw, that for this cause they were slain. Then they all blessed the just judgment of the Lord, who had discovered the things that were hidden. And so betaking themselves to prayers, they besought him, that the sin which had been committed might be forgotten. But the most valiant Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves from sin, forasmuch as they saw before their eyes what had happened, because of the sins of those that were slain. And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachmas of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection, (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead,) And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them. It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins. (2 Maccabees 12:39-46)
8. The apocrypha contains offensive materials unbecoming of God's authorship.
   Ecclesiasticus 25:19 Any iniquity is insignificant compared to a wife's iniquity. Ecclesiasticus 25:24 From a woman sin had its beginning. Because of her we all die. Ecclesiasticus 22:3 It is a disgrace to be the father of an undisciplined, and the birth of a daughter is a loss.
9. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation.
10. The apocryphal books themselves make reference to what we call the Silent 400 years, where there was no prophets of God to write inspired materials.
    And they laid up the stones in the mountain of the temple in a convenient place, till there should come a prophet, and give answer concerning them. (1 Maccabees 4:46)And there was a great tribulation in Israel, such as was not since the day, that there was no prophet seen in Israel. (1 Maccabees 9:27)And that the Jews, and their priests, had consented that he should be their prince, and high priest for ever, till there should arise a faithful prophet. (1 Maccabees 14:41)
11. Josephus rejected the apocryphal books as inspired and this reflected Jewish thought at the time of Jesus
    "From Artexerxes to our own time the complete history has been written but has not been deemed worthy of equal credit with the earlier records because of the failure of the exact succession of the prophets." ... "We have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine..."(Flavius Josephus, Against Apion 1:8)
12. The Manual of Discipline in the Dead Sea Scrolls rejected the apocrypha as inspired.
13. The Council of Jamnia held the same view rejected the apocrypha as inspired.
    They debated the canonicity of a few books (e.g., Ecclesiastes), but they changed nothing and never proclaimed themselves to be authoritative determiners of the Old Testament canon. "The books which they decided to acknowledge as canonical were already generally accepted, although questions had been raised about them. Those which they refused to admit had never been included. They did not expel from the canon any book which had previously been admitted. 'The Council of Jamnia was the confirming of public opinion, not the forming of it.'" (F. F. Bruce, The Books and Parchments [Old Tappan, NJ.: Fleming H. Revell, 1963], p. 98])
14. Although it was occasionally quoted in early church writings, it was nowhere accepted in a canon. Melito (AD 170) and Origen rejected the Apocrypha, (Eccl. Hist. VI. 25, Eusebius) as does the Muratorian Canon.
15. Jerome vigorously resisted including the Apocrypha in his Latin Vulgate Version (400 AD), but was overruled. As a result, the standard Roman Catholic Bible throughout the medieval period contained it. Thus, it gradually came to be revered by the average clergyman. Still, many medieval Catholic scholars realized that it was not inspired.
16. The terms "protocanonical" and "deuterocanonical" are used by Catholics to signify respectively those books of Scripture that were received by the entire Church from the beginning as inspired, and those whose inspiration came to be recognized later, after the matter had been disputed by certain Fathers and local churches.
17. Pope Damasus (366-384) authorized Jerome to translate the Latin Vulgate. The Council of Carthage declared this translation as "the infallible and authentic Bible." Jerome was the first to describe the extra 7 Old Testament books as the "Apocrypha" (doubtful authenticity). Needless to say, Jerome's Latin Vulgate did not include the Apocrypha.
18. Cyril (born about A.D. 315) - "Read the divine Scriptures - namely, the 22 books of the Old Testament which the 72 interpreters translated" (the Septuagint)
19. The apocrypha wasn't included at first in the Septuagint, but was appended by the Alexandrian Jews, and was not listed in any of the catalogues of the inspired books till the 4th century
20. Hilary (bishop of Poictiers, 350 A.D.) rejected the apocrypha (Prologue to the Psalms, Sec. 15)
21. Epiphanius (the great opposer of heresy, 360 A.D.) rejected them all. Referring to Wisdom of Solomon & book of Jesus Sirach, he said "These indeed are useful books & profitable, but they are not placed in the number of the canonical."

I am just going to categorically reject all 21 points on the basis of your own position of Sola Scriptura.

You have essentially rebutted your own position by resorting to a (selective) reading of Patristics to express your disdain for the so-called Deuterocanon, which simply proves my point that Sola Scriptura does not work, because the metadata provided by Tradition is required to differentiate between authentic Scripture and apocrypha.

The Manual of Discipline from the Dead Sea Scrolls, referenced in point 12, which was probably of Essene origin, is itself entirely apocryphal. The Essenes are treated as a pre-Christian heresy by St. Epiphanius in the Panarion, volume 1.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I am just going to categorically reject all 21 points on the basis of your own position of Sola Scriptura.

You have essentially rebutted your own position by resorting to a (selective) reading of Patristics to express your disdain for the so-called Deuterocanon, which simply proves my point that Sola Scriptura does not work, because the metadata provided by Tradition is required to differentiate between authentic Scripture and apocrypha.

The Manual of Discipline from the Dead Sea Scrolls, referenced in point 12, which was probably of Essene origin, is itself entirely apocryphal. The Essenes are treated as a pre-Christian heresy by St. Epiphanius in the Panarion, volume 1.

Point 13, too, what "Council of Jamnia"?