The Apocrypha

I will admit, I haven't read the Apocrypha myself. I have a couple Bibles with it in them, and keep telling myself to read...but I haven't done so yet.

Maybe I'll take the time to get that done now.

I have read them..but I don't believe them to be inspiried by God.
To me its like a history lesson.
GEL

TruthSeeker,

Perhaps you may also want to find out why these books were thrown out by the council. There must be good reasons for the action to be taken.

I'm with Gel too. Also, note that the Bible says that Jesus only started performing miracles after he was baptised. so the part about making sparrows from mud is questionable to me.

Finis Jennings Dake says
that the apocryphal books were not accepted in the present canon of scripture for these reasons.

1.they did not pass the tests required of inspired books.
2.they were not written or approved by a prophet.
3.they were not recognised by the jews as inspired and as a part of scripture.
4.they were not recognised or even quoted by Christ and the apostles, a fact more striking as Paul quotes twice from heathen poets.
5.the last old testament prophet predicted the next message to come to isreal from god would be the forunner of christ (john the baptist) (Mal 3.1)
most of these books were written during this period between malachi and christ.
6.divine authority is not claimed by their authors, and by some it is virtually disowned (2 macc. 2.23 15.38)
7.they contain statements at variance with the bible history.
8.they are self contradictory and opposed to doctrines of scripture.
9.josephus did not regard them as scripture. he lived at the time of the apostles and stated that the present books of the old testament which are in our version are the only inspired books (see Josephus, book 1. section 8)
10.they were not part of the ancient versions of scripture.
11.they were first added after 300 a.d. the Laodicean Council in 363 a.d. rejected them as not being inspired, thus proving at that time some were claimed inspiration for them. they first appeared in the vatican version of the fourth century. at the council of trent in 1546 a.d., the Catholics accepted six of these books as inspired and added them to their modern versions of scripture. they are the Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, Judith, and 1st and 2cd Maccabees.
12.Philo and others did not regard them as inspired.
13.the lack of prophetic element in them, and apparent imitation of other books of the old testament that are inspired.
14.too free use of imagination, giving rise to silly stories, and lack of spiritual force and power.

i dont consider N.T. apocryphal books inspired for reasons like,
jesus was claimed to have made sparrows out of mud
and many other miraclous things, when the bible says his first miracle was turning water into wine.
john 2.10 it was his "BEGGINNING OF MIRACLES".

when the apocryphal books claim that jesus as a boy,
1.carried water in a cloak,
2.stretched lumber to the desired length,
3.made 1 grain of wheat grow 800 bushels,
3.made birds and animals of clay and gave life to them,
4.got angry at a boy who ran into him in the street and caused him to die,
5.saw the parents complaining and made them blind,
6.lepers being cleansed in water he bathed in,
7.widened or contracted gates, boxes, milkpails and other things joseph made with wrong dimensions,
8.changed people into animals and back again,
9.withered peoples hands,
10.caused blindness,
and other such things are out of harmony with the acts of God and contradict scripture (john 10.10, acts 10.38) jesus did no miracle untill he was annointed with the spirit (john 2.11). these stories of the boy jesus are matched by those told of his sufferings, such as the cross walking and talking and of jesus coming out of the tomb so tall his head was in the clouds.

evidence like this is why they were rejected, and why i think they are not worthy of truth.

i am not trying to start an aregument, simply discussing why they werent accepted into the present canon of scripture, and why i do not accept them.

You better define exactly what you mean by "Apocrypha"...in the traditional meaning, it is a set of Old Testament books which are accepted by the Catholic Church as canon, but were removed by Martin Luther. The supposed "hidden Gospels" are something ENTIRELY different.

Read the Old Testament books. I enjoy them, particularly Sirach and Wisdom. Beautiful, beautiful writings, very faith promoting. The book of Tobit has a wonderful love story in it, and the books which are an addition to Daniel has the story of Susanna.

Be very WARY of any of the so-called "Hidden Gospels." The Deuterocanonicals of the Old Testament were rejected by the Jews for political reasons, but they were later found to be written in Hebrew, just like the other accepted Old Testament canon.

The "Hidden Gospels" were typically products of the different heretical teachings which were rejected by the Christian church, and for good reason.

All in all, though, an interesting read!


Peace be with you,
~VOW

truthseeker,

I guess if u really want to read it, no one can stop you. If its just out of interest and for 'reading' sake then i guess its okay. But if you want to 'equate' it to the Bible and say these books are God-breathed, and 'bet your life' on them, then I'll say that's wrong.

Of course, if you're Catholic, then I guess you'll have to 'accept' those books n follow what "the Church" tells you.

i dont read them myself for the reasons Psalms 22.3 stated and also becos I'd rather finish reading the Canon books first! ie there's already so much to read and study!

truthseeker,
i think the reasons i gave for not beleiving are extremely sound. and what finis said wasnt his opinion, simply why they werent included, and they are true. its not about beleiving finis. he didnt give anything that could be speculated on. (i mean the first part of the post, i understand the second part could be speculated on)

the fact that their claims are against the claims of my bible (which no one debates is the inspired word of god if their christian) is an undebatable truth.
and i cant see anyway to get around that. the apocrypha comes agaisnt the word that we all know to be the words of god. they simply do not agree.
i cant imagine why anyone would or could somehow look past that and think they could be inspired, unless god himself doesnt know whats true, or is a lyer. but we know hes not a lyer, and god does have knowlegde of the truth, so, the apocrypha simply cannot be of god, because it would throw the words that already have and already know to be the truth, into jepordy.

you may be seeking the truth but that can be dangerous, when someone is extremely hungry, it becomes easy to eat anything that looks tempting.
(i said that as a brother, not as someone who thinks you need my help, im not anybody)

i do not know of a flavius, or the other books you named, please enlighten me! just dont get angry if i dont accept them.
see ya bro or sis, which ever ya are.

The Catholic Bible does not have all of the apocrypha in it, nor does it contain any of the NT noncanonical books. The Catholic and Protestant New Testaments are the same.

-Chris

thanks for understanding me truth seeker and not being to proud to atleast listen to my advice without biting back.

all the apocrypha was thrown out originally.
then the catholics accepted a number of them.
i beleive even those books to not be inspired becuase of the reasons that finis dake stated.
but if even the catholics didnt accept the new testiment ones, why didnt they?

you could call it heavy reading, but i myself see it as contradictory reading, the book of revelations can get preaty heavy, angels and demons and the lake of fire, demons with horses bodies, mens heads, womens hair, lions teeth, etc. i dont think heavy could be the reason they arent accepted.
well see?

do you have sufficeint evidence to prove those new testament apocryphal books where actually written by who they say they are?

pagans fought long and hard with the early christians and one thing they did was wright contradictory books and claim that they were written by true apostles and were inspired. in order to get false teaching into the church and to lead away from the truth. away from the unshakable foundation of the truely inspired books. this would have caused a great split in the early church.

"as an example,two important early church writers, Tertullian and Jerome, tell us that a presbyter from asia (turkey) published a counterfit epistle that he claimed the apostle Paul had written. Church leaders instantly instigated an ecclesiastical trial to examine this claim. they subsquently convicted this counterfiter and repudiated this spuriuos forgery."
"THE SIGNATURE OF GOD" by Grant R. Jeffrey.

certain books were thrown out not only becuase of unbeleivable tales and silly stories, but becuase there were witnesses of the life of Jesus Christ still alive, that knew certain things to not be the truth.

"All scholars acknowlegde that the New Testament was widely copied and translated into many other languages during the first few decades following the ressurection of Christ."
"THE SIGNATURE OF GOD" by Grant R. Jeffrey.

"it is acknowledged even by many liberal scholars that the gosples and epistles were written and widely curculated throughout the christian community of the Roman Empire within 40 or 50 years of the events they describe. this fact is of overwhelming importance in verifying the absolute historical accuracy of these documents. Thousands of people who witnessed Jesus christ's life, teachings, death, and ressurection were still alive when the disciples composed and distributed the gospels and Pauls epistles to the various churches. these carefully copied manuscripts were read in hundreds of christian assemblies every sunday, by millions of gentile and jewish beleivers.
.... if the the New Testament actually contained factual errors regarding the events of Christ's life, teaching, or the miracles he performed there would have been an enormous split within the early church as witnesses to these historical events would have debated and contested any innacurate historical records"
"THE SIGNATURE OF GOD" by Grant R. Jeffrey.

this is another sound reason that certain books were not included in the early church doctrines.
the apocrypha claims that the cross walked and talked to jesus, witnesses would have contested such claims. as they probably did. the apocrypha claims jesus as a boy made animals from mud, turned people into animals, caused people to die, made his parents blind, and came out of the tomb so tall his head was in the clouds. these claims would have been contested by actuall witnesses to his life. this is one reason the apocryphal books were not included in the original canon of scripture.

Originally posted by psalms 22.3
do you have sufficeint evidence to prove those new testament apocryphal books where actually written by who they say they are?

Click to expand...

That doesn't matter at all, most of the canon NT books were not actually written by the traditional authors assigned to them.

And usually "The Apocrypha" refers to the Old Testament deuterocanonicals. I don't think I've ever seen that term applied to the non-canonical NT writings.

-Chris