Jig said:I've always been interested in The Apocrypha because I could never find ONE SINGLE shred of evidence that they should be in the Bible. (I was once Catholic...and read a NAB). I converted to be non-denomintional for the simple fact that Catholics believe that ALL their doctrines are infallible. This means if I could prove just ONE of those doctrines to be false, then the whole Catholic faith is in error with what it believes, because to be Catholic you must believe in ALL the doctrines of the church.
But anyway, Reasons a don't trust The Apocrypha:
I believe they have doctrinal contradiction and tell of ways to atone for sin other then from Jesus only. Such as by works to gain salvation.
Example quotes from some of these false leading books:
Tobit 12:8 says, "It is better to give alms than to store up gold; for almsgiving saves one from death and expiates every sin"
Sirach 3:29 says, "Alms atone for sins."
Sirach 3:3, 30
3 "Those who honor their father atone for sins,"
30 "As water extinguishes a blazing fire, so almsgiving atones for sin."
"Atone" is the same as "expiate" which means to purify or make amends for.
"Alms" is the charitable donation of money.
Hmmm...faith in Jesus is the ONLY way to atone for sins! PERIOD! It says so in the NT. And please don't bring up 1 Peter 4:8...it says love covers sin...not atone for it. This is what sacrafice did in the OT...cover sins...not atone.
It's Jesus Blood that expiates sin from are souls! Not good works or honoring our parents!
It's funny how Jesus loved quoting OT writing, but never once mentions one of these added books. Were these books not good enough for him to quote? The only reason Catholics keep these books is because without them they cant prove all their doctrines...like purgatory. Which is talked about in II Maccabees 12:44-45 in regards to praying for the dead! When you die you don't get a second chance...your either going to Heaven or Hell....even if the whole world prays that you should go somewhere else.
Plus, the canon of the Palestinian Jews did not include the seven books affirmed by Rome and rejected by Protestantism. So we should reject them unless a good reason is given to affirm them!
hoser said:The Deutorocannon should be accepted because it was always accepted until Martin Luther removed those books from the Bible.
knee-v said:"Deuterocanon" means "second canon". Just like the 5th book of the OT, Deuteronomy, or "second law". They are called "deuterocanonicals" because they weren't always universally recognized by all groups. They were disputed more than most of the other books. But the church as a whole accepted them as scripture, since the Jews who included them into their canon accepted them as scripture LONG before Christ came.
On another note, there are books in the NT that can rightfully be called "deuterocanonicals", since they were not universally recognized by all groups of Christians. Revelation, James, Jude, Hebrews, maybe a few others were in dispute until the council that recognized them as scripture (I forget which council that was). It was a Church council which the Holy Spirit led in determining which books were of apostolic origin and which were frauds. And it was the same for the OT books. If you accept the 27 books of the NT, then you MUST accept the OT canon that the church uses. If you reject the church's OT canon, then there is NO basis for accepting the 27 books of the NT. Both have the same basis for being canonical.
Well without debating specifics, the books were always there and then they were removed by some protestant. This is fact.Canadian75 said:
Check your facts Hoser, Luther never removed the Deuterocanon from his German translation. He followed the original opinion of St. Jerome and moved them to an appendix at the end of the OT. He did not consider them inspired, but did not remove them from the bible. He may have wanted to remove the books, but he ulitmately did not. The removal of the deuterocanon from protestant bibles occured long after his death.
Peace.
Thats the truth, and what he did was open the door for their entire removal later.Axion said:The FULL, 73 Book bible was defined at the Councils of Hippo and Carthage in 397 AD. It was the only bible in existence until Luther in the 1520s decided to try to remove seven books from his bible translation. Even he didn't dare take them out completely. The seven books only completely disappeared from most protestant Bibles in the 1800s.
PaladinValer said:You must accept all dogmas and doctrines, but not all disciplines and devotions.
PaladinValer said:Well, that was the belief by the authors of the Deuterocanon, since, after all, they were written by Jews during OT times. And Jews believe in a works-based salvation, which is clearly stated in all the other OT books which are universally-recognized as being canonical. Should we now throw away all the OT?
PaladinValer said:What does St. John 3:16 say? About the "world?" I hate to tell you this, but everyone already is saved, but not everyone is saved onto heaven. All, even unrepentent sinners, have eternal life and will enjoy eternity alive.
It is through Grace that we are saved unto heaven. That's the Vatican Catholic position. They correctly believe that, however, works is a way Grace can be received.
PaladinValer said:Sorry, but according to Vatican Catholic official belief, there is no "second chance" in Purgatory. Why? Because only those who will go to heaven go there, not everyone. Therefore, there isn't a second chance but, rather as the name implies, the final purification of the soul and completion of theosis. And prayers for those souls from those on Earth and those in heaven can speed this process, according to their belief, not zap them immediately right to heaven or wherever they please. Purgatory is a one-way only highway to heaven, not a portal to other realms.
As I feared, your claim of having knowledge isn't coming to fruit.
PaladinValer said:So we should simply ignore the Canon of the Alexandrian Jews? Which was accepted by Jews all over the world?
I've already poked major holes not into your argument, but showed evidence that your claims of knowledge are not what they seem. I think you owe the Vatican Catholics here and everywhere an apology at least in terms of lying that you knew as much as you did.
Catholic Dude said:First of all Jig, what does the Bible say?
In 2Tim3:15 it says "ALL SCRIPTURE is inspired". Therefore books like Sirach are inspired. Do you believe what the Bible says or not?
Really? Can you find contradictions in Genesis? How about the Gospels? How did Judas die? Did he hang himself or trip over his own feet in a field?Jig said:Thats great...now if Paul would of just defined "all scripture" we wouldn't be having this little discussion.
Remember, since I can find contradictions in Sirach, I don't consider it scripture.
Jig said:Sorry if I wasn't 100% caught up on my understanding of the catechism...it has been many years now...but my point still stands...Purgatory has no biblical backgroud worth standing on. Period.
Baruch asks the Lord to hear the prayers of the dead of Israel. Prayers for the dead are unnecessary in heaven and unnecessary in hell. These dead are in purgatory.Baruch 3:4 said:O Lord Almighty, the God of Israel, hear now the prayer of the dead of Israel, and of their children, that have sinned before thee, and have not hearkened to the voice of the Lord their God, wherefore evils have cleaved fast to us.
DrTheophorus said:The Deuterocanonicals are in a lot of Bibles besides the Catholic versions. (...) The majority of Christians use the complete Bible and not the shortened version of the Reformers.
Is this not what I said?
If you dont accept ALL the Catholic doctrines...you cant be Catholic.
Well, lets look at what the Pharisees did and taught. They too, like the Catholics today, thought they were "100%" correct with their doctrine and followed a bumpy trail of tradition and works.
They made up a huge portion of Jews in Jesus's day. Did this make them right? Everyone (large percentage) at the time before Jesus, thought the Pharisees were correct, but when Jesus came he set them straight! He taught them salvation apart from works and they killed Him for it...holding fast to tradition and their works.
OT Pharisees = modern day Catholics
Well, are souls are indeed eternal....and we will live eternally (w/belief in God or not)....but the part that goes to Hell will have no picnic...they will NOT enjoy it!
Faith leads to works....Works will not lead to faith...or grace imo.
Did the thief on the cross have works? He gain salvation through faith alone, even without baptism!
Sorry if I wasn't 100% caught up on my understanding of the catechism...it has been many years now...but my point still stands...Purgatory has no biblical backgroud worth standing on. Period.
Could the Pharisees of used this canon?
I will issue no apology. I didn't out right lie...I might have had some hiccups in my Catholic background, but my argument still holds firm.
PaladinValer said:No, you were ambiguous.
But you didn't give a definition of "doctrines." You didn't give examples. Plus, I caught two errors in your knowledge. You are going to have to give a list of what you think are Vatican Catholic dogmas and doctrines so the rest of us can be sure you really know what they believe.
Two strikes on the same pitch? lolPaladinValer said:Um, no.
Vatican Catholicism teaches that you need to practice what you preach.
The Pharisees didn't.
Strike 1.
Um, no again
The problem with the Pharisees is that they didn't practice what they preached. Vatican Catholics do.
Strike 2.
And I've shown otherwise.
And you're also moving beyond the scope of the thread.
PaladinValer said:That doesn't change the fact that they too are saved into eternal life.
PaladinValer said:1. More out of scope.
2. The Early Church taught Grace through many means, including through faith, works, and the Sacraments.
3. The thief didn't need Baptism. No Church yet. If you are going to hold that against the Vatican Catholics, it is a void and worthless statement.
Nope. Why don't you get reeducated?
If that was the case...could these books of help with their tainted view point? I think so.PaladinValer said:Probably some did.
Its NAB, the New American Bible. The NAS is not a Catholic bible. And the KJV (original) contained the Deutero-canon. By Apocrypha, I assume you mean books that were NEVER considered inspired by the Church, such as the Gospel of Thomas, the Assumption of Moses, the Book of Enoch, the Apocalypse of Baruch, the Acts of St. Peter..... there are hundreds, much too numerous to list here, including scores of Gnostic writings which claim authenticity.Jig said:Of course its not in the KJV...its in the Catholic aproved bible your NAS...if your saying its not in there...here you go a catholic link:
http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/sirach/sirach3.htm read 3:29....and 3:3
Scott_LaFrance said:The NAS is not a Catholic bible.
I actually don't like the NAB very much. I'd much rather use the Ignatius Bible (Revised Standard Version - Catholic Edition).Jig said:Type in "New American Bible" into Google....almost all the links other then those few linked with the NASB translation are Catholic in nature.
I know alot of Catholic's don't use the NAB...but it is approved by the Vatican to be complete...unlike all the other major translations...NIV....NLT....NASB....NKJV...etc.
Thus...making the majority of the people reading it Catholic.
Jig said:Type in "New American Bible" into Google....almost all the links other then those few linked with the NASB translation are Catholic in nature.
I know alot of Catholic's don't use the NAB...but it is approved by the Vatican to be complete...unlike all the other major translations...NIV....NLT....NASB....NKJV...etc.
Thus...making the majority of the people reading it Catholic.
Jig said:Type in "New American Bible" into Google....almost all the links other then those few linked with the NASB translation are Catholic in nature.
I know alot of Catholic's don't use the NAB...but it is approved by the Vatican to be complete...unlike all the other major translations...NIV....NLT....NASB....NKJV...etc.
Thus...making the majority of the people reading it Catholic.