[FONT="]
The fact that there was not an organized NT canon does not mean that Christians didn't know the difference between what was the inspired word of God and what wasn't. The 27 books of the NT were widely accepted because of the fact that they were succinct, and harmonious with the Gospels and OT teachings. Many Gnostic writings were being spread at that time but were being rejected by anyone with an ounce of sense. People didn't need a council to help them decide because most of the early church used them and recognized them as authoritative. The councils only made it "official" and frankly, it was pretty much common sense to do so.
If you can't see God written all over Esther without the mention of His name you aren't paying attention to the text. Also, it is widely accepted by Jewish tradition that Mordecai was the author of Esther. This is perfectly plausible because he would have been an eyewitness or had access to the eyewitnesses of all of the events written in Esther. As the Prime Minister, , this book may well be his account from official Persian archives (Esther 9:32 & 10:12)
[quote=Ramon96;51328749]Yes, according to Judaism. Judaism is not Christianity. Second, the Book of Baruch was written in 596 BC and the Epistle of Jeremiah was written in 597 BC.[/quote]
You seem educated enough to know that the spirit of prophecy never has existed with a gentile.
Did you forget that Josephus was a Jew, or are you willfully misleading? Giant multitudes of Jews rejected Christ (in fact, a few of them had him killed) and the same ones rejected the NT. As a Jew, he would have used OT canon, which like pretty much every other 1st century Jew, recognized only 39 as the Authoritative, Infallible word of God, which is why I and other protestants accept them. You accept the apocrypha as scripture to use as a "sales tool" much like a used car salesman. "Buy this indulgence and you can avoid a place (purgatory) that doesn't exist." I accept the Word of God. BTW, I didn't say that the apocrypha is useless, I think that some useful teaching can arguably be found within those books. They aren't inspired, that's all.
It is a combination of reasoning (of which you possess little) not just one or the other. I would encourage you to reread my post.
Many of the supposed references are so vague that they could either be a reference to other works or else the similarity may simply be coincidental. They may not even be references to anything at all. That's why the Catholic apologist often says that one is "similar to" the other. I'm sure he'll find many "similar to's" if he compares the Bible to the Sunday newspaper! [/FONT]
[FONT="]For example, we are told that Matthew 13:43, "Then the just will shine forth..." is found in Wisdom 3:7. This is "found in", so we should think that the link is very clear. Well, let's see what Wisdom 3:7 actually says: "And in the time of their visitation they shall shine, and run to and fro like sparks among the stubble." What do you think? Both speak of 'shining', but can you really say that Jesus is quoting Wisdom? Hardly! By the same token Jesus may be referring to the Book of Daniel, which says: "And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament" (Daniel 12:3). Or perhaps Jesus is referring to neither one of them. After all Jesus actually said, "Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father" (Matthew 13:43). Wisdom is speaking about "sparks"; Jesus is speaking about a brightness like that of the sun! We are not impressed by the long list of this kind of references! There are some examples that are certainly not referring to the apocrypha at all. Luke 2:37 is supposedly found in Judith 8:4-6. "...as a widow...She never left the temple, but worshipped night and day with fasting and prayer." Give us a break! Luke is speaking about a the prophetess Anna, who lived many years after Judith; the former "never left the temple" whereas the latter "was a widow in her house." There are few examples that may be references to the apocrypha, the most clear one being Hebrews 11:35b (compared with 2 Maccabees 7:1-29). The incident recorded in Second Maccabees could have been in the mind of the author of Hebrews, but then, similar incidents are recorded in the writings of the Jewish historian, Josephus. It is difficult to be certain what he had in mind. However, even if this is a reference to the apocrypha, by no means is the author of Hebrews implying divine authority to Maccabees (or to Josephus for that matter). The New Testament authors also draw from works other than the Holy Scriptures. For example, the apostle Paul quotes pagan poets and writers (1 Corinthians 15:33; Acts 17:28); Jude quotes from the Jewish apocryphal books of Enoch and the Assumption of Moses. Obviously an author may cite something from a work that he takes to be true without thereby ascribing divine authority to that work. Just as no one considers the Greek poets or the Jewish "Assumption of Moses" as inspired, the same applies to any references to the apocrypha. In a sermon, the preacher may quote Shakespeare or Socrates or whoever else he wants, as long at the particular statement fits his purpose, and yet he does not imply that all that Shakespeare and Socrates ever wrote is gospel truth! By contrast to the possible and vague references to the apocrypha, the references to the Old Testament books are both clear, and more importantly they imply that those books carried divine authority. For example in John 10:34,35 the Lord Jesus quotes from Psalm 82:6, and immediately comments that the scriptures cannot be broken. For the apostle Paul, "it is written" (in the Old Testament books) was the sure ground for his doctrinal teaching. Thus the New Testament testifies to divine authority of the Old Testament. Significantly there are no such quotations to the apocrypha that imply divine inspiration of these books.[/FONT]
[FONT="]
And you say that based on what, exactly?
Funny, that's exactly what reformists said of the Pope.
Are you asking me to refrain from the truth?
There are many doctrinal errors, but since you accept that doctrine, you wouldn't see it as being in error. Some of these gross doctrinal errors are; prayers for the dead. ( 2 Macc. 12:45-46) and salvation by works. (Tobit 12:9). Praying for the dead is not biblical as Hebrews 9:27 plainly states, "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment." There is no second chance after death. Ephesians 2:8-9 clearly states that salvation is not by works or merited by man. "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." That being said, what about the fact that there isn't a word of prophecy in any of the 12 books, there are dozens of historical and geographical errors that are insanely obvious (1 & 2 Maccabees has Antiochus Epiphanes die 3 different deaths in 3 different places)
How do you reconcile that with John 2:11? Does that not make the apocrypha gnostic by it's very nature? Surely you don't question the authority of John's Gospel?
Since when does being popular make you right? By that logic we should have all been Nazis in 1939.
The stories in the Apocryphal books are extra biblical, fanciful and pure fiction. For example the story of Bel and the Dragon is clearly a fairy tale. The tale says that the pagan priest of Bel tried to deceive Daniel by using a trap door to consume food left for the idol Bel. This pagan priest was seeking to convince Daniel that Bel was a real god who ate and drank everyday. Another fanciful tale relates that Daniel was miraculously fed by the prophet Habakkuk, who was caught up by an angel in Judea, and taken to help Daniel in the lion's den in Babylon. Daniel lived hundreds of years before this spurious book titled "Bel and the Dragon" was written. [/FONT]
[FONT="]Another such tale is found in Tobit. Tobit, the blind father who lives in Nineveh, sends his son Tobias on a journey to collect a debt. On a journey for Tobias is led by an angel in disguise named Raphael. The angel leads him to the house of a virgin who had been married seven times, but whose husbands were all slain by a demon on their wedding night. Tobias marries the girl and drives away the demon by burning the heart of a certain fish in the bedroom, and with the help of Raphael. He returns home with the money and his bride, and then heals his father's eyes with the fish's gall. [/FONT]
[FONT="]Some of the teachings in these books are colored and some are immoral. In Judith 9:10,13, it says that God, assisted Judith in the telling of lies. Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom teach that morality is based expedience. In other words it is right to sin in some situations.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Wisdom 11:17 teaches that God made the universe out of pre-existing matter instead of "ex nihilo" (out of nothing) as Genesis 1:1-2, John 1:1-3 and Hebrews 11:3 plainly state.[/FONT]
[FONT="]There are also historical errors Tobit claimed that he was alive when the Assyrians conquered Israel in 722 B. C. and when Jeroboam revolted against Judah in 931 B. C. However it records his total life span as 158 years. These two events were actually 859 years apart. Judith also mistakenly states that Nebuchadnezzar reigned in Nineveh instead of Babylon. [/FONT]
[FONT="]
You follow revisionist history my friend. You do so because you are as dogmatic as a JW, and I appreciate your enthusiasm, but you are simply wrong. The council of Trent canonized this scripture about 1400 years late, any acceptance before that time was done so in hotbeds of heresy such as Alexandria Egypt (the Septuagint).
I do indeed have a bias to the Word of God, not fairy tales and heresies.
How did I do refuting yours? I suppose I fell short with you here to, but sometimes it's best not to cast your pearls to the swine...
My reasoning is entirely valid. You may as well study the Koran if you choose to follow the gibberish of the apocrypha.[/FONT]
The fact that there was not an organized NT canon does not mean that Christians didn't know the difference between what was the inspired word of God and what wasn't. The 27 books of the NT were widely accepted because of the fact that they were succinct, and harmonious with the Gospels and OT teachings. Many Gnostic writings were being spread at that time but were being rejected by anyone with an ounce of sense. People didn't need a council to help them decide because most of the early church used them and recognized them as authoritative. The councils only made it "official" and frankly, it was pretty much common sense to do so.
If you can't see God written all over Esther without the mention of His name you aren't paying attention to the text. Also, it is widely accepted by Jewish tradition that Mordecai was the author of Esther. This is perfectly plausible because he would have been an eyewitness or had access to the eyewitnesses of all of the events written in Esther. As the Prime Minister, , this book may well be his account from official Persian archives (Esther 9:32 & 10:12)
[quote=Ramon96;51328749]Yes, according to Judaism. Judaism is not Christianity. Second, the Book of Baruch was written in 596 BC and the Epistle of Jeremiah was written in 597 BC.[/quote]
You seem educated enough to know that the spirit of prophecy never has existed with a gentile.
Did you forget that Josephus was a Jew, or are you willfully misleading? Giant multitudes of Jews rejected Christ (in fact, a few of them had him killed) and the same ones rejected the NT. As a Jew, he would have used OT canon, which like pretty much every other 1st century Jew, recognized only 39 as the Authoritative, Infallible word of God, which is why I and other protestants accept them. You accept the apocrypha as scripture to use as a "sales tool" much like a used car salesman. "Buy this indulgence and you can avoid a place (purgatory) that doesn't exist." I accept the Word of God. BTW, I didn't say that the apocrypha is useless, I think that some useful teaching can arguably be found within those books. They aren't inspired, that's all.
It is a combination of reasoning (of which you possess little) not just one or the other. I would encourage you to reread my post.
Many of the supposed references are so vague that they could either be a reference to other works or else the similarity may simply be coincidental. They may not even be references to anything at all. That's why the Catholic apologist often says that one is "similar to" the other. I'm sure he'll find many "similar to's" if he compares the Bible to the Sunday newspaper! [/FONT]
[FONT="]For example, we are told that Matthew 13:43, "Then the just will shine forth..." is found in Wisdom 3:7. This is "found in", so we should think that the link is very clear. Well, let's see what Wisdom 3:7 actually says: "And in the time of their visitation they shall shine, and run to and fro like sparks among the stubble." What do you think? Both speak of 'shining', but can you really say that Jesus is quoting Wisdom? Hardly! By the same token Jesus may be referring to the Book of Daniel, which says: "And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament" (Daniel 12:3). Or perhaps Jesus is referring to neither one of them. After all Jesus actually said, "Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father" (Matthew 13:43). Wisdom is speaking about "sparks"; Jesus is speaking about a brightness like that of the sun! We are not impressed by the long list of this kind of references! There are some examples that are certainly not referring to the apocrypha at all. Luke 2:37 is supposedly found in Judith 8:4-6. "...as a widow...She never left the temple, but worshipped night and day with fasting and prayer." Give us a break! Luke is speaking about a the prophetess Anna, who lived many years after Judith; the former "never left the temple" whereas the latter "was a widow in her house." There are few examples that may be references to the apocrypha, the most clear one being Hebrews 11:35b (compared with 2 Maccabees 7:1-29). The incident recorded in Second Maccabees could have been in the mind of the author of Hebrews, but then, similar incidents are recorded in the writings of the Jewish historian, Josephus. It is difficult to be certain what he had in mind. However, even if this is a reference to the apocrypha, by no means is the author of Hebrews implying divine authority to Maccabees (or to Josephus for that matter). The New Testament authors also draw from works other than the Holy Scriptures. For example, the apostle Paul quotes pagan poets and writers (1 Corinthians 15:33; Acts 17:28); Jude quotes from the Jewish apocryphal books of Enoch and the Assumption of Moses. Obviously an author may cite something from a work that he takes to be true without thereby ascribing divine authority to that work. Just as no one considers the Greek poets or the Jewish "Assumption of Moses" as inspired, the same applies to any references to the apocrypha. In a sermon, the preacher may quote Shakespeare or Socrates or whoever else he wants, as long at the particular statement fits his purpose, and yet he does not imply that all that Shakespeare and Socrates ever wrote is gospel truth! By contrast to the possible and vague references to the apocrypha, the references to the Old Testament books are both clear, and more importantly they imply that those books carried divine authority. For example in John 10:34,35 the Lord Jesus quotes from Psalm 82:6, and immediately comments that the scriptures cannot be broken. For the apostle Paul, "it is written" (in the Old Testament books) was the sure ground for his doctrinal teaching. Thus the New Testament testifies to divine authority of the Old Testament. Significantly there are no such quotations to the apocrypha that imply divine inspiration of these books.[/FONT]
[FONT="]
And you say that based on what, exactly?
Funny, that's exactly what reformists said of the Pope.
Are you asking me to refrain from the truth?
There are many doctrinal errors, but since you accept that doctrine, you wouldn't see it as being in error. Some of these gross doctrinal errors are; prayers for the dead. ( 2 Macc. 12:45-46) and salvation by works. (Tobit 12:9). Praying for the dead is not biblical as Hebrews 9:27 plainly states, "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment." There is no second chance after death. Ephesians 2:8-9 clearly states that salvation is not by works or merited by man. "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." That being said, what about the fact that there isn't a word of prophecy in any of the 12 books, there are dozens of historical and geographical errors that are insanely obvious (1 & 2 Maccabees has Antiochus Epiphanes die 3 different deaths in 3 different places)
How do you reconcile that with John 2:11? Does that not make the apocrypha gnostic by it's very nature? Surely you don't question the authority of John's Gospel?
Since when does being popular make you right? By that logic we should have all been Nazis in 1939.
The stories in the Apocryphal books are extra biblical, fanciful and pure fiction. For example the story of Bel and the Dragon is clearly a fairy tale. The tale says that the pagan priest of Bel tried to deceive Daniel by using a trap door to consume food left for the idol Bel. This pagan priest was seeking to convince Daniel that Bel was a real god who ate and drank everyday. Another fanciful tale relates that Daniel was miraculously fed by the prophet Habakkuk, who was caught up by an angel in Judea, and taken to help Daniel in the lion's den in Babylon. Daniel lived hundreds of years before this spurious book titled "Bel and the Dragon" was written. [/FONT]
[FONT="]Another such tale is found in Tobit. Tobit, the blind father who lives in Nineveh, sends his son Tobias on a journey to collect a debt. On a journey for Tobias is led by an angel in disguise named Raphael. The angel leads him to the house of a virgin who had been married seven times, but whose husbands were all slain by a demon on their wedding night. Tobias marries the girl and drives away the demon by burning the heart of a certain fish in the bedroom, and with the help of Raphael. He returns home with the money and his bride, and then heals his father's eyes with the fish's gall. [/FONT]
[FONT="]Some of the teachings in these books are colored and some are immoral. In Judith 9:10,13, it says that God, assisted Judith in the telling of lies. Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom teach that morality is based expedience. In other words it is right to sin in some situations.[/FONT]
[FONT="]Wisdom 11:17 teaches that God made the universe out of pre-existing matter instead of "ex nihilo" (out of nothing) as Genesis 1:1-2, John 1:1-3 and Hebrews 11:3 plainly state.[/FONT]
[FONT="]There are also historical errors Tobit claimed that he was alive when the Assyrians conquered Israel in 722 B. C. and when Jeroboam revolted against Judah in 931 B. C. However it records his total life span as 158 years. These two events were actually 859 years apart. Judith also mistakenly states that Nebuchadnezzar reigned in Nineveh instead of Babylon. [/FONT]
[FONT="]
You follow revisionist history my friend. You do so because you are as dogmatic as a JW, and I appreciate your enthusiasm, but you are simply wrong. The council of Trent canonized this scripture about 1400 years late, any acceptance before that time was done so in hotbeds of heresy such as Alexandria Egypt (the Septuagint).
And I suppose you don't have any biases whatsoever?
I do indeed have a bias to the Word of God, not fairy tales and heresies.
How did I do refuting yours? I suppose I fell short with you here to, but sometimes it's best not to cast your pearls to the swine...
My reasoning is entirely valid. You may as well study the Koran if you choose to follow the gibberish of the apocrypha.[/FONT]
Upvote
0
