• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Status
Not open for further replies.
May 7, 2004
55
6
✟208.00
Faith
Catholic
God be praised!

I stand corrected and now closer to the truth about the Bible versions, thanks to you, my beloved brother christian-only. You were right about the sacrifice part, too. I was wrong - see, Judas Maccabees and his men "turned to prayer, beseeching that the sin which had been committed might be wholly blotted out" in 2 Maccabees 12:42, not earlier.

By the way, if I haven't yet complimented your signature, I want to ensure that I do now, defender of the rebirth. God be praised that we've found the awesome truth of our baptism's uniting us with Christ that we might live in Him!

God bless,
Sheridan
 
Upvote 0

christian-only

defender of the rebirth
Mar 20, 2004
686
35
✟1,017.00
Faith
Christian
Thanks for the compliment to my signature! Yours is quite good too.

Actually, I think I spoke too soon in saying it was only a sacrifice, because I had just read verse 45 when I said that, and verse 44 does say that they prayed for the dead. But since there is no commendation of their actions by God I would not venture to say we should follow their example. Aside from the Apocrypha, we find things narrated throughout the Bible as having been done, which we know are not right for us to do, such as Abraham and Hagar.
 
Upvote 0

christian-only

defender of the rebirth
Mar 20, 2004
686
35
✟1,017.00
Faith
Christian
Bizzlebin Imperatoris said:
Ok, thanks for all of your help. My standard Bible is the Vulgate, I use Latin far better than English, but I'll see if I can't get one!

What Vulgate do you use? There are actually 2 now. There is the New Vulgate which the Roman Catholic church made around the 60's by translating the UBS Greek text into Latin, and there is the Clementine version which is Jerome's (and is the one that the council of Trent pronounced to be the word of God). If yours does not say the following in 1st John [Joannis I] 5:7 then it is the New Vulgate "Quoniam tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in cælo : Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus : et hi tres unum sunt." The difference between the two is like the difference between the King James Version and New International Version, the Clementine being like a Latin KJV and the New Vulgate like a Latin NIV. You can download the Clementine version at http://vulsearch.sourceforge.net/ The site is not complete yet but all of the New Testament and a good portion of the OT are up. 1st Maccabees some of 2nd, and Baruch are up from the Apocrypha.
 
Upvote 0

filioLumen

Lux Aeterna
May 17, 2004
131
15
39
New Orleans, LA, USA
Visit site
✟331.00
Faith
Catholic
Hi everybody,

i used to go by the name Apollonarius months ago, but now i'm back with a new SN and a new view. This will be my first post in returning to the boards and providing whatever information i can.

Firstly, to christian-only; you said

Notice, though, that context of the passage does seem to praise the band for their sacrifice...and also notice that this passage, though i humbly submit to the Church's interpretation, seems moreso an apologetic for Resurrection than Purgatory. 2 Macc. 12:44--"for if he were not expecting the fallen to rise again, it would have been useless and foolish for him to pray for them in death." The author's intent is indeed to praise the men for their charitable actions and for their belief in a resurrection, which was a contested issue among the Jews throughout the Alexandrian and Roman period.

Even if this passage cannot technically be applied to purgatory, it still sets the precedent of prayer for those who have passed on, which i'm sure you will disagree with. We believe in it not because there are second chances after death, but because God is outside of time and can work in the person's heart in the past to affect change, as well as for temporal punishment of purgatory.

Yet regardless of the passage's interpretation, it was still seen as a direct proof of the "unbiblical" doctrines of purgatory and did not fit into the protestant schema. Luther directly rejected purgatory's existence because of his close relations to Tetzel and indulgences; it was the first issue to come into question. It was natural for him to reject the books as he did many NT books like Hebrews and James that did not fit his theological agenda.

However, his particular declarations on canon did not change what was printed for many years to come. The Gutenberg Bible was already widely distributed throughout the Holy Roman Empire, and it had within it simply followed the books of the Vulgate. The same with KJV.

You're correct that it was the puritans who physically removed the books from the same volume, but the books themselves had been removed from many protestants minds long before that. As you say, they were included for their historical value, etc.

i accept the Deuteros because although there was fair division amongst the fathers, every time they came together and declared canons in council they included them. That includes the synod of Hippo as well, which many prots point to as proof for early NT canon. You can't accept one without the other.

Beyond this, in my mind the chief qualification of Scripture is that it is prophetic in nature, that is, has a prophetic voice for correction and exhortation to righteousness often coupled with prophecy itself. Do me one favor. If you have never read the books, please do. When you do you will see Christ almost everywhere.

In Tobit, the book centers around a certain FISH whose sacrifice gives sight to a blind man and defeats a powerful demon. Multiple examples are present in Maccabees of the theme of a man dying for the salvation of the people (ex., Eleazar, 1 Macc. 6:43-46). Perhaps no passage is as explicitly prophetic as Wisdom 2:10-20.

Tell me what you think after you read it, my brother.

i was a protestant 2 months ago. i've since been knocked off my horse and have come to a new light, a new faith, and a new relationship with our Lord. it's so much...closer now, a holier path...i know you're a long way from the Church, brother, but the Lord can use me to give you Light to draw nearer. And i pray He would also use you to enlighten me...all we need is light.

God bless you all and always! Maranatha!
Steve
 
Upvote 0

christian-only

defender of the rebirth
Mar 20, 2004
686
35
✟1,017.00
Faith
Christian
Well, filioLumen, I thank you for your kind reply.

I would note first of all, that in all actuallity, Protestants accept more Apocrypha than Catholics. That may sound strange at first, but if you look at the list, you will see it is true: 3rd Ezra (1st Esdras), 4th Ezra (2nd Esdras), Tobit, Judeth, Additions to Esther, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch w/ Epistle of Jermiah, Azariah (song of 3 children), Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, Prayer of Manasseh, 1st Maccabees, 2nd Maccabees. Now, I think that Catholics do not include the Prayer of Manasseh or 4th Ezra, and perhaps even some others. Now, the Greek Orthodox or maybe some other group close to that also adds 3rd and 4th Maccabees I think. So, the Deuterocanon of the Roman Catholics is smaller than that of the GO and smaller than the Apocrypha of the Protestants. Yes, not many Protestants read the Apocrypha, but if we are really honest with ourselves we know that not many Catholics do either. The Protestants who do read the Apocrypha, however, read more than do the Catholics, because their Apocrypha is longer.

Now, secondly, the very fact that even Roman Catholics call this the "Deuterocanon" shows that these books are considered "second class" to some extent even by the RCC. Which is why, as pointed out already, the church of England only included them in the KJV for their historic value and not because they were Scripture, because they did not believe that. I also find them to have historic value, but certainly not to be Scripture. In fact, the very story of the fish that you alluded to shows that they try to be like Scripture but miss the mark. Do you really think that an angel of God would go around lying an saying he's your cousin or uncle? Would he really take camels from you by deceiving you into thinking he's a relative?

Now, as for 2 Macc. 12:44, you are correct that the author is trying to teach prayer for the dead, but that the idea of purgatory is still foreign to the text. But regardless of what the author thinks of praying for the dead, we do not find an approved example of it or a command for it in Scripture. A "second class" (Deutero) and "doubtful" (Apocryphal) book is not a good place to obtain doctrine. They can show the attitudes of the Jews in the intertestamental period, and a bit of history, like how Hanukah came about, but they are certainly not trustworthy for doctrine. Not even figurative pasages in the actual Scriptures should be used to create doctrine appart from plain Scripture. Many people take a parable of Jesus and come up with things altogether against plain non-figurative Scriptures, and claim it must be true because they pulled it out of Scripture. Well, what they did is set an unclear verse against clear ones. The whole of the Apocrypha is what the word means "doubtful" and therefore to make doctrine from it is worse than to allegorize the Scriptures beyond recognition, because at least those who do that start with real Scripture (although they end up in insanity).

Now, as for purgatory itself, the origin of it is very easy to find in the writings of the "Fathers," and I have done so. Tertullian is the author of the doctrine. You may recall that according to the RCC, Tertullian died an heretick, a montanist. Montanis was one who said he received "New Prophecies" from the Holy Ghost, or by some accounts claimed that he was the Holy Ghost. Anyway, some of his new prophecies were that second marriages were wrong in all cases. At that time Catholics were allowed to divorce and remarry as many times as they wanted, but Montanis and Tertullian began to teach that second marriage was always sin, and were branded heretics for it. They were also called heretics because of the belief in "New Prophecies" since the Catholic church then believed that all prophecy had ceased, although now it appears to believe prophecy has started again (like Fatima, etc.).

Anyway, In Tertullian's Treatise on the Soul, chapter XXXV, Tertullian accidentally creates the doctrine of purgatory while refuting reincarnation: the passage in question in quoted below, and the text is from this link http://ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-03/anf03-22.htm#P2910_1021299

(in opposition to the ridiculous heresy that Mat 5:25-26 is an allegory, and that it teaches reincarnation, Tertullian also incorrectly interprets it allegorically, thus creating purgatory. Augustine later took Tertullian's theory of purgatory, and updated it making God rather than the devil the adversary in the "allegory.")

 
Upvote 0

filioLumen

Lux Aeterna
May 17, 2004
131
15
39
New Orleans, LA, USA
Visit site
✟331.00
Faith
Catholic
Hi again christian-only,

Actually, "Apocrypha" simply means "hidden away" in Greek, meaning not that the books are doubtful but that they are somewhat more mysterious than the others in that authorship is not known and that the books were written in Greek rather than Hebrew like the rest of the OT corpus.

All of the Catholic-accepted books would fall into the commonly-referred to category of "Apocryphal books" but not not all Apocryphals are in the deuterocanon. We accept only those that have been accepted by the councils. No protestant church i know of accepts the Deuteros as canonical, so whether or not they include the books as Apocryphal is a moot point. What we are arguing here is what books are canonical, not which books are among those "hidden."

The original reason for canonization of books was to provide an authoritative body of Scriptures to be read during Sunday services; the lists determined which books could be read from to the people. It is vitally important to determine which books belong in the canon, or one has to doubt them all. The fact that we're having such a discussion here begs the question of what makes books like Genesis, Exodus, Hebrews, Hames, 2Pet., etc. canonical? Why do you accept these books?

Being in the Deuterocanon doesn't make a book "second class," it's simply a distinguishing title to categorize a group of books together that have common threads. We call the first five books the Pentateuch because they were all written by Moses; the Deuteros are all extant in Greek and were written within the same time span. They are just as inspired as the others, they simply have their own category.

But Scripture contains many strange stories. What about Moses using a snake wrapped around a pole to heal? What about Elisha's encounter with a bunch of rebellious young men and his prayer that calls a bear to chase them off? How strange does it have to be to be Scripture? What qualification does a book need to become canonized? i'd really like to know what your criteria are.

Now as for Purgatory; prayer for the dead was well-established before Tertullian. The catacombs under Rome from the Church's first three centuries are filled with "graffitti" of "St. Peter, pray for us," or "St. Peter and St. Paul, pray for Victor." There are literally thousands of these inscriptions, all of them very very old. St. Paul even seems to pray for the dead Onesiphorous in 2 Tim. 1:18. Then there are other examples, some of which do include Tertullian:

"This Dinocrates had been my brother after the flesh, seven years of age who died miserably with disease-his face being so eaten out with cancer, that his death caused repugnance to all men... But I trusted that my prayer would bring help to his suffering; and I prayed for him every day until we passed over into the prison of the camp, for we were to fight in the camp-show."--Passion of Perpetua and Felicitas, c. AD 205

"As often as the anniversary comes around, we make oblations for the dead as birthday honors."--Tertullian, c. AD 210.

"Since he has dared to appoint Germinus Faustinus, a priest, as his executor, you are not permitted to make offering for his repose. Nor should any prayers be made in the church for his name."--St. Cyprian c. AD 250

"You cruelly break up our meetings, in which prayer is made to the Supreme God and in which peace and pardon are asked for all those in authority--for soldiers, kings, friends, and enemies, for those still in life and for those who are freed from the bondage of the flesh."--Arnobius c. AD 305

"Let us pray for our brethren who are at rest in Christ."--Apostolic Constitutions, compiled c. AD 390

And there is not a single protest anywhere against this practice. As wary as the early church was about heresy, no one criticized this practice anywhere. If a practice so widespread were doctrinally wrong surely someone would have spoken up.

You are correct that the exact doctrinal formulation of Purgatory did not arise early on, yet the practice of praying for the dead has been universal Christian practice since the very beginning. And since one can only be saved in life before death, there must be another reason we pray for the dead. Combining these quotes with Rev. 21:27 and 1 Cor. 3, the Church was guided to belief in Purgatory.

In fact, the Jewish Mourner's Kadish is based on a similar principle, praying for 11 months to purify the loved one. Jews and Catholics have had this practice for thousands of years, and it was protestants that removed it.

Correct me if i'm wrong on any of this, it just seems straightforward to me, brother. Thankyou for your response and i look forward to your next one. And i'd like to know what you think after you read the books and the prophecies i pointed out.

God bless you always! Maranatha!
Steve
 
Reactions: Apollonarius
Upvote 0
May 7, 2004
55
6
✟208.00
Faith
Catholic
Hey all and God bless!

FilioLumen, nice post! And I agree whole-heartedly that the deuteros are canon. But I was wondering, how do you deal with the supposed historical inaccuracies in deutero places like the beginning of Judith (see http://www.cin.org/users/james/questions/q092.htm)?

Thank you again and God bless!
In Christ,
Sheridan
 
Upvote 0

Philip

Orthodoxy: Old School, Hard Core Christianity
Jun 23, 2003
5,619
241
53
Orlando, FL
Visit site
✟7,106.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Captain John Sheridan said:
But I was wondering, how do you deal with the supposed historical inaccuracies in deutero places like the beginning of Judith

The book of Judith is not intended to be literal history. It is a pious story with a lesson, not a historical thesis.

It should be pointed out that many historians find errors in Daniel, Esther, Jonah, and probably some other books as well.
 
Upvote 0

Serapha

Well-Known Member
Jun 29, 2003
5,133
28
✟6,704.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Bizzlebin Imperatoris said:
Tobit is not in my list of the Apocrypha. I think that maybe a psuedo-Apocrypha or something else...
Hi there!




There are reasons "why" the books were removed from the canonized text, either because they were myth, legend, unknown authorship, or simply not true. That does not mean that they don't have good teaching principles, for they do contain good teachings stories and some historical significance.


~serapha~
 
Upvote 0

PaladinValer

Traditional Orthodox Anglican
Apr 7, 2004
23,587
1,245
44
Myrtle Beach, SC
✟30,305.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I read the NRSV, which includes both the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Deuterocanons. I accept these books as fully inspired, canonical Scripture because they were listed as such.

In addition, "deuterocanon" literally means "second canon," which is accurate since these books were a "second of books" with the rest of the Tanakh in the Septuagint.

My signature is my favorite verse from the Bible, which happens to come from a Deuterocanonical Book.
 
Upvote 0

Kester Pelagius

Active Member
Mar 30, 2004
179
5
53
Visit site
✟334.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Greetings,

Upon reading the thread I feel there are some points that need to be made, not the least of which is: What, exactly, are you talking about?

(see below)


1) There is, to the best of my knowledge, no category of texts called "psuedo-Apocrypha". There is, however, a category of texts referred to as the "Pseudepigrapha". Helpful to know if you have been trying to use Google to find information and have been less than successful using that terminology.

2) Are there fake biblical texts? Yes. (The Dee MSS come to mind.) However I do not think you are asking about fakes and forgeries, are you? (A literal interpretation of the phrase you used above could be: "false hidden books".)

3) Apocrypha, in and of itself, is primarily a term with context only within Biblical Canon. What Canon are you referring to? (There are actually several different Biblical Canons, ranging from Catholic, Protestant, Samaritan, &tc.)

4) Loosely defined, ALL religous texts are "scripture". Are you asking about which texts have more authority than others? I am assuming so. The answer is dependant upon which denomination (and thus whose canon) you are talking about.

That said, there are a number of para-Biblical "scripture" collections extant. For instance there are the so-called Lost Books of the Bible, the various Gnostic Gospels, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Book of Enoch, the Christian Apocrypha, the Jewish Pseudepigrapha, various mystical religious texts such as those in the Kabbalah tradition, to say nothing about the many independant testaments, works of wisdom literature, and apocalyptic works.

Many more than even the sacred texts site has up for review. Then again most of those aren't para-Biblical texts as to be a para-Biblical text the work has to be something dealing with the Bible or Biblical matters. Many of the texts on that site are thus scriptures from totally different religious traditions. FYI.

Now that I typed all that. . . What, exactly, is it you are wanting to know?

Can't promise I'll have the answer, but maybe I can point you in the general direction.
 
Upvote 0

PaladinValer

Traditional Orthodox Anglican
Apr 7, 2004
23,587
1,245
44
Myrtle Beach, SC
✟30,305.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
If by Odes you mean the Prayer of Manasseh or Psalm 151, yes, the NRSV does include them and I accept them as canonized and true Scripture.

And the NRSV also includes III and IV Maccabees. As I said, the NRSV includes all the Eastern Orthodox Deuterocanon, which includes the above books
 
Upvote 0

Philip

Orthodoxy: Old School, Hard Core Christianity
Jun 23, 2003
5,619
241
53
Orlando, FL
Visit site
✟7,106.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
PaladinValer said:
If by Odes you mean the Prayer of Manasseh or Psalm 151, yes, the NRSV does include them and I accept them as canonized and true Scripture.

I think he is refering to the Odes of Solomon.
 
Upvote 0

SumTinWong

Living with BPD
Apr 30, 2004
6,469
744
In a house
Visit site
✟25,386.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I just picked up over the weekend (in a used book sale) a few different Bibles and what not, that I did not have:

The Common Bible: It is actually the RSV Oxford edition (plus Apocrypha) but it boasts as being the only Bible to be agreed upon (by Catholics, Orthodox, and the Protestants) since the reformation.

The New English Bible: Again put out by Oxford, and it includes the Apocrypha.

A seperate missal size Apocrypha: Once again put out by Oxford.

And last but not least a version of the RSV without the apocrypha.

So far I like the New English Bible the best out of all of them, but that is just because of format of the type and such.

I like the story of Bel and the Dragon. It is pretty cool.
 
Upvote 0

christian-only

defender of the rebirth
Mar 20, 2004
686
35
✟1,017.00
Faith
Christian
PaladinValer said:
If by Odes you mean the Prayer of Manasseh or Psalm 151, yes, the NRSV does include them and I accept them as canonized and true Scripture.

Odes is different. I've never read it, but I thought I read that it was in the EO's apocrypha. But I am interested in hearing how the Prayer of Manasseh is Scripture in your opinion. His prayer obviously isn't inspired, since he does say that Abraham was sinless, and we know only Jesus Christ Himself was sinless. Of course, the NRSV probably "fixed" that problem by "correcting" the original text as they often do. Checking....Nope, the NRSV didn't change this one:
"8 Therefore you, O Lord, God of the righteous,
have not appointed repentance for the righteous,
for Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, who did not sin against you,
but you have appointed repentance for me, who am a sinner."​
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.