Cross-references between the DeuteroCanonicals (NOT Apocrypha!) and the New Testament

[OzSpen]

The following is a list proving that there are connections between the Deuterocanonical books (which are the Word of God) and the New Testament:

That is, these books which are Divinely Inspired by God the Holy Spirit:

- Tobit
- Judith
- Wisdom
- Sirach
- Baruch
- 1 Maccabees
- 2 Maccabees
- and parts of Esther and Daniel

I will start with these and later on I will post a few from time to time, ok?

Again, these are the Deutero-Canonical Books (NOT the Apocrypha as some like to call it).

_____________________________________________________________________

* Jesus quotes from Tobit 7:18 when He calls His Father, "Lord of Heaven and earth" (Mt 11:25).

* Mary follows Sirach 10:14 when she says God "has put down the mighty from their thrones" (Lk 1:52).

* Elizabeth alludes to Judith 13:18 when she declares that Mary is most "blessed ... among women" (Lk 1:42).

* Mark and Luke record the Sadducees' story about the seven brothers in Tobit 3:8 and Tobit 7:11. [See Mk 12:20; Lk 20:29]

* James follows Sirach 29:10-11 in his teaching about laying up one's true treasure instead of silver and gold that will rust (see James 5:3).

* The seven spirits before God in John's Revelation are the same seven angels who present the prayers of the saints before the Holy One in Tobit 12:15 (see Rev 1:4).

* Peter alludes to Wisdom 3:5-6 when he teaches that God will test us just as gold is tested by fire (see 1 Pet 1:6-7).

* Paul follows Wisdom 5:17-20 when he charges us to take up the "armor of God," the "breastplate of righteousness," the "helmet of salvation" and the "shield of faith."[Eph 6:13-17] He borrows from Baruch 4:7 when he teaches that the pagans "sacrifice to demons and not to God."[1 Cor 10:20] And he quotes from 2 Maccabees 12:15, when he calls God the "one and only Sovereign."[1 Tim 6:15]

* The author of Hebrews follows Sirach 25:22 when he tells us to strengthen our "drooping hands" and "weak knees" (Heb 12:12).

* He also refers to 2 Maccabees 7:1-42, which is one of the most incredible stories of faith in Scripture, regarding the torture and murder of a mother and her children (see Heb 11:35).
___________________________________________________________________
Source: (The Biblical Basis for the Catholic Faith, John Salza, pg. 16) ...
This book has a Nihil Obstat by Rev. Michael Heintz/Censor Librorum and an Imprimatur by John M. D'Arcy/Bishop of Fort Wayne-South Bend (January 27, 2005)

John Salza continues in page 17 ... "Of the approximately 350 Old Testament quotes in the New Testament, about three hundred come from the Septuagint. Some non-Catholic scholars, to give their rejection of the Deuterocanon a more historical basis, argue that the Jews removed these books form their canon at the Council of Jamnia, about a century after Christ's Ascension. However, these Jewish councils also rejected the Church's New Testament canon, as well as the claim that Jesus Christ was the Messiah! Therefore, Christians cannot appeal to Jewish councils, which rejected the New Testament and Christianity as a whole, as a basis for making pronouncements about the Bible."

Praised be the Holy Spirit.

I hope this thread is helpful to everyone.

May the Lord God give you all His Peace!

A. H. J. E.
After the Heart of Jesus Evangelist

The term, Apocrypha, has been used to refer to these deutero-canonical books since the fifth century. See ‘Biblical Apocrypha’ (Wikipedia). The Catholic Encyclopedia has an article (online) on The Apocrypha and rightly notes that Roman Catholics call these inter-testamental books, deutero-canonical, and Protestants call them the Apocrypha.

Renowned theologian and early church father, Athanasius (ca. AD 298-373) made a clear distinction between the books of the canon and those not included in the canon with these words:

But for greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity; that there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being [merely] read; nor is there in any place a mention of apocryphal writings. But they are an invention of heretics, who write them when they choose, bestowing upon them their approbation, and assigning to them a date, that so, using them as ancient writings, they may find occasion to lead astray the simple (Select Works & Letters of Athanasius, Letter 39, in A.D. 367, Available from: NPNF2-04. Athanasius: Select Works and Letters - Christian Classics Ethereal Library).

So, we have it that Athanasius included only the words of the Hebrew Bible, except Esther, no Apocrypha, and the entire NT as of today. So Athanasius names some of the deutero-canonical/Apocryphal writings as an invention of heretics. These are not my words, but those of an eminent theologian of the early church.

Therefore, it is just as correct to call these books The Apocrypha as Deutero-Canonical. However, since your icon indicates that you are a Catholic, I can see why you want to call them Deutero-Canonical books. But Apocrypha is just as legitimate because many Protestants do not regard them as a second canon of books but as ‘hidden’ books that do not belong in the canon of Scripture.

There are a significant number of reasons for accepting the Palestinian canon of the OT (without the Deutero-Canonical). Here are a three:

1. Some of the Deutero-Canonical books have teachings that contradict the NT. Two of these teachings that were raised at the time of the Reformation are promoted in the Apocrypha but denied in the NT. The Apocrypha promotes praying for the dead (2 Macc 12:45-46) and salvation by works (Tobit 12:9). The Bible is against praying for the dead. See 2 Sam. 12:19; Luke 16:25; Heb. 9:27. The Bible is strongly opposed to salvation by works (see Gen. 15:6; Rom. 4:5; Gal 3:11) [Geisler and Nix 1986:270].
2. Some of the deutero-canonical narratives promote non-biblical, fanciful stories. Take a read of Bel and the Dragon, Tobit, and Judith (Geisler & Nix 1986:270).
3. Philo, the Alexandrian Jewish philosopher, who lived from about 20 BC – AD 40, quotes extensively from the OT and even recognised the three-fold classification of the OT books, but not once did he quote from the Deutero-Canonical as containing inspired books (Geisler and Nix 1986:272).

My stance of rejecting the Apocrypha is in agreement with Roman Catholic authority, Jerome (A.D. 340-420), who, in his preface to the Vulgate version of the Apocrypha's "Book of Solomon," stated that the church reads the apocryphal books "for example and instruction of manners" but not to "apply them to establish doctrine." In fact, Jerome rejected Augustine's unjustified acceptance of the Apocrypha.

The Jewish scholars who met at Jamnia, ca. A.D. 90, did not accept the Apocrypha in the inspired Jewish canon of Scripture. The Apocrypha was not contained in the Hebrew Bible and Jerome knew it. In his preface to the Book of Daniel in the Hebrew Bible, Jerome rejected the apocryphal additions to Daniel, i.e. Bel and the Dragon, and Susanna. Jerome wrote:

"The stories of Susanna and of Bel and the Dragon are not contained in the Hebrew. . . . For this same reason when I was translating Daniel many years ago, I noted these visions with a critical symbol, showing that they were not included in the Hebrew. . . . After all, both Origen, Eusebius and Appolinarius, and other outstanding churchmen and teachers of Greece acknowledge that, as I have said, these visions are not found amongst the Hebrews, and therefore they are not obliged to answer to Porphyry for these portions which exhibit no authority as Holy Scripture " (in Norman Geisler 2002, Systematic Theology, vol. 1, Bethany House, p. 527, emphasis added).

The Protestant canon of 39 OT books, excluding the Apocrypha, coincides with the Hebrew 22 books of the OT.

There are many other reasons for rejecting the Apocrypha. Any reasonable person who reads Tobit, and Bel and the Dragon, knows how fanciful they become when compared with the God-breathed Scripture.

Here are “Some reasons why the Deutero-Canonical material does not belong in the Bible“. Here are examples of theological and historical “Errors in the Deutero-Canonical“. It was Jerome who introduced the change from calling these books the Apocrypha to Deutero-Canonical.

The teachings on purgatory and praying for the dead come from the Apocrypha.

The NRSV Apocrypha can be read online HERE.

Sincerely, Oz

Reference:
Geisler, N L and Nix, W E 1986. A General Introduction to the Bible (rev & exp). Chicago: Moody Press.

 

[AHJE]

^ Men may have their quote/unquote "reasons" but the Church together with the Holy Spirit have spoken on the matter. These DeuteroCanonicals are indeed the Word of God.

The doctrines of Purgatory and praying for the dead are part of the Teaching of Christ and as such they do not contradict the New Testament.

Obviously it comes down to a question of Authority. That same Authority that gave us the New Testament Canon is the same one that has decided on the Canonicity of the Deuterocanonicals. No scholar however good can decide on these matters. It is not for them to decide. It is for those who have been entrusted with the grace of being Successors to the Apostles and who have Authority from Christ to do so.

As a Catholic I have no problem with such Authority. Protestants on the other hand have rejected this Authority from the very moment of their beginning as a movement.

To call these books Apocryphal is to deny the Word of God.

... ... ...


Here are some more Deuterocanonical References in the New Testament:

_______________________________________________________________________________
* Matthew 2:16. Herod's decree of slaying innocent children was prophesied in Wisdom 11:7 -- slaying the holy innocents.

* Matthew 6:19-20. Jesus' statement about laying up treasure in heaven follows Sirach 29:11 -- lay up your treasure.

* Matthew 7:12. Jesus' Golden Rule: "Do unto others..." is the converse of Tobit 4:15 --- what you hate, do not do to others.

* Matthew 7:16,20. Jesus' statement, "You will know them by their fruits" follows Sirach 27:6 --- the fruit discloses the cultivation.

* Matthew 9:36. The people were "like sheep without a shepherd" is same as Judith 11:19 --- sheep without a shepherd.
_________________________________________________________________
Source: (The Biblical Basis for the Catholic Faith, John Salza, pg. 228)


Maybe it would be more to the point if we narrowed this thread down to these cross-references and see what kinds of discussions we can have on the topic from that angle.

Catholics believe it is the Word of God.
Protestants don't.

Obviously both cannot be correct.

So let's review these cross-references and see where the Holy Spirit leads every individual as we avail ourselves of every heavenly light.

God bless you all.

 

[Godel]

These who heard the preaching of St. Paul heard things about the Messiah and the books that they went to check for a confirmation of his words were the OT books most probably to read the Messianic Prophecies. St. Paul probably even refered to them in his preaching. This does not in any way indicate that they did not believe him.

You completely dodged what I said. I never said, "they didn't believe Paul." What I said is that they didn't *blindly* accept anything told to them simply because a church leader said so. They *verified* it against Scripture. The RCC orders you to reject that notion. If the church says it, you obey it or else.

The Catholic Church does the same thing today ... she reads Sacred Writing TOGETHER with the Word of God in Divine [not human] Tradition (as Handed On from the Apostles).

And what Protestants do is take those supposed "traditions", and verify them against Scripture, and reject those that contradict it. Luke says this is a good practice. You, and the RCC say it's bad. I'm gonna listen to what Luke wrote.

To criticize the Teaching Authority of the Church amounts to criticizing our Lord Jesus Christ who gave it. (see Mt. 28:19-20, Lk. 10:16)

See, the RCC takes itself and claims the position of Jesus. Rather heretical. In Matthew, Jesus says to follow what HE commanded, not what the church commands.

In Luke 10, Jesus says the people are to listen to His disciples. This is not a *blind* obedience as you would have us believe. Remember, the same Luke who recorded Jesus' words there ALSO wrote that we should verify what we are told with the Scriptures.

I wonder why this quote about the Bereans is often quoted without the light of the following verse which was so indicative of the ways of the Church:

"They devoted themselves to the teaching of the apostles ..." (Acts 2:42, NAB)

It's not often quoted with it because it doesn't alter the fact that Luke praised them for verifying what they were told with Scripture.

Devote yourself to the teaching of the apostles - yes, that is good. And one of the things taught is that we should verify what we are told with Scripture.

You continue with more of those "cross references" to the Apocrypha. Again, referencing it (even if they are actual "references", which is debatable) does NOT imply they are divinely inspired. As already stated, Paul quotes pagan philosophers in his epistles. According to your argument, we must now consider those pagan writings to be divinely inspired, we must add them to canon now.

 

[ebedmelech]

^ Men may have their quote/unquote "reasons" but the Church together with the Holy Spirit have spoken on the matter. These DeuteroCanonicals are indeed the Word of God.

The doctrines of Purgatory and praying for the dead are part of the Teaching of Christ and as such they do not contradict the New Testament.

Indeed they do...and they deny the sufficiency of Christ's attonement on the cross. As Paul clearly point's out:

Hebrews 9:23-28
Therefore it was necessary for the copies of the things in the heavens to be cleansed with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; nor was it that He would offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood that is not his own. Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment, so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.


Christ attonement is sufficient! He offered Himself ONE time, and that ONE time is enough. Also notice a person dies ONCE and after that is "the judgement".

As John the Baptist said

"Behold The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world"

He didn't add purgatory, and no amount of script-torture done can prove purgatory.

Obviously it comes down to a question of Authority. That same Authority that gave us the New Testament Canon is the same one that has decided on the Canonicity of the Deuterocanonicals. No scholar however good can decide on these matters. It is not for them to decide. It is for those who have been entrusted with the grace of being Successors to the Apostles and who have Authority from Christ to do so.

As a Catholic I have no problem with such Authority. Protestants on the other hand have rejected this Authority from the very moment of their beginning as a movement.

To call these books Apocryphal is to deny the Word of God.

... ... ...


Here are some more Deuterocanonical References in the New Testament:

_______________________________________________________________________________
* Matthew 2:16. Herod's decree of slaying innocent children was prophesied in Wisdom 11:7 -- slaying the holy innocents.

* Matthew 6:19-20. Jesus' statement about laying up treasure in heaven follows Sirach 29:11 -- lay up your treasure.

* Matthew 7:12. Jesus' Golden Rule: "Do unto others..." is the converse of Tobit 4:15 --- what you hate, do not do to others.

* Matthew 7:16,20. Jesus' statement, "You will know them by their fruits" follows Sirach 27:6 --- the fruit discloses the cultivation.

* Matthew 9:36. The people were "like sheep without a shepherd" is same as Judith 11:19 --- sheep without a shepherd.
_________________________________________________________________
Source: (The Biblical Basis for the Catholic Faith, John Salza, pg. 228)


Maybe it would be more to the point if we narrowed this thread down to these cross-references and see what kinds of discussions we can have on the topic from that angle.

Catholics believe it is the Word of God.
Protestants don't.

Obviously both cannot be correct.

So let's review these cross-references and see where the Holy Spirit leads every individual as we avail ourselves of every heavenly light.

God bless you all.

You got that right. My authority is Jesus not the Council of Florence.

 

[OzSpen]

^ Men may have their quote/unquote "reasons" but the Church together with the Holy Spirit have spoken on the matter. These DeuteroCanonicals are indeed the Word of God.

The doctrines of Purgatory and praying for the dead are part of the Teaching of Christ and as such they do not contradict the New Testament.

Obviously it comes down to a question of Authority. That same Authority that gave us the New Testament Canon is the same one that has decided on the Canonicity of the Deuterocanonicals. No scholar however good can decide on these matters. It is not for them to decide. It is for those who have been entrusted with the grace of being Successors to the Apostles and who have Authority from Christ to do so.

As a Catholic I have no problem with such Authority. Protestants on the other hand have rejected this Authority from the very moment of their beginning as a movement.

To call these books Apocryphal is to deny the Word of God.

Here are some more Deuterocanonical References in the New Testament:
_______________________________________________________________________________
* Matthew 2:16. Herod's decree of slaying innocent children was prophesied in Wisdom 11:7 -- slaying the holy innocents.

* Matthew 6:19-20. Jesus' statement about laying up treasure in heaven follows Sirach 29:11 -- lay up your treasure.

* Matthew 7:12. Jesus' Golden Rule: "Do unto others..." is the converse of Tobit 4:15 --- what you hate, do not do to others.

* Matthew 7:16,20. Jesus' statement, "You will know them by their fruits" follows Sirach 27:6 --- the fruit discloses the cultivation.

* Matthew 9:36. The people were "like sheep without a shepherd" is same as Judith 11:19 --- sheep without a shepherd.
_________________________________________________________________
Source: (The Biblical Basis for the Catholic Faith, John Salza, pg. 228)

Maybe it would be more to the point if we narrowed this thread down to these cross-references and see what kinds of discussions we can have on the topic from that angle.

Catholics believe it is the Word of God.
Protestants don't.

Obviously both cannot be correct.

So let's review these cross-references and see where the Holy Spirit leads every individual as we avail ourselves of every heavenly light.

God bless you all.

Are you telling us that this makes sense and this is Scripture?
In Tobit 6:2-8, 16-17 (RSV), it states:

[2] Then the young man went down to wash himself. A fish leaped up from the river and would have swallowed the young man;
[3] and the angel said to him, "Catch the fish." So the young man seized the fish and threw it up on the land.
[4] Then the angel said to him, "Cut open the fish and take the heart and liver and gall and put them away safely."
[5] So the young man did as the angel told him; and they roasted and ate the fish.
And they both continued on their way until they came near to Ecbatana.
[6] Then the young man said to the angel, "Brother Azarias, of what use is the liver and heart and gall of the fish?"
[7] He replied, "As for the heart and liver, if a demon or evil spirit gives trouble to any one, you make a smoke from these before the man or woman, and that person will never be troubled again.
[8] And as for the gall, anoint with it a man who has white films in his eyes, and he will be cured."
​

[16] When you enter the bridal chamber, you shall take live ashes of incense and lay upon them some of the heart and liver of the fish so as to make a smoke.
[17] Then the demon will smell it and flee away, and will never again return. And when you approach her, rise up, both of you, and cry out to the merciful God, and he will save you and have mercy on you. Do not be afraid, for she was destined for you from eternity. You will save her, and she will go with you, and I suppose that you will have children by her." When Tobias heard these things, he fell in love with her and yearned deeply for her.
​

This is fanciful stuff, and it is quite audacious to call it the Word of God.

These are some of the reasons why the Apocrypha should be rejected from the canon of Scripture. HERE are some more reasons why the Deutero-Canonical should be rejected as Scripture

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

As I have shown there is much more than "a couple" of quotes from the Deutero-Canonicals in the NT. This just lends all the more credibility of the Holy Catholic Church which maintains that the Apostles and the Early Church read them and used them as Sacred Writing (as the Holy Bible).

Why should we believe Martin Luther, A MAN, who definitely didn't like certain doctrines of the Church (such as Purgatory) and which he knew was supported by the Book of Maccabees? [Let's not derail this thread please, ... it is not about Purgatory]

These books were recognized as the Word of God all the way up to the Protestant movement. Why should anyone doubt that they are the Word of God after so many centuries of the faithful reading them? This is the part that I really don't understand. Let us be reasonable and attentive to the Holy Spirit.

If the Holy Spirit did not inspire them ... wouldn't He let the Church know way before the 15th Century or so?

God bless you.

He most certainly did let the church know about the Apocrypha well before the 15th century.

Renowned theologian and early church father, Athanasius (ca. AD 298-373) made a clear distinction between the books of the canon and those not included in the canon with these words:

But for greater exactness I add this also, writing of necessity; that there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being [merely] read; nor is there in any place a mention of apocryphal writings. But they are an invention of heretics, who write them when they choose, bestowing upon them their approbation, and assigning to them a date, that so, using them as ancient writings, they may find occasion to lead astray the simple (Select Works & Letters of Athanasius, Letter 39, in A.D. 367, Available from: NPNF2-04. Athanasius: Select Works and Letters - Christian Classics Ethereal Library).

Why are you not listening to what Athanasius wrote? He made it very clear that what you call the deutero-canonical books were not in the canon of Scripture.

So from the 4th century, it is very clear that this prominent church leader rejected the Apocrypha in the Canon of Scripture.

Oz

 

[AHJE]

You completely dodged what I said. I never said, "they didn't believe Paul." What I said is that they didn't *blindly* accept anything told to them simply because a church leader said so. They *verified* it against Scripture. The RCC orders you to reject that notion. If the church says it, you obey it or else.

You mean the Old Testament. They went to read the Old Testament at the time.

Seems to me that you have a distorted view of the Church's Authority. The Church is not the mafia ... she is more like a Mother to the faithful.

Do you blindly accept what St. Luke wrote? ... Why? ... Why do you accept a Gospel written by a Greek speaking believer?

I believe that St. Luke is Divinely Inspired because the Church says so. Why do you believe that St. Luke ought to be believed?

And what Protestants do is take those supposed "traditions", and verify them against Scripture, and reject those that contradict it. Luke says this is a good practice. You, and the RCC say it's bad. I'm gonna listen to what Luke wrote.

Why? Apart from Divine Tradition he is just a man as far as you know?

See, the RCC takes itself and claims the position of Jesus.

Wrong. Jesus gives the Roman Catholic Church the Authority to speak in His name.

Rather heretical. In Matthew, Jesus says to follow what HE commanded, not what the church commands.

It is heretical to despise and reject Ecclesiastical Authority such as that of the Successor of St. Peter, the Pope (the Servant of the servants of God).

In Luke 10, Jesus says the people are to listen to His disciples. This is not a *blind* obedience as you would have us believe. Remember, the same Luke who recorded Jesus' words there ALSO wrote that we should verify what we are told with the Scriptures.

Is believing the human authors of the Holy Bible "*blind*" obedience?

Luke did not say that we "should verify" anything. He just noted how some people responded to St. Paul's words which were received as the Word of God (2 Thes. 2:13).

It's not often quoted with it because it doesn't alter the fact that Luke praised them for verifying what they were told with Scripture.

He didn't praise them ... he noted what they did.

Devote yourself to the teaching of the apostles - yes, that is good. And one of the things taught is that we should verify what we are told with Scripture.

Again, ... he just recorded what they did. You are trying to make a doctrine out of this.

I could also say in a manner just as valid ... "You may check and verify Sacred Writing (the Holy Bible) with the Word of God in Divine Tradition."

You continue with more of those "cross references" to the Apocrypha. Again, referencing it (even if they are actual "references", which is debatable) does NOT imply they are divinely inspired. As already stated, Paul quotes pagan philosophers in his epistles. According to your argument, we must now consider those pagan writings to be divinely inspired, we must add them to canon now.

Didn't St. Luke say that these were pagan writings in Acts?
"... as some also of your own poets said: ..." (Acts 17:28, DRB)


Peace be with you.

 

[Godel]

You mean the Old Testament. They went to read the Old Testament at the time.

Irrelevant. They were praised for verifying against "Scripture". The New Testament refers to itself as "Scripture" as well.

Seems to me that you have a distorted view of the Church's Authority. The Church is not the mafia ... she is more like a Mother to the faithful.

As long as you obey, sure.

Do you blindly accept what St. Luke wrote? ... Why? ... Why do you accept a Gospel written by a Greek speaking believer?

I believe that St. Luke is Divinely Inspired because the Church says so. Why do you believe that St. Luke ought to be believed?

I believe it because I've studied Scripture and come to the conclusion that it should be believed.

Why? Apart from Divine Tradition he is just a man as far as you know?

No. Apart from "Divine Tradition" he is just a man as far as *you* know. You are the Roman Catholic in this conversation that has shut off all information that the RCC doesn't tell you.

Wrong. Jesus gives the Roman Catholic Church the Authority to speak in His name.

According to the Roman Catholic Church.

It is heretical to despise and reject Ecclesiastical Authority such as that of the Successor of St. Peter, the Pope (the Servant of the servants of God).

I will reject that which contradicts Scripture. I am not concerned about the RCC's opinion of what is "heretical". I'm only concerned with what Scripture says is heretical.

Is believing the human authors of the Holy Bible "*blind*" obedience?

God is the author of Scripture. It is indeed sad if your belief in the RCC has left you thinking the Bible is merely a book authored by men.

Luke did not say that we "should verify" anything. He just noted how some people responded to St. Paul's words which were received as the Word of God (2 Thes. 2:13).

Of course he said we should do it. Did he not say they were more noble for doing it? Does that really suggest to you that it's something we should not do??

He didn't praise them ... he noted what they did.

He said they were more noble.. sounds like praise.

Again, ... he just recorded what they did. You are trying to make a doctrine out of this.

No, I'm using deductive reasoning. It's not something the RCC has explicitly told you, so I know you have trouble with it. Luke said they were more noble for what they did. Honestly now.. does it sound like it's a good practice or a bad one?

I could also say in a manner just as valid ... "You may check and verify Sacred Writing (the Holy Bible) with the Word of God in Divine Tradition."

You can say lots of things. Whether or not you can back it up with Scripture is something else.

Didn't St. Luke say that these were pagan writings in Acts?
"... as some also of your own poets said: ..." (Acts 17:28, DRB)

So? It's a reference. According to you, just the reference alone is enough to claim it's part of canon.

 

[AHJE]

Irrelevant. They were praised for verifying against "Scripture". The New Testament refers to itself as "Scripture" as well.

Where does it mention the list of 27 books?

As long as you obey, sure.

How does a mother treat their children if they do not obey? Or how should she treat them?

I believe it because I've studied Scripture and come to the conclusion that it should be believed.

How is that convincing?

So why is the letter of Philemon the Word of God to you?

No. Apart from "Divine Tradition" he is just a man as far as *you* know. You are the Roman Catholic in this conversation that has shut off all information that the RCC doesn't tell you.

You do not consider the truths revealed by God via Divine Tradition which is the Word of God. Who is being unfaithful to the truth?

According to the Roman Catholic Church.

Hence, according to Christ Himself who SENT Her and built Her.

I will reject that which contradicts Scripture. I am not concerned about the RCC's opinion of what is "heretical". I'm only concerned with what Scripture says is heretical.

The mantra of "Sola Scriptura", the man made tradition which is often used to try and nullify the Word of God in Divine Tradition.

God is the author of Scripture. It is indeed sad if your belief in the RCC has left you thinking the Bible is merely a book authored by men.

I know that the Holy Spirit is the Primary Author. But God Inspired Holy Men did He not?

In like manner, ... I can say that it is indeed sad if your belief in the Bible has left you thinking that the Divine Tradition is a "Handing On" that was initiated by men.

Of course he said we should do it. Did he not say they were more noble for doing it?

Not the way that you are making it out to look. They did not believe in Sola Scriptura. They embraced with "eagerness" the Word of God delivered by St. Paul. They were faithful.

Does that really suggest to you that it's something we should not do??

It was good what they did as compared with those of Thessalonica who did not believe and who without grounds rejected and persecuted the preachers of the Gospel.

He said they were more noble.. sounds like praise.

Yes, ... but not for what you claim he praised them for. That, I see now is the bottom line. I went to the verse in Acts and saw for myself that what St. Luke praised them for was their faith as opposed to those of Thessalonica.

No, I'm using deductive reasoning. It's not something the RCC has explicitly told you, so I know you have trouble with it. Luke said they were more noble for what they did. Honestly now.. does it sound like it's a good practice or a bad one?

Its a good practice not to reject without reason those sent by God like St. Paul and for persecuting them without examining those Scripture verses alleged by an Apostle like St. Paul. Obviously if one is quoting scripture one may go to Scripture to examine it for oneself. Isn't that the point of quoting the Authority of Sacred Writing?

You can say lots of things. Whether or not you can back it up with Scripture is something else.

2 Thes. 2:15 and 1 Thes. 2:13

So? It's a reference. According to you, just the reference alone is enough to claim it's part of canon.

When did I ever say this? "the reference ALONE?"

St. Luke didn't praise them for what you claim he praised them for, that is, "for verifying what St. Paul said" as if they would only believe him if it were so in Sacred Writing. Acts 17:11 says that they received what He said with all eagerness. This is mentioned first in the DRB. They received the Word of God via St. Paul with all eagerness.



If you want to say that he praised them then say the whole story. He praised them for their faith in receiving the Word of God through St. Paul unlike their countrymen of Thessalonica who persecuted those who preached the Gospel. And because of their faith they went to check out those verses mentioned by the Apostle. Of course, St. Luke is going to say that they were "more noble" than those who persecuted the Church without grounds. Don't you think?

God bless you.

 

[Godel]

Where does it mention the list of 27 books?

Why would it have to?

How does a mother treat their children if they do not obey? Or how should she treat them?

She doesn't kick them out of the family and say they're anathema or a condemned apostate anytime the child disagrees with something she says. She doesn't torture & kill the child.

How is that convincing?

Believing something because study, reason, and logic support it is far more convincing than believing solely because you were told to.

So why is the letter of Philemon the Word of God to you?

It's in the early canon lists, like the Muratorian and Marcion's; the ancient church never doubted its authenticity; there's nothing historically, linguistically, or theologically against it being an authentic writing of Paul.

You do not consider the truths revealed by God via Divine Tradition which is the Word of God. Who is being unfaithful to the truth?

I don't consider something is the Word of God simply because the RCC says it is.

Hence, according to Christ Himself who SENT Her and built Her.

Christ sent & built the Christian church. It's quite another thing to say He sent & build Roman Catholicism.

The mantra of "Sola Scriptura", the man made tradition which is often used to try and nullify the Word of God in Divine Tradition.

According to what the RCC claims.

I know that the Holy Spirit is the Primary Author.

So, if something is divinely inspired, why would you have a problem with me presenting it as true?

In like manner, ... I can say that it is indeed sad if your belief in the Bible has left you thinking that the Divine Tradition is a "Handing On" that was initiated by men.

Hardly a "like manner". You attempted to criticize belief in Scripture. I'm criticizing believing something that is not in Scripture.

Not the way that you are making it out to look. They did not believe in Sola Scriptura. They embraced with "eagerness" the Word of God delivered by St. Paul. They were faithful.

It was good what they did as compared with those of Thessalonica who did not believe and who without grounds rejected and persecuted the preachers of the Gospel.

Yes, ... but not for what you claim he praised them for. That, I see now is the bottom line. I went to the verse in Acts and saw for myself that what St. Luke praised them for was their faith as opposed to those of Thessalonica.

It wasn't *just* faith. There was action - they *did* something. Did Luke say they were more noble because they believed Paul, and nothing more? No, he did not say that. He said they were more noble because they received *and* examined - it's twofold. You can not simply leave half off and claim to be telling the whole story. That's simply deceitful.

Its a good practice not to reject without reason those sent by God like St. Paul and for persecuting them without examining those Scripture verses alleged by an Apostle like St. Paul.

Yes, and the things from the RCC I reject I do so *with* reason and *with* examining Scripture.

2 Thes. 2:15 and 1 Thes. 2:13

And how do we know what "traditions" are correct? By verifying them with Scripture. How do we know what the apostles taught? By verifying it with Scripture. When some teaching we hear turns out to contradict Scripture, both of them can not be true. Either the Scripture is wrong, or the tradition is wrong. If we find such a tradition, which would you suggest is most likely wrong, Scripture or the "tradition"?

When did I ever say this? "the reference ALONE?"

You claim the supposed references lends credibility to the notion the Apocrypha is Scripture. The pagan philosophers must then be lent the same credibility.

St. Luke didn't praise them for what you claim he praised them for, that is, "for verifying what St. Paul said" as if they would only believe him if it were so in Sacred Writing. Acts 17:11 says that they received what He said with all eagerness. This is mentioned first in the DRB. They received the Word of God via St. Paul with all eagerness.

If you want to say that he praised them then say the whole story.

I have no problem with the "whole story". Rather you seem to be the one leaving half of it out. The part about verifying what was taught - you keep acting as though that part isn't there.

And because of their faith they went to check out those verses mentioned by the Apostle.

More half-truth. Check out "those verses"? Where do you get that? The text does NOT say that. It says they checked what they were taught. There's NO limitation there saying they only checked some supposed verses.

 

[AHJE]

Why would it have to?


She doesn't kick them out of the family and say they're anathema or a condemned apostate anytime the child disagrees with something she says. She doesn't torture & kill the child.

Isn't excommunication Biblical?
Isn't anathema in Galatians?
As for the torture & kill part ... this is probably due to a lack of understanding of the Inquisition and the limited role that the Church worked in it. Were there abuses ... sure there were ... but the Church never taught the faithful to do such things as part of the Teaching of Christ.

Jesus said that scandals would come. But he also promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church that later became called "Roman Catholic".

Believing something because study, reason, and logic support it is far more convincing than believing solely because you were told to.

Yes, ... I do need the Teaching Authority of the Church to know which books belong in the Bible.

What is the point of Jesus giving us such an Authority if it was dispensable or superfluous?

It's in the early canon lists, like the Muratorian and Marcion's; the ancient church never doubted its authenticity; there's nothing historically, linguistically, or theologically against it being an authentic writing of Paul.

Are you not still relying on the witness of others? And how are we all to conclude that EVERYTHING St. Paul wrote ought to be Sacred Writing?

I believe in the New Testament ... I just don't see how anyone can be sure that these books are the Word of God apart from the Catholic Church and the Magisterium.

I don't consider something is the Word of God simply because the RCC says it is.

I invite you to examine if this is from Christ or not.

Christ sent & built the Christian church. It's quite another thing to say He sent & build Roman Catholicism.

Read the Early Church Fathers ... maybe you will discover your answer to any questions regarding this matter.

So, if something is divinely inspired, why would you have a problem with me presenting it as true?

I don't have a problem with Acts 17:11. I just disagree that the Bereans were Sola Scripturists. In 1 Thes. 2:13 it explicitly states that people received St. Paul's words as the Word of God. This is Divine Tradition.

Hardly a "like manner". You attempted to criticize belief in Scripture. I'm criticizing believing something that is not in Scripture.

No ... I didn't ... I was mirroring your attitude toward Divine Authority that is expressed via human beings.

It wasn't *just* faith. There was action - they *did* something. Did Luke say they were more noble because they believed Paul, and nothing more? No, he did not say that. He said they were more noble because they received *and* examined - it's twofold. You can not simply leave half off and claim to be telling the whole story. That's simply deceitful.

I didn't leave it out ... I addressed it in my post.
Besides you have pointed it out many times.

This what they did was in comparison with others in Thessalonica who persecuted the Preachers of the Gospel and who did so without examining what the Holy Apostle alleged in Scripture. Their hatred was baseless, ... without cause. The Bereans acted in the opposite manner. That is the point.

Yes, and the things from the RCC I reject I do so *with* reason and *with* examining Scripture.


And how do we know what "traditions" are correct? By verifying them with Scripture. How do we know what the apostles taught? By verifying it with Scripture. When some teaching we hear turns out to contradict Scripture, both of them can not be true. Either the Scripture is wrong, or the tradition is wrong. If we find such a tradition, which would you suggest is most likely wrong, Scripture or the "tradition"?

I am confident that there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING officially taught by the Church that contradicts Sacred Writing ... nothing.

You claim the supposed references lends credibility to the notion the Apocrypha is Scripture. The pagan philosophers must then be lent the same credibility.

Once you see how many cross references there are ... you may think otherwise.

More half-truth. Check out "those verses"? Where do you get that? The text does NOT say that. It says they checked what they were taught. There's NO limitation there saying they only checked some supposed verses.

I am not giving you half-truths ... I am saying what their motivation was which was to see for themselves what God has led St. Paul to see. By "those verses" = those prophecies or things which show that Jesus is Messiah or the Suffering Messiah.

See Acts 17:1-3. Maybe he was showing them Isaiah 53?

God bless you.

 

[SummaScriptura]

I've always felt the Catholic v. Protestant / Protestant v. Catholic dance is most boring especially on this subject. The Orthodox have the skinny on those books. Ask them.

Unsubbing.

 

[AHJE]

Cross-references between the Deuterocanonicals and the New Testament:

________________________________________________________________
* Matthew 11:25. Jesus' description, "Lord of heaven and earth" is the same as Tobit 7:18 --- Lord of heaven and earth.

* Matthew 12:42. Jesus refers to the wisdom of Solomon, which was recorded and made part of the Deuterocanonical books.

* Matthew 16:18. Jesus' reference to the "power of death" and "gates of Hades" references Wisdom 16:13.

* Matthew 22:25; Mark 12:20; Luke 20:29. The gospel writers refer to the canonicity of Tobit 3:8 and 7:11, regarding the seven brothers.

* Matthew 24:15. The "desolating sacrilege" Jesus refers to is taken from 1 Maccabees 1:54 and 2 Maccabees 8:17.
_______________________________________________________________________
Source: (The Biblical Basis for the Catholic Faith, John Salza, pg. 228)


Praised be God the Holy Spirit, the Primary Author of the Deuterocanonical books!

 

[OzSpen]

Cross-references between the Deuterocanonicals and the New Testament:

________________________________________________________________
* Matthew 11:25. Jesus' description, "Lord of heaven and earth" is the same as Tobit 7:18 --- Lord of heaven and earth.

* Matthew 12:42. Jesus refers to the wisdom of Solomon, which was recorded and made part of the Deuterocanonical books.

* Matthew 16:18. Jesus' reference to the "power of death" and "gates of Hades" references Wisdom 16:13.

* Matthew 22:25; Mark 12:20; Luke 20:29. The gospel writers refer to the canonicity of Tobit 3:8 and 7:11, regarding the seven brothers.

* Matthew 24:15. The "desolating sacrilege" Jesus refers to is taken from 1 Maccabees 1:54 and 2 Maccabees 8:17.
_______________________________________________________________________
Source: (The Biblical Basis for the Catholic Faith, John Salza, pg. 228)


Praised be God the Holy Spirit, the Primary Author of the Deuterocanonical books!

You have really engaged in some fanciful cross-referencing here. Let's take your example of Matt. 12:42 which you want to apply to the Apocryphal book of the Wisdom of Solomon. What does Matt. 12:42 state?

The Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for she came from the ends of the earth to listen to Solomon’s wisdom, and now something greater than Solomon is here (NIV).

The NRSV reads,

The queen of the South will rise up at the judgement with this generation and condemn it, because she came from the ends of the earth to listen to the wisdom of Solomon, and see, something greater than Solomon is here!

What is this talking about?

• The "queen of the South" who will rise up at judgment is not designated,but it probably refers to the queen of Sheba (see 1 Kings 10:1-3) who went 1,000 miles from where she was to hear the wisdom of King Solomon. What does 1 Kings 10:1-3 state?

When the queen of Sheba heard about the fame of Solomon and his relationship to the Lord, she came to test Solomon with hard questions. 2 Arriving at Jerusalem with a very great caravan —with camels carrying spices, large quantities of gold, and precious stones—she came to Solomon and talked with him about all that she had on her mind. 3 Solomon answered all her questions; nothing was too hard for the king to explain to her (NIV).

• "The ends of the earth" is an expression of a very long way as she would have had to meet danger, hardships, time and expense (compared with our day) to get to hear Solomon's wisdom.
• We don't know exactly what she came to hear from King Solomon as that is not stated, but we know this. Here was a Gentile woman/queen who came a long distance (she probably only had uncertain reports about this special king Solomon). But she made a journey of large proportions to hear the wisdom of someone who was a type of Christ - King Solomon. How do we know?
• Jesus tells us in the text that "something greater than Solomon" is here - Jesus Himself.

To make this refer to the Apocryphal book of the Wisdom of Solomon, reaches to the depths of invention - in my understanding of this text. It has nothing whatsoever to do with a deutero-canonical text, but refers to what happened in 1 Kings 10.


Oz

 

[ebia]

Cross-references between the Deuterocanonicals and the New Testament:

...

* Matthew 12:42. Jesus refers to the wisdom of Solomon, which was recorded and made part of the Deuterocanonical books.

Do you seriously think that's talking about the book "Wisdom", written c.100 BC, rather than referring to the story of Solomon told in 1 Kings?

That there are a few possible allusions to the deutero canonical books in the gospels is fine, but some of these are a serious stretch.

Matthew 24:15 is perfectly well explained as a reference to Daniel, though Maccabees is there as another telling of the same story. There are stronger hints at that story telling elsewhere.

The questioners about seven brothers might have had the Tobit story behind the form of the question - there isn't enough info to tell. But the question isn't about canonicity of Tobit but resurrection.

Gates of Hades:
'The metaphor "gates of Hades" is found in the OT and intertestamental writings (where in Hebrew it is the "gates of Sheol" [???????? ???????, s?a?a?re? s?e??o?l]), e.g., in Isa 38:10; Wis 16:13; 3 Macc 5:51; Pss. Sol. 16:2 (in all of which cases the Greek agrees exactly with Matthew's phrase). It is essentially synonymous with "gates of death" (as in Job 38:17; Pss 9:13; 107:18; see too &1QH; 6:24-26), Hades/Sheol being understood to be the realm of the dead. '(WBC 33b)

Presumably you neither deny the canonicity of Isaiah nor accept canonicity of 3 Maccabees, Psalms of Solomon and a Qumran scroll.

 

[AHJE]

You have really engaged in some fanciful cross-referencing here. Let's take your example of Matt. 12:42 which you want to apply to the Apocryphal book of the Wisdom of Solomon. What does Matt. 12:42 state?
The NRSV reads,
What is this talking about?

• The "queen of the South" who will rise up at judgment is not designated,but it probably refers to the queen of Sheba (see 1 Kings 10:1-3) who went 1,000 miles from where she was to hear the wisdom of King Solomon. What does 1 Kings 10:1-3 state?

• "The ends of the earth" is an expression of a very long way as she would have had to meet danger, hardships, time and expense (compared with our day) to get to hear Solomon's wisdom.
• We don't know exactly what she came to hear from King Solomon as that is not stated, but we know this. Here was a Gentile woman/queen who came a long distance (she probably only had uncertain reports about this special king Solomon). But she made a journey of large proportions to hear the wisdom of someone who was a type of Christ - King Solomon. How do we know?
• Jesus tells us in the text that "something greater than Solomon" is here - Jesus Himself.

To make this refer to the Apocryphal book of the Wisdom of Solomon, reaches to the depths of invention - in my understanding of this text. It has nothing whatsoever to do with a deutero-canonical text, but refers to what happened in 1 Kings 10.


Oz

If taken more broadly it is a reference to the Wisdom Literature of the Deuterocanonicals, those which are from the "wisdom of Solomon".


God bless you.

 

[OzSpen]

If taken more broadly it is a reference to the Wisdom Literature of the Deuterocanonicals, those which are from the "wisdom of Solomon".

God bless you.

That's a red herring of a reply. It does not address the issues I raised. Your assertion like this proves zero. You have provided no exposition to show that this applies to the Apocrypha.

However, your denomination supports the use of the Apocrypha, so I understand why you want defend it when it takes an illogical step for me.

Oz

 

[AHJE]

That's a red herring of a reply. It does not address the issues I raised. Your assertion like this proves zero. You have provided no exposition to show that this applies to the Apocrypha.

However, your denomination supports the use of the Apocrypha, so I understand why you want defend it when it takes an illogical step for me.

Oz

OzSpen, ... I agree with your cross-reference concerning 1 Kings. I have it also in my Bible as a cross-reference. Still, it does not exclude that wisdom of Solomon that made its way into the Deuterocanonical books.

Often there is more than one cross-reference to a given verse of Sacred Writing.


God bless you.

 

[AHJE]

Here are 5 more Cross-references between the Deuterocanonical books and the New Testament:

________________________________________________________________

* Matthew 24:16. Let those "flee to the mountains" is taken from 1 Maccabees 2:28.

* Matthew 27:43. If He is God's Son, let God deliver him from His adversaries follows Wisdom 2:18.

* Mark 4:5, 16-17. Jesus' description of seeds falling on rocky ground and having no root follows Sirach 40:15.

* Mark 9:48. Jesus' description of hell, where "worm does not die and the fire is not quenched," references Judith 16:17.

* Luke 1:42. Elizabeth's declaration of Mary's blessedness follows Uzziah's declaration in Judith 13:18.

___________________________________________________________________________
Source: [The Biblical Basis for the Catholic Faith, John Salza, pgs. 228-229]



Praised be the Holy Spirit, the Primary Author of the Deuterocanonical books!

 

[OzSpen]

Here are 5 more Cross-references between the Deuterocanonical books and the New Testament:

________________________________________________________________

* Matthew 24:16. Let those "flee to the mountains" is taken from 1 Maccabees 2:28.

* Matthew 27:43. If He is God's Son, let God deliver him from His adversaries follows Wisdom 2:18.

* Mark 4:5, 16-17. Jesus' description of seeds falling on rocky ground and having no root follows Sirach 40:15.

* Mark 9:48. Jesus' description of hell, where "worm does not die and the fire is not quenched," references Judith 16:17.

* Luke 1:42. Elizabeth's declaration of Mary's blessedness follows Uzziah's declaration in Judith 13:18.

___________________________________________________________________________
Source: [The Biblical Basis for the Catholic Faith, John Salza, pgs. 228-229]
Praised be the Holy Spirit, the Primary Author of the Deuterocanonical books!

Nice try, but no medals!

Oz