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

[ebia]

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!

 

[Albion]

It would be a lot more meaningful if any Catholic ever ventured to point to a list of DOCTRINES that are important to Catholics and which depend upon anything found in any of the Apocryphal books.

 

[SummaScriptura]

I think the list you are producing is important. These are indeed "cross-references" on a par with many Bible cross-refercing systems. Are you familiar with the New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge. It really is a treat. It attempts to do this cross-referencing thing on steroids, ie exhaustively.

One thing that is helpful in their system is a table of symbols which are used to classify the kinds of cross-references which are being tracked. It might be helpful to do this with these cross-references.

For instance, here are some of the parallels you are tracking:

1. Quotations of one passage in another.
2. Allusions to one passage by another
3. Parallel language used between two passages

etc.

What do you think, sirs?

 

[AHJE]

Nice try, but no medals!

Oz

Well, ... its a good thing that you are not one of the judges ... the Magisterium of the Church is.

The Holy Spirit says it is better than silver and gold. It is the imperishable word of God. (see 1 St. Peter 1:23, 18)

ALLELUIA!

 

[OzSpen]

Well, ... its a good thing that you are not one of the judges ... the Magisterium of the Church is.

The Holy Spirit says it is better than silver and gold. It is the imperishable word of God. (see 1 St. Peter 1:23, 18)

ALLELUIA!

When I meet my Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, for assessment of my life, I'm pleased it won't be the Magisterium of the Church that judges me.

However, you are correct and I endorse your view that

knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold (1 Peter 1:18 ESV).

I praise the Lord that his Word, Scripture, has revealed this to us and not the opinion of any human being.

Oz

 

[ebia]

Well, ... its a good thing that you are not one of the judges ... the Magisterium of the Church is.

The Holy Spirit says it is better than silver and gold. It is the imperishable word of God. (see 1 St. Peter 1:23, 18)

ALLELUIA!

The "Magisterum of the church" has formally defined these "cross-references"?

Not that it matters one iota if it did for the purposes of this thread. You set out to prove the deuterocanon through cross-references. To drop back to an appeal to the RCC Magisterum is to concede that you can't do what you set out to do.

 

[Radagast]

A few vaguely related (but actually different) words don't constitute a cross-reference!

Matthew 27:43. πέποιθεν ἐπὶ τὸν θεόν, ῥυσάσθω νῦν εἰ θέλει αὐτόν· εἶπεν γὰρ ὅτι θεοῦ εἰμι υἱός. -- He trusts in God; let God deliver him now, if he desires him. For he said, ‘I am the Son of God.’”

Wisdom 2:18: εἰ γάρ ἐστιν ὁ δίκαιος υἱὸς θεοῦ ἀντιλήμψεται αὐτοῦ καὶ ῥύσεται αὐτὸν ἐκ χειρὸς ἀνθεστηκότων. -- For if he be the true son of God, he will defend him, and will deliver him from the hands of his enemies.

 

[Albion]

But can someone answer the question that actually matters--

What essential doctrines do we (or should we) accept BECAUSE they are revealed to us only in the Apocrypha?

By definition, "Revelation" reveals something. If it is argued that the Apocryphal books are part of God's revelation, i. e. Scripture, WHAT IS IT that is revealed there and is not available elsewhere in the Bible?

 

[AHJE]

The "Magisterum of the church" has formally defined these "cross-references"?

Not that it matters one iota if it did for the purposes of this thread. You set out to prove the deuterocanon through cross-references. To drop back to an appeal to the RCC Magisterum is to concede that you can't do what you set out to do.

If you really think this, ebia, then I don't think that you are comprehending the OP. Please read it again.

 

[AHJE]

But can someone answer the question that actually matters--

What essential doctrines do we (or should we) accept BECAUSE they are revealed to us only in the Apocrypha?

By definition, "Revelation" reveals something. If it is argued that the Apocryphal books are part of God's revelation, i. e. Scripture, WHAT IS IT that is revealed there and is not available elsewhere in the Bible?

Can you answer your own question with respect to the Book of Philemon in the New Testament?

Of course something is being revealed ... the contents of the Book itself. Are you creating this criteria? Because if so how does it apply to the Book of Philemon?

God bless you.

 

[Albion]

Can you answer your own question with respect to the Book of Philemon in the New Testament?

Of course something is being revealed ... the contents of the Book itself. Are you creating this criteria? Because if so how does it apply to the Book of Philemon?

God bless you.

Is that your way of saying that you don't know of any doctrine? Go ahead and name one that is from the Apocrypha and not indicated elsewhere in scripture.


Catholics argue long and arrogantly about these books being in the Bible. So...what do they give us that would be lost if they were not included?

If they don't reveal anything that we must have, they obviously are not revelation.

 

[SummaScriptura]

A few vaguely related (but actually different) words don't constitute a cross-reference!<snip>

How about a few more?

The Diatribe of the Pharisees Against Christ as

Foretold in Wisdom, Chapter 2
(Includes Hyper-Links to New Testament Fulfillments)​

12"Let us lie in wait for the righteous man, because he is inconvenient to us and opposes our actions; he reproaches us for sins against the law, and accuses us of sins against our training. 13He professes to have knowledge of God, and calls himself a child of the LORD.

14"He became to us a reproof of our thoughts; 15the very sight of him is a burden to us, because his manner of life is unlike that of others, and his ways are strange. 16We are considered by him as something base, and he avoids our ways as unclean; he calls the last end of the righteous happy, and boasts that God is his father.

17"Let us see if his words are true, and let us test what will happen at the end of his life; 18for if the righteous man is God's son, he will help him, and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries.

19"Let us test him with insult and torture, that we may find out how gentle he is, and make trial of his forbearance. 20Let us condemn him to a shameful death, for, according to what he says, he will be protected."

21Thus they reasoned, but they were led astray, for their wickedness blinded them, 22and they did not know the secret purposes of God. (ESV, 2009)

 

[SummaScriptura]

But can someone answer the question that actually matters--

What essential doctrines do we (or should we) accept BECAUSE they are revealed to us only in the Apocrypha?

By definition, "Revelation" reveals something. If it is argued that the Apocryphal books are part of God's revelation, i. e. Scripture, WHAT IS IT that is revealed there and is not available elsewhere in the Bible?

Your question is in error. I will ask you, is the moon made of bleu cheese or limburger? No answer, huh?

The diputed books of the Old Testament do not reveal any doctrines, per se. In fact, most O.T. books do not reveal any doctrines as you ask.

These books do however reveal a lot of other things in the same areas as the books of the Old Testament which reveal without revealing doctrines.

 

[SummaScriptura]

Is that your way of saying that you don't know of any doctrine? Go ahead and name one that is from the Apocrypha and not indicated elsewhere in scripture.


Catholics argue long and arrogantly about these books being in the Bible. So...what do they give us that would be lost if they were not included?

If they don't reveal anything that we must have, they obviously are not revelation.

You wish to toss out the Book of Job, then? How about Song of Solomon? What in your opinion is revealed in Song of Solomon that would be lost if it were not included?

 

[Albion]

You wish to toss out the Book of Job, then? How about Song of Solomon? What in your opinion is revealed in Song of Solomon that would be lost if it were not included?

Those books are part of the Old Testament, and are not disputed. They are not part of the Apocrypha.

 

[ebia]

If you really think this, ebia, then I don't think that you are comprehending the OP. Please read it again.

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

I note that you ignored the other part of my post.

 

[AHJE]

I note that you ignored the other part of my post.

Exactly ... proving that there are connections between the Deuterocanonical books and the New Testament.

What the Magisterium (the Teaching Authority given by Christ) of the Church has defined is that these books are Canonical
even as the SAME Magisterium has defined that the 27 books of the New Testament are Canonical.


God bless you.

 

[ebia]

Exactly ... proving that there are connections between the Deuterocanonical books and the New Testament.

What the Magisterium (the Teaching Authority given by Christ) of the Church has defined is that these books are Canonical
even as the SAME Magisterium has defined that the 27 books of the New Testament are Canonical.

God bless you.

So whether these are significant references is something we are judging for ourselves.

 

[SummaScriptura]

Is that your way of saying that you don't know of any doctrine? Go ahead and name one that is from the Apocrypha and not indicated elsewhere in scripture.
Catholics argue long and arrogantly about these books being in the Bible. So...what do they give us that would be lost if they were not included?
If they don't reveal anything that we must have, they obviously are not revelation.

You wish to toss out the Book of Job, then? How about Song of Solomon? What in your opinion is revealed in Song of Solomon that would be lost if it were not included?

Those books are part of the Old Testament, and are not disputed. They are not part of the Apocrypha.

Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle...

You set the criterion when you said "if [the books of the Apocrypha] don't reveal anything that we must have, they obviously are not revelation."

You did not say, "if [the books of the Apocrypha] don't reveal anything that we must have, they obviously are not revelation, since they are disputed by people I respect and not disputed by people I don't respect."

The burden is now on you to be consistant. Please demonstrate for Song of Solomon, the doctrine it gives us that would be lost if it were not included.

Now you will have to redo your criteria on who gets to "dispute" a book's inclusion, since I am here and now disputing the inclusion of the Song of Solomon. It contains no doctrine which we would be without if it were deleted.

Admit it, what happened was you launched your CF salvo, railing against those "arrogant Catholics", not realizing in the doing you were opening a fissure in your logic through which a 18-wheeler could drive.

 

[Radagast]

How about a few more?

Those do not appear to be quotations either.