Deuterocanon / Apocrypha

moonbeam said:

.


Just a quick question abacabb3… Are you satisfied, personally, that the Spirit is testifying to your spirit, that He is not the author of these books?

.

Click to expand...

I am. So, when the historical and logical evidence adds to this, I see it as a valid testimony. However, I cannot communicate the personal testimony to non-Christians, so I have to speak of the corroborating evidence.

moonbeam said:

The Roman church points to a passage in 2 Maccabees to validate the doctrine of Purgatory and justify heretical prayers to and for the dead...

Click to expand...

I cannot remember on the top of my head, but the passage does not approve of the occurrence, it merely records it. Further, idolatry is a mortal sin to the RCC, so praying for those who died of a mortal sin is sinful in RCC theology. 2 Maccabbees would actually debunk RCC doctrine if we read the passage as an approval of the practice.

"Water will quench a flaming fire, and alms maketh atonement for sin." (Ecclesiasticus 3:30, Ronald Knox translation)

Click to expand...

The Scripture also teaches that forgiveness and love cover a multitude of sins. These actions, apart from faith, cannot forgive sins, as faith alone justifies a man.

"And I was a witty child and had received a good soul. And whereas I was more good, I came to a body undefiled." (Wisdom 8:19,20, Douay-Rheims Bible)

Click to expand...

Don't remember this verse, but it is a stretch to apply it to Mary.

"If the Devil, or an evil spirit troubles anyone, they can be driven away by making a smoke of the heart, liver, and gall of a fish...and the Devil will smell it, and flee away, and never come again anymore." (Tobit 6:5-8. Ronald Knox translation)[/I]

Click to expand...

I also remember this, but Jesus spit on mud and put it on the blind man's eyes to cure him. Elisha (or Elijah?) raised the dead by warming a body. So physical means can be used to accomplish supernatural tasks.

While none of these excuses might be correct, if they are plausible, they can be used in defense of the Deuterocanon.

I think the real clincher is the end of 2 Maccabees:

If it is well composed and to the point, that is just what I wanted. If it is worthless and mediocre, that is all I could manage.

Just as it is injurious to drink wine by itself, or again water alone, whereas wine mixed with water is pleasant and produces a delightful sense of well-being, so skill in presenting the incidents is what delights the understanding of those who read the book. And her i close.

Click to expand...

That just doesn't "sound" like God...though I am sure RCC would say that Paul ended his letters with passing comments so inspired writings could have such...but that's still just an abysmal ending to a book.

I do like the following from Baruch, that Augustine was fond on quoting

For I know that they will not obey me, for they are a stiff-necked people. But in the land of their exile they will come to themselves and know that I am the Lord their God. I will give them a heart that obeys and ears that hear…and turn from their stubbornness and wicked deeds (Baruch 2:30-31, 33).

For you have put the fear of you in our hearts so that we would call upon your name; and we will praise you in our exile, for we have put away from our hearts all the iniquity of our ancestors who sinned against you (Baruch 3:7).

[P]ut on forever the beauty of the glory from God. Put on the robe of righteousness that comes from God; put on your head the diadem of the glory of the Everlasting…For God will give you evermore the name, ‘Righteous Peace, Godly, Glory’ (Baruch 5:1, 2, 4).

For God will lead Israel with joy, in the light of his glory, with the mercy and righteousness that come from him (Baruch 5:9).

Awesome, I will definitely give a listen (I have laundry to fold tonight.)

Here's a story that shows how in-house we may treat some matters.

About 3 years ago (a little less) I started seriously thinking about why I accept the Scripture as Scripture. I always knew that God simply called me to it with power, but I was curious if I was a rare exception or something. So I went into reading the Early Church Fathers with renewed vigor (previously, I simply read Augustine if I remember right). So I read on Eusebius, the development of the Canon (or more accurately, how the Bible slowly became recognized in its fullness), the Apostolic Fathers being careful to notice which books they quoted as Scripture, and etcetera.

I talked about this with a Deacon (now Elder) or the local PCA church. A lot of the finer technical details (that I would like to flesh out here) entered the conversation, but in the end we both agreed. The Scripture simply "sounds" like Scripture. We just intuitively knew it.

Another obvious verse which would make no sense if 2 Maccabees and such were Scripture:

"...on you [Pharisees] may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar" (Matt 23:35).

Obviously Abel was the first martyr in the Bible. Though the OT does not record any details of his death, Zechariah, son of Berechiah (Zech 1:1) was one of the last prophets, and perhaps, the last martyr of the OT period. When a Catholic exegetes this passage, he is forced to say that Jesus purposely left out other martyrs from a later period from being made the responsibility of the Pharisees, and therefore Christ simply was being arbitrary instead of purposeful with his designation.

I suppose Christ may have been just referring to Hebrews killing Hebrews, however (arguing that because Cain was a son of Adam, in effect he was a predecessor of the Pharisees.)