The Apocrypha -- Errors?

[racer]

So why do you reject them?

I don't reject them; I just don't believe them to actually be "Scripture." They were added in after the fact, written hundreds of years after the OT canon was closed. What is referenced by EG from them is Scriptural, because it is previous OT text that is actually being quoted.

other then Luther rejected them and reading them isn't PROTESTing against the Catholic church?

Know what? I know next to nothing about Luther. What's with the "PROTESTing?"

Or do you think this "inspired, what says who, the Catholic church......hmm i guess there not then"

Now that makes absolutely no sense . . . . . . . .

 

[GorrionGris]

They are the test to define pre- Christian Scripture though. The appocrypha were written before the NT, and neither the Jews nor Jesus acknowledged them as Scriptural. In fact Jesus seemed to exclude them in one of His statements. They do not meet the requirements of cannonicity (written by either a prophet or apostle or a direct student thereof), they were not included in the early canons ...

There was no jewish canon before the Christian defined their own. Saducees had only some texts, Pharisees added their own "Psalms of Solomon", the esenes (or however you call the Esenios in English ) had a lot more..., not to forget the Samaritans. At the time Jesus lived there was no canon.

It is precisely the emergence of the Christian faith what promted the jewish to stablish their own canon, leaving all the books written in Greek out... (every NT book, btw)

And how do you know Jesus did not take them as Scriptural?

 

[racer]

There was no jewish canon before the Christian defined their own. Saducees had only some texts, Pharisees added their own "Psalms of Solomon", the esenes (or however you call the Esenios in English ) had a lot more..., not to forget the Samaritans. At the time Jesus lived there was no canon.
It is precisely the emergence of the Christian faith what promted the jewish to stablish their own canon, leaving all the books written in Greek out... (every NT book, btw)

Okay, so before my daughter got married to a Catholic, for graduation, she was given a Catholic Bible. Do you deny that the earliest book of the deuteros was written several hundreds of years after the latest book in what is now the OT?

And how do you know Jesus did not take them as Scriptural?

I don't. I've just seen no evidence that He did consider them to be Scriptural. Therefore, I don't believe them to be Scriptural.

 

[GorrionGris]

So, when we talk about pre-NT, the "Jews" were not authorities on the subject? Then, who pray-tell would have been---The Roman Catholic Church?

It was the Christian Church (before there was any denomination) who defined what was the Canon.

 

[racer]

It was the Christian Church (before there was any denomination) who defined what was the Canon.

Above you just said:

It is precisely the emergence of the Christian faith what promted the jewish to stablish their own canon

So, you really don't think the Jews were authorities on OT Scripture?

 

[BereanTodd]

the book of james has direct reference to Maccabees when in both books it talks about annointing with OIL

Just because both talk about the same topic does not make it a referene. And even if it was, Paul quoted pagan poets, does that make the works of the pagan poets Scripture? No! There are guidelines for what is canonical. Such as it must be written by a prophet, an apostle, or a direct student/companion of one of them ... the apocryphal books do not fit those guidelines.

 

[GorrionGris]

Okay, so before my daughter got married to a Catholic, for graduation, she was given a Catholic Bible. Do you deny that the earliest book of the deuteros was written several hundreds of years after the latest book in what is now the OT?


I don't. I've just seen no evidence that He did consider them to be Scriptural. Therefore, I don't believe them to be Scriptural.

Yes, I deny it. Because they are indeed part of the OT. Sorry but that's like denying that Erza is scriptural because it was written several centuries after Genesis.

Well maybe you should read Sirach 51, to understand how Jesus refer to it.

 

[BereanTodd]

There was no jewish canon before the Christian defined their own. Saducees had only some texts, Pharisees added their own "Psalms of Solomon", the esenes (or however you call the Esenios in English ) had a lot more..., not to forget the Samaritans. At the time Jesus lived there was no canon.

You are wrong, in the first century there was a clearly established order of what books Jews considered and Jesus even made inferances to them here in Matthew 23:34"Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city, 35 so that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.
36"Truly I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation

Chronologically the blood of Zechariah would not have been the last blood that the Jews 'spilled' like Jesus was talking about. However, if you look at the order of the Jewish canon, then the first blood spilled in the OT was Abel's and the last in the Jewish order of the books was Zechariah. Yes, it is inductive and not explicit reasoning, but Jesus clearly seems to be pointing them to their OT Scriptures.

The intertestimental writtings were cherrished by the Jews, but we have rabinical writtings from the time, and they were simply not seen as being on par with Scripture.

 

[Montanaman]

Just because both talk about the same topic does not make it a referene. And even if it was, Paul quoted pagan poets, does that make the works of the pagan poets Scripture? No! There are guidelines for what is canonical. Such as it must be written by a prophet, an apostle, or a direct student/companion of one of them ... the apocryphal books do not fit those guidelines.

#1, you just revealed a stunning double-standard in Protestant attempts to establish the canon by scripture alone. Yes, Paul did indeed reference pagan works. Since citation is one of the guidelines you're talking about, why DOESN'T it mean these pagan works are inspired?

#2, who determines the guidelines? I have NEVER seen a Protestant deal with that adequately. It's the simplest thing in the world to produce the outcome you want--just keep moving the goal posts!

 

[GorrionGris]

Above you just said:



So, you really don't think the Jews were authorities on OT Scripture?

Yes, because it is not their canon but ours. Do you know many of the priests at the temple rejected most books of the OT?

From wikipedia.org

It is claimed that the Sadducees denied the immortality of the soul, and are discussed in this light in the Christian New Testament debating the matter with Jesus (Luke 20:27-40), and that they denied the existence of spirits or angels (Acts 23:6-10).
They rejected the rabbis' interpretation of the Torah, and are presented as having denied that any of the Hebrew Bible, apart from the Torah, was authoritative. As to the Torah itself, the Sadducees are presented as interpreting it literally and rigorously on subjects it directly covers, while rejecting the Rabbinic traditions that mitigate the harsher penalties or aim at preventing unintentional rule-breaking.

 

[racer]

Yes, I deny it. Because they are indeed part of the OT. Sorry but that's like denying that Erza is scriptural because it was written several centuries after Genesis.

Your answer does not address my question. I did not ask you to deny they were OT. But, in a "circular" way you did answer it. This is all I asked:

Do you deny that the earliest book of the deuteros was written several hundreds of years after the latest book in what is now the OT?

Well maybe you should read Sirach 51, to understand how Jesus refer to it.

What makes you think I haven't?

 

[racer]

Yes, because it is not their canon but ours. Do you know many of the priests at the temple rejected most books of the OT?

From wikipedia.org

It is claimed that the Sadducees denied the immortality of the soul, and are discussed in this light in the Christian New Testament debating the matter with Jesus (Luke 20:27-40), and that they denied the existence of spirits or angels (Acts 23:6-10).
They rejected the rabbis' interpretation of the Torah, and are presented as having denied that any of the Hebrew Bible, apart from the Torah, was authoritative. As to the Torah itself, the Sadducees are presented as interpreting it literally and rigorously on subjects it directly covers, while rejecting the Rabbinic traditions that mitigate the harsher penalties or aim at preventing unintentional rule-breaking.

Wikipedia is not the most credible source one can resort to.

 

[Montanaman]

You are wrong, in the first century there was a clearly established order of what books Jews considered and Jesus even made inferances to them here in Matthew 23:34"Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city, 35 so that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.
36"Truly I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation

Chronologically the blood of Zechariah would not have been the last blood that the Jews 'spilled' like Jesus was talking about. However, if you look at the order of the Jewish canon, then the first blood spilled in the OT was Abel's and the last in the Jewish order of the books was Zechariah. Yes, it is inductive and not explicit reasoning, but Jesus clearly seems to be pointing them to their OT Scriptures.

The intertestimental writtings were cherrished by the Jews, but we have rabinical writtings from the time, and they were simply not seen as being on par with Scripture.

Nonetheless, it was only after Christ that some Jewish authorities attempted to close the canon--not before. There was nothing like an official, established, one single canon before then.

Even though it's been said a thousand times here and elsewhere, it still bears repeating: Christians are not bound by the determination of a Jewish council that not only tried to distinguish themselves from Christianity by closing the canon, but also denied Christ. Why they would attempt to put themselves under Jewish authority is beyond me.

 

[LifeEternal]

I think it is important to distinquish between the Jews under the Old Covenant and the Jews today, as well as which books of the Bible are in fact God's Word and which books added are not.

 

[GorrionGris]

You are wrong, in the first century there was a clearly established order of what books Jews considered and Jesus even made inferances to them here in Matthew 23:34"Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city, 35 so that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.
36"Truly I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation

Chronologically the blood of Zechariah would not have been the last blood that the Jews 'spilled' like Jesus was talking about. However, if you look at the order of the Jewish canon, then the first blood spilled in the OT was Abel's and the last in the Jewish order of the books was Zechariah. Yes, it is inductive and not explicit reasoning, but Jesus clearly seems to be pointing them to their OT Scriptures.

The intertestimental writtings were cherrished by the Jews, but we have rabinical writtings from the time, and they were simply not seen as being on par with Scripture.

No, it does not hold water.

Could I say that Jesus included as canonical every religious text written from Abel to the return of the babilonian exile?

 

[racer]

Nonetheless, it was only after Christ that some Jewish authorities attempted to close the canon--not before. There was nothing like an official, established, one single canon before then.

Even though it's been said a thousand times here and elsewhere, it still bears repeating: Christians are not bound by the determination of a Jewish council that not only tried to distinguish themselves from Christianity by closing the canon, but also denied Christ. Why they would attempt to put themselves under Jewish authority is beyond me.

Well, for one thing, it should show that we don't "reject authority simply because we disagree with what that aurhority says." We don't put ourselves "under any such authority," by simply recognizing their authority--ie: their expertise in certain areas.

However, I find your argument to be a little astonishing, makes me think that the "pot has been calling the kettle black for way too long . . . . . "

 

[GorrionGris]

Your answer does not address my question. I did not ask you to deny they were OT. But, in a "circular" way you did answer it. This is all I asked:

Do you deny that the earliest book of the deuteros was written several hundreds of years after the latest book in what is now the OT?



What makes you think I haven't?

No, I did not.

Do you deny that Ezrah was written several centuries after the Torah? Is that a criteria to exclude it from Scripture?

 

[Montanaman]

Well, for one thing, it should show that we don't "reject authority simply because we disagree with what that aurhority says." We don't put ourselves "under any such authority," by simply recognizing their authority--ie: their expertise in certain areas.

However, I find your argument to be a little astonishing, makes me think that the "pot has been calling the kettle black for way too long . . . . . "

I have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[GorrionGris]

Wikipedia is not the most credible source one can resort to.

Well research about the saducees yourself.

 

[Ruzz]

The Jews are no authority at all to define Christian Scripture.

Just a common sense note.

True, I wouldn't expect a Jew to explain the Trinity or any NT scripture.

However, I would expect a Jew to be able to tell me if something written by his grandfather was authentic.

What is in discussion here are books written by Jews. If we rewind time backwards before Christ was born, we can find authorities on OT and learn what they thought of their scripture. Or we can say that once the Apostles came into the picture, all bets were off and all existing scripture was up for re-interpretation.