The Apocrypha -- Errors?

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Hannukah is found in Maccabees. Why do they celebrate a festival found in a book that they rejected?

1. I celebrate Thanksgiving and it's not found in any Canonical book.


2. You'd probably need to ask a Jew, not a Protestant.


3. The event celebrated at Hannukah is historical. A book also celebrating it is not regarded as divinely-inspired. You do know there are MANY books that talk about Christmas but aren't divinely-inspired, that doesn't mean that if we celebrate Christmas we must regard every book that mentions it as Canonical, IMHO.


Back to the topic?


Pax!


- Josiah

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Quite the contrary, theProtestants continued to include the Duterocanonical books well into the 1800's. It was only then that they actually changed the bible to remove them. I have seen a King James bible from 1880 with them. Prior to that they had not actually deleted them from the Bible but only rearranged the Bible.

Not all Protestants reject the variously regarded DC books, they just commonly don't embrace them. Yes, it was common for Protestants to include some of them - usually in a separate section between the testaments. They are often regarded by Protestants as "profitable for reading but not the Word of God." I agree that it's rare to find any of them in most Bibles today - even as a separate appendix, but this is not because they are regarded differently but I suspect because, just as in Catholicism, they simply are rarely used. That paper in the tome might better be used for maps, a concordance, etc. which are now typically included.

 

[ArcticFox]

Quite the contrary, theProtestants continued to include the Duterocanonical books well into the 1800's. It was only then that they actually changed the bible to remove them. I have seen a King James bible from 1880 with them. Prior to that they had not actually deleted them from the Bible but only rearranged the Bible.

Yes, thank you for the information Ignatius, but I am well aware of that. You'll have to re-read my statement, which says that Protestants oppose the inclusion of the Apocrypha in the canon of Scripture. As Josiah mentioned, most Bibles now contain prefaces, maps, accordances, tables of contents, topical indexes, etc., yet none of these are considered canonical.

In like manner, the inclusion of the Apocrypha in the physical pages of the printed Bibles did not indicate inclusion in the canon; quite the contrary, Protestants made their views quite clear -- the Apocrypha were helpful for understanding some of the historical background and general settings, but they are not inspired.

I'm sure you know this, however. Really, I'm not being facitious.

 

[lilymarie]

Hannukah is found in Maccabees. Why do they celebrate a festival found in a book that they rejected?

Peaqce

Okay, first of all you have to understand there are hundreds of early writings -- over 300 I think it is.

Okay, so let me ask you a question -- if every written account found said Jesus attended the Hannukah or The Feast of the Tabernacles or the Passover, does that suddenly make that a "bible" book?

 

[ArcticFox]

A quick word of caution on the relationship between the Scriptures we all agree on and the DC (Apocrypha).

Merely pointing out similarities is not sufficient. The Apocryphal verses may very well be similar because the writers were familiar with the Old Testament Scriptures. That would get the order of what influenced what backwards.

Also, showing areas where there are similarities with the NT may not be sufficient either. If I find these similarities in other writings, such as those of the Quran or those of the Vedas, would we be willing to include them too? They can be helpful, but they are not the 'smoking gun' of this debate.

I think Josiah made a powerful point. The so-called majority is simply not so. We have rejected early writings, such as the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Mary, as well as various other Gnostic writings. It is a very selective view of history that provides evidence for the Apocrypha (as well as for the Scriptures we agree on).

Like it or not, we have to admit that we're cherry-picking. It's like a child that is eating around the parts she doesn't like, and then later claims that she 'ate all her veggies.' It just doesn't work that way.

 

[TwinCrier]

Hannukah is found in Maccabees. Why do they celebrate a festival found in a book that they rejected?

Peaqce

So your reasoning is, that because a book mentions one actual event it's the gospel truth? I don't understand the logic. Most fiction novels mention actual events.

 

[lionroar0]

So your reasoning is, that because a book mentions one actual event it's the gospel truth? I don't understand the logic. Most fiction novels mention actual events.

What is the "Gospel Truth"?

What is the measure of the "Gospel Truth"?

Who, why and how determines "Gospel Truth."

Peace

 

[lionroar0]

Okay, first of all you have to understand there are hundreds of early writings -- over 300 I think it is.

Okay, so let me ask you a question -- if every written account found said Jesus attended the Hannukah or The Feast of the Tabernacles or the Passover, does that suddenly make that a "bible" book?

The Bible was compiled by the Church with the DC.
It's not a matter of debating the Inspisration of the DC as they are inspired text. This is a fact.

The matter is why do some protestants reject these inspired text that the Church through different councils and consensus said that they were Inspired.

So far the only reason is because one man sais they were not inspired because they clashed with his theology.

Not much of a leg to stand on.

Peace

 

[lionroar0]

1. I celebrate Thanksgiving and it's not found in any Canonical book.


2. You'd probably need to ask a Jew, not a Protestant.


3. The event celebrated at Hannukah is historical. A book also celebrating it is not regarded as divinely-inspired. You do know there are MANY books that talk about Christmas but aren't divinely-inspired, that doesn't mean that if we celebrate Christmas we must regard every book that mentions it as Canonical, IMHO.


Back to the topic?

Maccabees is divinely inspired. This is a historical fact.

Why do protestants reject the inspiration of these books?

So far it has been shown, because it clashed with one mans' theology.

To borrow a page from your book.

It seems to me that protestants reject these Inspired books, because one man said that he is correct because he is correct. Versus the consensus of many councils (which you yourself have referd me and others too.)



I find it a bit ironic on your part that first you argue for consensus against the CC and now you are arguing against consensus and also against the CC.



Peace

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

You posted a quote from me, but I'm not sure what your response has to do with what you quoted. But then I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, LOL

Maccabees is divinely inspired. This is a historical fact.

"Historical FACT?"

I find it a bit ironic on your part that first you argue for consensus against the CC and now you are arguing against consensus and also against the CC.

There is no ecumenical consensus around these DC books - there isn't even an agreement on which books are the DC books.
The very fact that we're having this discussion (AGAIN) and we aren't talking about the 27 NT books or 39 OT books says something to that issue.


Thank you for the discussion.


Pax!


- Josiah



.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

[


Jesus alluding to the Deuteros.


Matt. 6:19-20 - Jesus' statement about laying up for yourselves treasure in heaven follows Sirach 29:11 - lay up your treasure.
Matt.. 7:12 - Jesus' golden rule "do unto others" is the converse of Tobit 4:15 - what you hate, do not do to others.
Matt. 7:16,20 - Jesus' statement "you will know them by their fruits" follows Sirach 27:6 - the fruit discloses the cultivation. Matt. 9:36 - the people were "like sheep without a shepherd" is same as Judith 11:19 - sheep without a shepherd.

Matt. 11:25 - Jesus' description "Lord of heaven and earth" is the same as Tobit 7:18 - Lord of heaven and earth.
Matt. 12:42 - Jesus refers to the wisdom of Solomon which was recorded and made part of the deuterocanonical books. Matt. 16:18 - Jesus' reference to the "power of death" and "gates of Hades" references Wisdom 16:13.

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


Luke 13:29 - the Lord's description of men coming from east and west to rejoice in God follows Baruch 4:37. Luke 21:24 - Jesus' usage of "fall by the edge of the sword" follows Sirach 28:18.

John 6:35-59 - Jesus' Eucharistic discourse is foreshadowed in Sirach 24:21.
John 10:22 - the identification of the feast of the dedication is taken from 1 Macc. 4:59. John 10:36 – Jesus accepts the inspiration of Maccabees as He analogizes the Hanukkah consecration to His own consecration to the Father in 1 Macc. 4:36.

Thank you.



1. Your definition of alluding seems to be CONSIDERABLY more broad than my own.


2. Did you know that much of the NT is actually quoted in the Book of Mormon. So, using your standard for acceptance into the Canon, the BofM would be a sure bet for your acceptance. Not for me.


Thank you.



Pax!


- Josiah



.

 

[a_ntv]

2. Did you know that much of the NT is actually quoted in the Book of Mormon. So, using your standard for acceptance into the Canon, the BofM would be a sure bet for your acceptance. Not for me.

That is NOT a reason to decide if these books are in the canon or not.

The fact is that this decision is NOT an decision of us.
A_ntv understanding, CJ understanding, BXVI understanding or Mr Luther understanding, are completly not influential on the fact that the Holy Spirit had inspired (or not) such a books more that 2000 years ago.
Our present understandings/feelings cannot change a fact happened 2000 years ago.

We shall be humile, leave away our scolar understanding, and look for the Other, for the Holy Spirit that leads His Church...and the Holy Spirit has clearly built a correct Tradition in lots of centuries, and this Tradition, already fixed before Mr Luther was born, is very clear about.

 

[Trento]

Thank you.



1. Your definition of alluding seems to be CONSIDERABLY more broad than my own.


2. Did you know that much of the NT is actually quoted in the Book of Mormon. So, using your standard for acceptance into the Canon, the BofM would be a sure bet for your acceptance. Not for me.


Thank you.



Pax!


- Josiah



.

"How could a mouse evolve into an elephant?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

That is NOT a reason to decide if these books are in the canon or not.

My point. Glad we agree.

See post #111.

 

[GorrionGris]

Thank you.



1. Your definition of alluding seems to be CONSIDERABLY more broad than my own.


2. Did you know that much of the NT is actually quoted in the Book of Mormon. So, using your standard for acceptance into the Canon, the BofM would be a sure bet for your acceptance. Not for me.


Thank you.



Pax!


- Josiah



.

... actually it would be a way to say that mormons accept the NT as canonical, because the deuterocanonical are older than the NT books.

 

[Assisi]

... actually it would be a way to say that mormons accept the NT as canonical, because the deuterocanonical are older than the NT books.

Exactly. Your point is kind of backwards Josiah.

 

[lilymarie]

No, this is a silly debate because you're debating what you believe rather the supposed scriptures themselves, which I posted. And therefore it's not even really a debate, it's "statements" period.

I have several links for serious viewers, not for silly blanket statement posts of no consequence nor merit. Don't just blow hot air, debate the apocrypha scriptures.....

I'll post some again.......................

Anyhow, I'd further like to say, this is getting pretty silly altogether, with all these threads of pety statements.

How about we hold a real debate on each book after the New Year?

I have someone to help who is sick right now, and so am I. He is ill, and now I am also and need some rest... but please talk about the sayings themselves, stop throwing mud statements. sheeeeeeeeeh. Maturity anyone? I would like to recommend a mature debate on this topic 'after' the New Year.

I mean if people don't understand the saying you reap what you sow, well then you have no idea how broken my heart feels towards catholics. I do hope it will mend.

Good day.

I will pray for the maturity of this board and forum. And prayers for that lacking so called Christian charity to return to this forum as well. Praying for better days in Jesus' name. Amen

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

Thank you.



1. Your definition of alluding seems to be CONSIDERABLY more broad than my own.


2. Did you know that much of the NT is actually quoted in the Book of Mormon. So, using your standard for acceptance into the Canon, the BofM would be a sure bet for your acceptance. Not for me.


Thank you.



Pax!


- Josiah



.

Correction: there would be an analogy in your second point if the book of Mormon was oft, or even ever quoted in the NT.
IOW, you have this completely backwards.

Just another red herring on your part CJ, with the oft-mentioned Mormons


James

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

A quick word of caution on the relationship between the Scriptures we all agree on and the DC (Apocrypha).

Merely pointing out similarities is not sufficient. The Apocryphal verses may very well be similar because the writers were familiar with the Old Testament Scriptures. That would get the order of what influenced what backwards.

Also, showing areas where there are similarities with the NT may not be sufficient either. If I find these similarities in other writings, such as those of the Quran or those of the Vedas, would we be willing to include them too? They can be helpful, but they are not the 'smoking gun' of this debate.

I think Josiah made a powerful point. The so-called majority is simply not so. We have rejected early writings, such as the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Mary, as well as various other Gnostic writings. It is a very selective view of history that provides evidence for the Apocrypha (as well as for the Scriptures we agree on).

Like it or not, we have to admit that we're cherry-picking. It's like a child that is eating around the parts she doesn't like, and then later claims that she 'ate all her veggies.' It just doesn't work that way.

There was no 'we' in the rejection of the gnostic gospels- Protestants had no part of that, for such decisions predate Protestantism by roughly 1000 years. The people who rejected those books are the same ones who accepted the Septuagint, which contains the books referred to in the West alternately as 'deuterocanonical' and 'apocryphal.' We in the East just refer to them as 'scripture.'
From where I stand, the Protestant opinion of canon is no more compelling nor binding than the JW or Mormon view of canon. Nor is the rationale any more persuasive, imo.
Regards
James

 

[ArcticFox]

There was no 'we' in the rejection of the gnostic gospels- Protestants had no part of that, for such decisions predate Protestantism by roughly 1000 years. The people who rejected those books are the same ones who accepted the Septuagint, which contains the books referred to in the West alternately as 'deuterocanonical' and 'apocryphal.' We in the East just refer to them as 'scripture.'
From where I stand, the Protestant opinion of canon is no more compelling nor binding than the JW or Mormon view of canon. Nor is the rationale any more persuasive, imo.
Regards
James

There was no 'we' in the rejection of the gnostic gospels- Protestants had no part of that, for such decisions predate Protestantism by roughly 1000 years.

And it predates your EOC church as well, despite your claims to the contrary. The 'we' is in reference to the church of Christ, which has been present since his time here on earth. This generic use of the word 'we' is entirely right and Biblical, despite one main's claims.

I am connected to the body of Christ through Christ, not through an institutional church organization. The Nicene Creed does not require an organized institution, so I think it's time that you stop self-righteously claiming a monopoly on truth.

Your particular Christian sect is just one of those that claims to have the monopoly on the truth, to be the 'true church.' There are many, and they include the Mormons, the JWs, the RCC, and the like. So, James, I can see no difference in your claims to your church's authority than I do with the Mormons and the JWs.

I hope I got my point across. I hope you saw that my post could have been more respectful, and that lumping your church and you in with JWs and Mormons isn't a fair practice.

I was being facitious earlier when I said that; I'm quite afraid you were not, however. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.