The Apocrypha

[NPH]

I see you are Catholic. So you think the Catholics dont teach this? It's in their Bible...the New American Standard! The Apocrypha isnt in my Bible or anyone besides the Catholics! The Cathoics (yes, including your church)are the one's that say the Apocrypha is inspired....thus, they believe its God's word...and thus believe it to be true....

Again, I believe DrTheo addressed this. The deutercanon is not just in Catholic Bibles but also those of Eastern Orthodoxy, some Protestants and others. I believe from the figures DrTheo showed that close to 3/4 of Christianity has these books in their Bibles.

 

[Jig]

You do realize that both Tobit and Sirach are Old Testament books? Of course they don't talk about Jesus atonement since he hadn't even been born when they were written! The people these books were being written to still lived under the old Law.

Yes, I know....but Mosiac Law did not teach atonment for sins....just a covering of sins....scarficing animals was just a sign that one understood that only innocent blood must be shed for forgivness of sins....which almsgiving does not do anyway....the True scarfice was Jesus...now he atoned for sin.

Sirach 31:14
"Toward what he eyes, do not put out a hand; nor reach when he does for the same dish."

Matthew 26:23.
"And he answered and said, He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, the same shall betray me."

Sirach is not foreshadowing or even prophesing Jesus or his life to come. Read on to verse 16
"Behave at table like a favored guest, and be not greedy, lest you be despised. " Its just simply stating table manners.

 

[NPH]

Sirach is not foreshadowing or even prophesing Jesus or his life to come. Read on to verse 16
"Behave at table like a favored guest, and be not greedy, lest you be despised. " Its just simply stating table manners.

Ouch, looks like your post might have gotten butchered a bit.

But to answer that, I didn't claim that it was. That's why I prefaced it as just something i get a kick out of Just one of those ironic twists that Judas ignored table etiquette as laid out in Sirach and is shown as the traitor because of it. The other Apostles apparently knew their OT better than Judas and would not have done such a thing. Just something I happen to like.

Still, you did not appear to address the other quote. Perhaps it was lost if your post did indeed get butchered (mine do often, ugh).

 

[Jig]

Ouch, looks like your post might have gotten butchered a bit.

But to answer that, I didn't claim that it was. That's why I prefaced it as just something i get a kick out of Just one of those ironic twists that Judas ignored table etiquette as laid out in Sirach and is shown as the traitor because of it. The other Apostles apparently knew their OT better than Judas and would not have done such a thing. Just something I happen to like.

Still, you did not appear to address the other quote. Perhaps it was lost if your post did indeed get butchered (mine do often, ugh).

lol...your right...i must have missed what you said about table manners sorry...

but for this quote:
Matthew 6:14
"For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:"


Sirach 28:2
"Forgive your neighbor's injustice; then when you pray, your own sins will be forgiven."

The two seem the same but are different. Matthew states if your willing to forgive others then God will be willing to forgive you. Sirach states...if you forgive others and pray, your sins will be forgiven, because you did a good deed (the act of forgiving)and strive to be holy. Notice how Jesus is saying "your heavenly father will forgive you", where Sirach implys no such intervention. Matthew implies forgivness from God, Sirach implies forgivness by deeds.

 

[NPH]

lol...your right...i must have missed what you said about table manners sorry...

but for this quote:
Matthew 6:14
"For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:"


Sirach 28:2
"Forgive your neighbor's injustice; then when you pray, your own sins will be forgiven."

The two seem the same but are different. Matthew states if your willing to forgive others then God will be willing to forgive you. Sirach states...if you forgive others and pray, your sins will be forgiven, because you did a good deed (the act of forgiving)and strive to be holy. Notice how Jesus is saying "your heavenly father will forgive you", where Sirach implys no such intervention. Matthew implies forgivness from God, Sirach implies forgivness by deeds.

Ah, perhaps I should stretch out both quotes a bit then

Mt 6:14-15

"For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses"

Makes it a bit more clear that even Jesus is saying that the act of us forgiving others is necessary for our own forgiveness.

Sirach 28:1-3

"The vengeful will suffer the Lord's vengeance, for he remembers their sins in detail. Forgive your neighbor's injustice; then when you pray, your own sins will be forgiven. Should a man nourish anger against his fellows and expect healing from the Lord?"

As you can see (and my apologies for not including the other verses at first) Sirach does clearly say that the forgiveness comes from the Lord. I only quoted the original verses to show their similarity in word, with the extra verses it becomes even more clear that they are saying the same thing.

As I stated before though, this is only one of many times you can find quotes or allusions to the deuterocanonicals in the NT. And again, if their quotation or lack of it in the NT is the standard by which we should judge their inclusion in the OT then we must also remove eight more OT books that are not quoted in the NT.

 

[Jig]

Ah, perhaps I should stretch out both quotes a bit then

Mt 6:14-15

"For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses"

Makes it a bit more clear that even Jesus is saying that the act of us forgiving others is necessary for our own forgiveness.

Sirach 28:1-3

"The vengeful will suffer the Lord's vengeance, for he remembers their sins in detail. Forgive your neighbor's injustice; then when you pray, your own sins will be forgiven. Should a man nourish anger against his fellows and expect healing from the Lord?"

As you can see (and my apologies for not including the other verses at first) Sirach does clearly say that the forgiveness comes from the Lord. I only quoted the original verses to show their similarity in word, with the extra verses it becomes even more clear that they are saying the same thing.

As I stated before though, this is only one of many times you can find quotes or allusions to the deuterocanonicals in the NT. And again, if their quotation or lack of it in the NT is the standard by which we should judge their inclusion in the OT then we must also remove eight more OT books that are not quoted in the NT.

To tell you the truth...I can see both our answer fitting in to those two verses. It really is an interpretation issue.

Anyway....in trying to prove Sircah correct you've overlooked my first argument about the book. It talks about atonement for sins for deeds and not through a redeemer or messiah (or even blood shed). For this fact, I cant credit these books as inspired...

I'm not saying the books are bad...they talk about alot of good things....but then again so do some gnostic writings.

 

[Jig]

To tell you the truth...I can see both our answer fitting in to those two verses. It really is an interpretation issue.

Anyway....in trying to prove Sircah correct you've overlooked my first argument about the book. It talks about atonement for sins for deeds and not through a redeemer or messiah (or even blood shed). For this fact, I cant credit these books as inspired...

I'm not saying the books are bad...they talk about alot of good things....but then again so do some gnostic writings.

Let me also clearify. I KNOW it's OT, and Jesus had yet to come. But the OT is full of prophesy on a future Messiah...anyway, if it was inspired by God, then God would have knewn of Jesus, for Jesus is God. Plus, it's made very clear in the bible that blood must be shed for the forgivness of sins.

 

[Chadsly]

I would really like to hear someone answer this question. Jig has spent five pages defending the 66 books of the Canon of Scripture instead of people addressing the question of alms. Can someone please answer him?

I've always been interested in The Apocrypha because I could never find ONE SINGLE shred of evidence that they should be in the Bible. (I was once Catholic...and read a NAB). I converted to be non-denomintional for the simple fact that Catholics believe that ALL their doctrines are infallible. This means if I could prove just ONE of those doctrines to be false, then the whole Catholic faith is in error with what it believes, because to be Catholic you must believe in ALL the doctrines of the church.


But anyway, Reasons a don't trust The Apocrypha:

I believe they have doctrinal contradiction and tell of ways to atone for sin other then from Jesus only. Such as by works to gain salvation.

Example quotes from some of these false leading books:

Tobit 12:8 says, "It is better to give alms than to store up gold; for almsgiving saves one from death and expiates every sin"

Sirach 3:29 says, "Alms atone for sins."

Sirach 3:3, 30
3 "Those who honor their father atone for sins,"
30 "As water extinguishes a blazing fire, so almsgiving atones for sin."

"Atone" is the same as "expiate" which means to purify or make amends for.
"Alms" is the charitable donation of money.

Hmmm...faith in Jesus is the ONLY way to atone for sins! PERIOD! It says so in the NT. And please don't bring up 1 Peter 4:8...it says love covers sin...not atone for it. This is what sacrafice did in the OT...cover sins...not atone.


It's Jesus Blood that expiates sin from are souls! Not good works or honoring our parents!

It's funny how Jesus loved quoting OT writing, but never once mentions one of these added books. Were these books not good enough for him to quote? The only reason Catholics keep these books is because without them they cant prove all their doctrines...like purgatory. Which is talked about in II Maccabees 12:44-45 in regards to praying for the dead! When you die you don't get a second chance...your either going to Heaven or Hell....even if the whole world prays that you should go somewhere else.

Plus, the canon of the Palestinian Jews did not include the seven books affirmed by Rome and rejected by Protestantism. So we should reject them unless a good reason is given to affirm them!

 

[DrTheophorus]

I would really like to hear someone answer this question. Jig has spent five pages defending the 66 books of the Canon of Scripture instead of people addressing the question of alms. Can someone please answer him?

What do you mean defend the 66 books of the Bible? I have not heard anyone argueing against any of the books he supports. I do think he should be encouraged to accept the entire Biblical Canon and not take away from God's Word. He has already embraced some false doctrine which is understandable considering his Biblical limitations. Other than that, I think that his questions have been responded to very well and should have cleared up many of his misconceptions.

Deus misereatur

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

Actually the Eastern Orthodox and the Coptic Orthodox also believe the Deuterocanonicals to be part of Sacred Scripture. You will find that, as usual, the Protestants are in the minority in believing something unique to recent times and entirely foreign to the minds of the Apostles and, indeed, the Mind of Christ.

There is actually no good reason not to believe in the Deuterocanonical Books of the Bible. They were the original Canon of Scripture held by Christians, and remained so for centuries. Rome did not add them later because the Eastern Orthodox churches also have the Deuterocanon. So do the Coptic Orthodox, who schismed in the 5th century. They are included in the Canon as early as the Council of Rome in 382 AD.

Furthermore, the vast majority of quotes in the New Testament come from the Greek Septuagint version of the Old Testament, which includes the Deuterocanon.

 

[Chadsly]

So in reference to what Jig initially wrote (and the verses he provided), what is the significance of giving alms? And the second more specific question, can it atone for sins?

 

[Kripost]

And as we know, these were not the only books he wished to remove. He also wanted to remove James, Hebrews, Revelations and others

To be fair, The Revelation according to St John almost did not make it into the canon.

 

[soblessed53]

I read several books about the Apocrypha back in the spring I believe it was in the "Book Of Bible Answers" that I got this info" The Apocrypha refers to 14-15 books of doubtful authenticity and authority, that the Roman Catholics decided belonged in the Bible sometime following the Protestant Reformation. The Catholic Council of Trent[1545-1563] canonized these books. This took place largely because of the reformation. Luther had criticized the Catholics for not having scriptural support for such doctrines as praying for the dead. By canonizing the Apocrypha which offers support in 2 Maccabees 12:45-46,the Catholics "suddenly had scriptural support" for this and other distinctly Catholic doctrines. Roman Catholics argue that the Septuagint[the Greek translation of the Hebrew OT] contained the Apocrypha. Protestants respond by saying even though some of the apocryphal books may have been alluded to in the NT,no NT writer ever quoted from any of these books as Holy scripture,or gave them the slightest authority as inspired books. Combine this with the fact that there are clear historical errors in the Apocrypha,especially in the case of Tobit. Also unlike many of the biblical books,there is no claim in ANY apocryphal book in regard to divine inspiration.

 

[DrTheophorus]

I read several books about the Apocrypha back in the spring I believe it was in the "Book Of Bible Answers" that I got this info" The Apocrypha refers to 14-15 books of doubtful authenticity and authority, that the Roman Catholics decided belonged in the Bible sometime following the Protestant Reformation. The Catholic Council of Trent[1545-1563] canonized these books. This took place largely because of the reformation. Luther had criticized the Catholics for not having scriptural support for such doctrines as praying for the dead. By canonizing the Apocrypha which offers support in 2 Maccabees 12:45-46,the Catholics "suddenly had scriptural support" for this and other distinctly Catholic doctrines. Roman Catholics argue that the Septuagint[the Greek translation of the Hebrew OT] contained the Apocrypha. Protestants respond by saying even though some of the apocryphal books may have been alluded to in the NT,no NT writer ever quoted from any of these books as Holy scripture,or gave them the slightest authority as inspired books. Combine this with the fact that there are clear historical errors in the Apocrypha,especially in the case of Tobit. Also unlike many of the biblical books,there is no claim in ANY apocryphal book in regard to divine inspiration.

Ther is a lot of misinformation here in your post. I will address the most obvious errors.

The use of the word Apocrapha in refering to the Deuterocanonical books is misleading and incorrect. Apocrapha should instead refer to books without inspiration and , in many cases, refers to books of scurrilous origin and false teaching. I referred earlier to books such as the Gospel of Thomas as an example of Apocrapha books of which there are hundreds.

The Christian Canon was settled early in the fifth century and it included the Deuterocanonicals contained in the Bible today. That was not changed but only confirmed at the Council of Trent. There were no books added by the Church at this Council but this is simply a lie against the Church to support certain Protestants who removed books from the Bible to support their modernist views. The Greek Canon of the OT has always been the Christian Ot Scriptures, this is a historical fact. It appears tha the "Book of Bible Answers" probably should be called "The Book of Bible Fallacies".

Deus misereatur

 

[Kripost]

I read several books about the Apocrypha back in the spring I believe it was in the "Book Of Bible Answers" that I got this info" The Apocrypha refers to 14-15 books of doubtful authenticity and authority, that the Roman Catholics decided belonged in the Bible sometime following the Protestant Reformation. The Catholic Council of Trent[1545-1563] canonized these books. This took place largely because of the reformation. Luther had criticized the Catholics for not having scriptural support for such doctrines as praying for the dead. By canonizing the Apocrypha which offers support in 2 Maccabees 12:45-46,the Catholics "suddenly had scriptural support" for this and other distinctly Catholic doctrines. Roman Catholics argue that the Septuagint[the Greek translation of the Hebrew OT] contained the Apocrypha. Protestants respond by saying even though some of the apocryphal books may have been alluded to in the NT,no NT writer ever quoted from any of these books as Holy scripture,or gave them the slightest authority as inspired books. Combine this with the fact that there are clear historical errors in the Apocrypha,especially in the case of Tobit. Also unlike many of the biblical books,there is no claim in ANY apocryphal book in regard to divine inspiration.

I believe you are confusing the Dueterocanonical with the New Testament Apocrypha. The 14-15 books which you are referring to are writings which are 'supposedly' written by the apostles, but are of doubtful origin.

One problem with your explaination is that other Churches which are independent from Rome during the Catholic Council of Trent also has the deuterocanonicals as part of scripture. These include the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, and the Coptic Orthodox Church.

 

[Naomi4Christ]

In our church (Anglican) we do not use the extra books. We stick to the 27 books of the New Testament because they were written by people who were there at the time.

With this reasoning, we don't have to worry about what these books say and whether they are contradictory or not. You have to draw the line somewhere.

 

[soblessed53]

I believe you are confusing the Dueterocanonical with the New Testament Apocrypha. The 14-15 books which you are referring to are writings which are 'supposedly' written by the apostles, but are of doubtful origin.

One problem with your explaination is that other Churches which are independent from Rome during the Catholic Council of Trent also has the deuterocanonicals as part of scripture. These include the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, and the Coptic Orthodox Church.

I really have no idea what "Dueterocanical" " even is. I was just inerested in learning more about the Apocrypha and why it isn't included in the protestant Bible,when I ran across this information and thought it interesting,so I wrote it down.

 

[PaladinValer]

I've always been interested in The Apocrypha because I could never find ONE SINGLE shred of evidence that they should be in the Bible. (I was once Catholic...and read a NAB).

1. They are "Deuterocanon," not "Apocrypha." The latter term is used for universally-recognized books which are all considered non-canonical. Deuterocanon is the term to describe those books or portions of books that are accepted by most but not by all.

2. The evidence is all historical, not doctrinal.

I converted to be non-denomintional for the simple fact that Catholics believe that ALL their doctrines are infallible.

Like...? I know a lot of former Vatican Catholics who say this yet in reality hadn't a clue. You are going to prove your knowledge before anyone seriously accepts this claim on your word alone.

This means if I could prove just ONE of those doctrines to be false, then the whole Catholic faith is in error with what it believes, because to be Catholic you must believe in ALL the doctrines of the church.

You must accept all dogmas and doctrines, but not all disciplines and devotions.

But anyway, Reasons a don't trust The Apocrypha:

I believe they have doctrinal contradiction and tell of ways to atone for sin other then from Jesus only. Such as by works to gain salvation.

Well, that was the belief by the authors of the Deuterocanon, since, after all, they were written by Jews during OT times. And Jews believe in a works-based salvation, which is clearly stated in all the other OT books which are universally-recognized as being canonical. Should we now throw away all the OT?

However, since the Early Church accepted a salvation based on Grace through faith and works, and sacraments, you're premise here is incorrect.

Example quotes from some of these false leading books:

Tobit 12:8 says, "It is better to give alms than to store up gold; for almsgiving saves one from death and expiates every sin"

Sirach 3:29 says, "Alms atone for sins."

Sirach 3:3, 30
3 "Those who honor their father atone for sins,"
30 "As water extinguishes a blazing fire, so almsgiving atones for sin."

"Atone" is the same as "expiate" which means to purify or make amends for.
"Alms" is the charitable donation of money.

Hmmm...faith in Jesus is the ONLY way to atone for sins! PERIOD! It says so in the NT. And please don't bring up 1 Peter 4:8...it says love covers sin...not atone for it. This is what sacrafice did in the OT...cover sins...not atone.

Grace comes through many means. Faith is one. The Sacraments and the sacramentals are another. Works is yet another way. There is no contradiction.

It's Jesus Blood that expiates sin from are souls! Not good works or honoring our parents!

What does St. John 3:16 say? About the "world?" I hate to tell you this, but everyone already is saved, but not everyone is saved onto heaven. All, even unrepentent sinners, have eternal life and will enjoy eternity alive.

It is through Grace that we are saved unto heaven. That's the Vatican Catholic position. They correctly believe that, however, works is a way Grace can be received.

It's funny how Jesus loved quoting OT writing, but never once mentions one of these added books. Were these books not good enough for him to quote?

Jesus didn't quote from many universally-accepted as canonical books. By your argument here, shouldn't they now also be chucked out?

The only reason Catholics keep these books is because without them they cant prove all their doctrines...like purgatory.

Um, wrong. If you really knew as much about the Vatican Catholic Church as you claim you do, you'd know they have plenty of other sources to support that belief.

Strike 1.

Which is talked about in II Maccabees 12:44-45 in regards to praying for the dead! When you die you don't get a second chance...your either going to Heaven or Hell....even if the whole world prays that you should go somewhere else.

Oh boy, Strike 2.

Sorry, but according to Vatican Catholic official belief, there is no "second chance" in Purgatory. Why? Because only those who will go to heaven go there, not everyone. Therefore, there isn't a second chance but, rather as the name implies, the final purification of the soul and completion of theosis. And prayers for those souls from those on Earth and those in heaven can speed this process, according to their belief, not zap them immediately right to heaven or wherever they please. Purgatory is a one-way only highway to heaven, not a portal to other realms.

As I feared, your claim of having knowledge isn't coming to fruit.

Plus, the canon of the Palestinian Jews did not include the seven books affirmed by Rome and rejected by Protestantism. So we should reject them unless a good reason is given to affirm them!

So we should simply ignore the Canon of the Alexandrian Jews? Which was accepted by Jews all over the world?

I've already poked major holes not into your argument, but showed evidence that your claims of knowledge are not what they seem. I think you owe the Vatican Catholics here and everywhere an apology at least in terms of lying that you knew as much as you did.

Secondly, the reason why those Deuterocanonical books are in the Canon of most Christians (as they are accepted by Anglicans, Eastern Orthodox, Old Catholics, and the Oriental Orthodox too) is because they were declared to be Canon in each of the five ancient Patriarchies during the Patristic Age. Long, long before Trent, which is of no consequence since the Anglicans, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox always accepted them without Trent. Bringing up Trent means nothing because it doesn't cover all those churches that do accept them.

So there's your reason. Christians came together and declared them to be canonical in Patriarchical Council. And with five of them, they add up to being of the same weight as a full Ecumenical Council. And those are binding to all.

 

[Knee V]

I really have no idea what "Dueterocanical" " even is. I was just inerested in learning more about the Apocrypha and why it isn't included in the protestant Bible,when I ran across this information and thought it interesting,so I wrote it down.

"Deuterocanon" means "second canon". Just like the 5th book of the OT, Deuteronomy, or "second law". They are called "deuterocanonicals" because they weren't always universally recognized by all groups. They were disputed more than most of the other books. But the church as a whole accepted them as scripture, since the Jews who included them into their canon accepted them as scripture LONG before Christ came.

On another note, there are books in the NT that can rightfully be called "deuterocanonicals", since they were not universally recognized by all groups of Christians. Revelation, James, Jude, Hebrews, maybe a few others were in dispute until the council that recognized them as scripture (I forget which council that was). It was a Church council which the Holy Spirit led in determining which books were of apostolic origin and which were frauds. And it was the same for the OT books. If you accept the 27 books of the NT, then you MUST accept the OT canon that the church uses. If you reject the church's OT canon, then there is NO basis for accepting the 27 books of the NT. Both have the same basis for being canonical.

 

[PaladinValer]

It was the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus, which was the Third Ecumenical