Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Jig said: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....
VNVnation said: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.
Sirach is not foreshadowing or even prophesing Jesus or his life to come. Read on to verse 16VNVnation said: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."
Jig said: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.
VNVnation said: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 ofJust 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 said: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.
VNVnation said: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 said: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 said: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!
Chadsly said: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?
VNVnation said:And as we know, these were not the only books he wished to remove. He also wanted to remove James, Hebrews, Revelations and others
soblessed53 said: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.
soblessed53 said: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.
Kripost said: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.
Jig said: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!
soblessed53 said: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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?