The Apocrypha

well gosh, now i don't know what to reply without stepping on toes!
so i guess i'll just say that if it's a book or writing that's not included in the NLT version of the OT or NT then, no i haven't read it.

BigNorsk said:

Scripture tells us the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. Now I can understand the church claiming authority to recogize scripture that was written after the church came into existence. So I would see it as proper for the church to decide which books should be included in the New Testament.

What I don't recognize the church's authority extending to is to the time before the church even existed. God's people at that time would have the authority to recognize scripture. That would not include either the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox churches because they did not exist. They were not God's people yet.

The Apochrypha were written during a time when there was no prophet for God to speak through. How does a non-prophet write scripture? The Jews recognized that, they excluded the Apochrypha from scripture under the authority they had to do so.

That would be why we end up with the Hebrew canon for Old Testament scripture and the generally recognized New Testament canon.

It is not the church's place to go back and second guess the Hebrews. It is not in a position to judge.

Marv

Click to expand...

Huh?

So, you're saying that a 1st-century group of rabbis had the authority to decide to remove a number of books from the Old Testament, books that had been accepted as authoritative by those Jews who wrote the New Testament and by Jesus Himself?

You are aware that you are conceding authority over the canon of the Old Testament to people who rejected Christ?

Are you saying the Church was guided by the Holy Spirit in selecting the canon of the New Testament, but that the Holy Spirit left those who believe in Christ behind when it came to the Old Testament, choosing rather to work through a group of Christ-denying rabbis?

BigNorsk said:

Scripture tells us the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. Now I can understand the church claiming authority to recogize scripture that was written after the church came into existence. So I would see it as proper for the church to decide which books should be included in the New Testament.

What I don't recognize the church's authority extending to is to the time before the church even existed. God's people at that time would have the authority to recognize scripture. That would not include either the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox churches because they did not exist. They were not God's people yet.

The Apochrypha were written during a time when there was no prophet for God to speak through. How does a non-prophet write scripture? The Jews recognized that, they excluded the Apochrypha from scripture under the authority they had to do so.

That would be why we end up with the Hebrew canon for Old Testament scripture and the generally recognized New Testament canon.

It is not the church's place to go back and second guess the Hebrews. It is not in a position to judge.

Marv

Click to expand...

Did you even read the post before yours by Maximus?

I believe it was wrong.

Answer me this, who wrote the Septuagint? You tear down the Jews mightily concerning the canon, but you conveniently ignore that it was a group of Jews that wrote the Septuagint.

Would you accept the Septuagint from a bunch of people that didn't even accept Jesus?

Rediculous arguement you make, you only substitute one group of Jews for the other.

Who were the prophets through whom God could write the Apochrypha?

Marv

Who said a prophet had to write a book of the Bible for it to be considered a candidate for Canon?

Quite frankly, we don't know who wrote most of the books in the Bible. Many books clearly have more than one author, other books were written in phase, and others have been obviously edited after their initial authorship!

Does anyone know if Jews have the authority to interpret the Old Testament? After reading this thread, I am wondering if I should ask them whether anything in the OT refers to our Lord.

BigNorsk said:

I believe it was wrong.

Answer me this, who wrote the Septuagint? You tear down the Jews mightily concerning the canon, but you conveniently ignore that it was a group of Jews that wrote the Septuagint.

Would you accept the Septuagint from a bunch of people that didn't even accept Jesus?

Rediculous arguement you make, you only substitute one group of Jews for the other.

Who were the prophets through whom God could write the Apochrypha?

Marv

Click to expand...

Greetings Marv,

May the Lord be with you.

I would like to add a few things to what Maximus has stated and comment also on your response to him. Please excuse my interruption into your dialog.
At the time of Jesus there were several OT canons in use by various sects of Jews. The Pharisees had one version, the Sadducees another, The Ethiopians another and the Essenes and Hellenist Jews another.

The most sound scholarship I have seen on this issue makes some very good arguments as to why the early Church chose the Septuagint as the OT canon of the Christian Church. As has been stated previously, most of the quotes in the NT clearly come from the Septuagint. This is a very significant argument in that, it testifies as to the usage of that canon by Jesus and the authors of the NT. With that information we can say with confidence that this is the canon used by the early Christians. Certainly it had Jesus and the Scripture authors approval if they were confident enough in its veracity to quote from it.

Your argument seems to be that it is the Pharisees that have the authority to decide Canon but obviously the other Jewish sects as well as the early Christians disagreed with that view and we can only speculate as to why they did. If you would like to argue that the Pharisees are the only Jewish sect with the authority to choose Canon I would be interested in your argument in that respect. First of all Maximus makes the indisputable point, IMO, that the Pharisees were the most anti-Christian of any of the Jewish sects. From first and second century historical evidence, I think that this is a fair assumption. Furthermore, if we examine some of the influential Biblical persons to the early Church we see clear ties to the Hellenist/Essene Canon.

First of all we can look at St. John the Baptist. Tradition suggests to us that he was a part of the Essene community prior to his ministry and that he was related to Jesus, perhaps a cousin. Other scholars have also suggested that Jesus was also part of the Essene community before his ministry. If we examine scriptures as to the Scriptural account of the baptism of Jesus we find that St. John the baptist was familiar with Jesus and recognised that there was something exceptional about the man before him and thought himself unworthy to baptise him. He had a knowledge about Jesus that the rest of Jesus' family did not have as we find out later in Scriptures. Now some might say that this was an intuitive knowledge given to St. John the baptist by the Spirit but it seems to be an intimate, familiar knowledge that comes from a close association for some time. I believe that we can with some certainty believe that St. John the Baptist understood that Jesus was at least a prophet of God and suspected that He may be the messiah. Later we find confirmation of this in Scripture where St. John the baptist asks Jesus if He is the one. This relationship and also specific practices that Jesus had suggests that Jesus was a part of the Essene community as well. If this is true Jesus was exposed to the Hellenist/Essene Canon and teaching before His ministry.

We can also look at other disciples and apostles to find a real connection of the Hellenist/Essene canon. St. Paul himself was a Hellenist Jew from Tarsus. So was St. Timothy and St. Luke and probably many of the others. We also see the spread of the early Church first among these Hellenist communities and a fairly quick establishment of Christianity among the Hellenists. Could it be that this was because they were being evangelized by other Hellenist Jews? I think that this could be argued convincingly and it has even by Protestant theologians and historians.

Since it was the Pharisees that killed Jesus, subsequently were the primary persecutors of the Christians and were probably the least of all the Jewish sects associated with the Christians, it is highly doubtful that the Christians would adopt their Canon but instead adopt a Canon of the Jewish sect most closely associated with the early Christians; which would be the Hellenist/Essenes Jews. I doubt that the early Christians would have been impressed by any decisions coming out of the Council of Jamnia even if there was a close association with these Pharisees and would not have seen any authority in their enemies decisions as to Canon or their own condemnation.

In Christ
Fr. Joseph

OK. Best evidence is that all Jews accepted the Law and the Prophets: the five books of the Pentateuch, the books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Twelve (the minor prophets consolidated into one scroll). The Psalms were held in equally high regard. The rest of the collection was up in the air, insofar as what was definitely in it.

This was the case when Ptolemy II of Egypt called on Jewish scholars to produce a translation of the Jewish Scriptures into Greek for the use of his Greek-speaking Jewish subjects. This was the Septuagint, and it's the translation used since then by Greek-speaking Jews and Christians.

As time went on, a decision to use only those books that were definitely composed in Hebrew, in whole or in part (to allow Daniel), was settled on by Aramaic-speaking Palestinian Jews. This was finalized at Javneh (Jamnia), the 90 AD council that Paladin Valer made reference to.

Meanwhile, the Jews of the Diaspora, largely Greek-speaking, continued to use the Septuagint, which included the Deuterocanon.

To all this, and in response to Marcion's heresies, the Church very early on settled on certain Christian books that stood on a par with the Jewish Scriptures. After a bunch of backing and filling, everybody ended up agreeing on the set found in the New Testament (and there was quite a bit of skepticism at first over several of them, including II Peter, Jude, and Revelation among others).

But the bottom line has been that the Church, as a whole, drew from the entire text of Septuagint-plus-New-Testament, though it tended to focus more on certain books for readings than others.

Jerome, influenced by the Palestinian Jews, at first took issue with the Deuterocanon, but ultimately included it in the Vulgate.

Nobody is saying that Judith or I Esdras is of the value of Isaiah or Luke, just that it's legitimately inspired Scripture and has been since the early days of the Church. I don't find Obadiah or Haggai of a whole lot of interest to me either, but I have no doubt of their canonicity. And I feel much the same about many of the books of the Deuterocanon.

I think it's important to get our historical facts straight, even if some of us do decide for the Protestant canon. The Deuterocanonicals were not "added at Trent" any more than the New Testament was: Trent was the first full Ecumenical Council (by the Roman definition, of course) to have validated what local councils (the ones PV mentioned earlier) had identified as canonical. But it didn't "add" them; they already were there and it validated them. (Someone may want to find the vastly distended list of the Ethiopian Church canon, with things like Enoch and I Clement listed as Scripture, to round out this discussion.)

BigNorsk said:

I believe it was wrong.

Answer me this, who wrote the Septuagint? You tear down the Jews mightily concerning the canon, but you conveniently ignore that it was a group of Jews that wrote the Septuagint.

Would you accept the Septuagint from a bunch of people that didn't even accept Jesus?

Rediculous arguement you make, you only substitute one group of Jews for the other.

Who were the prophets through whom God could write the Apochrypha?

Marv

Click to expand...

The Septuagint is the Greek translated OT of the Hellenic Jews. It was translated by Hellenstic Jews in the 3rd century BC. It is not a different book that was written by someone else, (as I assume you believe this since you asked who wrote it)..it is just a Greek translation, of the Hebrew that's all.

Now that we said that. You asked how can we accept the Septuagint from a bunch of people who didn't accept Jesus. Well considering Jesus was not here until 300 years after the Septuagunt was translated, why does this matter? You can say that of any OT canon period. Did the Jews who wrote or used the OT before Christ was there believe in him?

Now saying that, the Septuagint was just a Greek translation of Hebrew Scripture, it was the same Scripture used by the Jews. Now if you notice, in Maximus' article it states the the deuterorcanonical books known as "Apocrypha" to Protestants were removed by the Jews after the incarnation, death and ressurection of Christ for the reasons stated.

Now who's version of the OT would you rather have? The original OT, or the one adulterated by Christian bashing Jews? I would prefer the original myself. After all the people of the pre-Christ era, such as those who translated the Hebrew OT to Greek, may not have known Jesus, but they didn't bash Christians either. They would have no reason to add or remove books.

I did not bring it up, nor do I intend to engage in Jew bashing. I was told that because they rejected Jesus, we shouldn't accept their canon. I was simply pointing out that the same people did the Septuagint. You cannot argue canon from the morality of the Jews.

Now on to the Pharisees versus the Saducees. I don't know that I can agree to the characterizations of them put forward either.

First of all, several places the New Testament stresses the resurection. Who would have denied the resurection? The Saducees that's who. Here is one passage teaching directly against the Saducees.

1 Corinthians 15:12-17 NET
(12) Now if Christ is being preached as raised from the dead, how can some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead?
(13) But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised.
(14) And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is futile and your faith is empty.
(15) Also, we are found to be false witnesses about God, because we have testified against God that he raised Christ from the dead, when in reality he did not raise him, if indeed the dead are not raised.
(16) For if the dead are not raised, then not even Christ has been raised.
(17) And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is useless; you are still in your sins.

So the New Testament contradicts the teachings of the Saducees. We see the terrible behavior of the Pharisees yet what does Jesus tell us to do regarding their teachings?

Matthew 23:2-3 NET
(2) "The experts in the law and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat.
(3) Therefore pay attention to what they tell you and do it. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they teach.

Jesus himself says their teachings are correct, it is their behavior that lacks.

So which groups teachings do we see supported by the New Testament? The Pharisees, that's who, so instead of weakening the case for their canon, it is strengthened. Instead of accepting right teachings, you have accepted a canon from people that deny basic biblical truths.

Marv

sanct1fym3 said:

I vote no, thay are inconsistent in several places with existing "canonized" bible, and they actually have some faulty history involved, if we were to cannonize them into the bible it would create an incosistency in God's holy text, and when we look at the purpose the RCC "canonized" them it was because they had stuff in them that refuted Martin Luther. And it wasn't until this era (of Luther) that they were even considered. If you study early church cannonization it would seem more clear that these books were not considered to be inspired and as such considered possible to dirsupt the analogy of faith, I'm not trying to upset anyone, if you like them by all means read them, and if you can draw application, then please do so, but with a guarded heart since there are historical contradictions (in the books and to the bible) And i agree that oblio's term for the ECF's definitions, but that is only one of the many meanings for the word, and i would have to study whaether that is the sole meaning in this instance.

Click to expand...

The first highlighted text doesn't mean too much when other parts of the bible do not agree. e.g. who killed Goliath? easy? read 2 Samuel 21:19 It was Elhanan!!!
The secong part????? The Septuagint, which is where these books come from, where around for some centuries before Jesus and many of the passages from the N T are closer to the Greek text than the Hebrew, for quoting!

mark53 said:

The first highlighted text doesn't mean too much when other parts of the bible do not agree. e.g. who killed Goliath? easy? read 2 Samuel 21:19 It was Elhanan!!!
The secong part????? The Septuagint, which is where these books come from, where around for some centuries before Jesus and many of the passages from the N T are closer to the Greek text than the Hebrew, for quoting!

Click to expand...

That isn't what i said, i said when they were "canonized" (put into the Bible), it was by the roman catholic church, at the time of the reformation. I wasn't arguing that they weren't around for a long time, and they could be great for quoting, but we need to relize that they aren't in the Bible, and we need to be careful not to put them over the existing Revelation. And well your bible says Goliath, mine says brother of goliath (not the point) Please research further the apocrapha, i'll do so too.

That isn't what i said, i said when they were "canonized" (put into the Bible), it was by the roman catholic church, at the time of the reformation.

Click to expand...

Except that is incorrect. They were canonized in the late 4th century by the Church.

What?? We had the completed bible sooner than that, i think that the men of God, under His supervision would have cannonized it at the time of all of the other Bible books, i could be wrong. I often am, i'll look it up sometime...

I'd have to say I have a problem with the Apocrypha books. First off let me ask a question.

What is the ONLY way to find atonment for our sins? Answer: Jesus's blood.

Easy, huh?
It is his blood sacrifice for us that atones for are sins...Leviticus teaches us that ONLY through blood sacrifice can we find atonment.

Lev. 17:11:
“For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.”
------------------
Definition of Atone:

1. To expiate.

Definition of Expiate: To make amends or reparation for.
--------------------
While now lets look at what some of the Apocrypha books have to say:

Sirach 3:1-4

3:1 Hear me your father, O children, and do thereafter, that ye may be safe. 3:2 For the Lord hath given the father honour over the children, and hath confirmed the authority of the mother over the sons. 3:3 Whoso honoureth his father maketh an atonement for his sins: 3:4 And he that honoureth his mother is as one that layeth up treasure.

Whoa! Thats a big NO. Honoring our parents is good and part of God's will, but it sure doesn't atone for our sins.

Sirach 3:29-31
3:29 The heart of the prudent will understand a parable; and an attentive ear is the desire of a wise man. 3:30 Water will quench a flaming fire; and alms maketh an atonement for sins. 3:31 And he that requiteth good turns is mindful of that which may come hereafter; and when he falleth, he shall find a stay.

Whoa! Another no-no. Giving alms may be good and all, but it NO way atones for sin. Sirach teaches justification by the works of the law!

Now, lets move to the book of Tobit.

Tobit 12:8-10:
12:8 Prayer and fasting are good, but better than either is almsgiving accompanied by righteousness. A little with righteousness is better than abundance with wickedness. It is better to give alms than to store up gold; 12:9 for almsgiving saves one from death and expiates every sin. Those who regularly give alms shall enjoy a full life; 12:10 but those habitually guilty of sin are their own worst enemies.

AGAIN, wrong! Whats with this works for salvation bit? Did we forget about Jesus?

The Bible teaches different....Hebrews 9:14 says:
14how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?


I'll ask another EASY question: Are we born with original sin? Answer: Yes.

Lets look at what the book of Wisdom says:

Wisdom 8:19-20
8:19 For I was a witty child, and had a good spirit. 8:20 Yea rather, being good, I came into a body undefiled.

This passage isn't talking about Jesus. Thats wierd because I thought only Jesus was born undefiled.

Now, lets go back to Sirach.

Sirach 14:4
14:4 Give to the good man, refuse the sinner; refresh the downtrodden, give nothing to the proud man.

How Christ like!!!! This sounds VERY Islamic.

There is also historical errors in the apocrypha too....So...

My vote is...the Apocrypha is NOT needed or inspired, and teaches false teachings.

A good point. But remember that in the covenant with Moses sacrifices "atoned for" sin, and that was fulfilled by the one perfect and sufficient sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. So the usages here are in keeping with O.T. Law, even though to Christian theology they sound bizarre. Remember that other odd-sounding passages show up here and there elsewhere in Scripture, too, for example:
[bible]1 Timothy 2:15[/bible]

Jig said:

I'd have to say I have a problem with the Apocrypha books. First off let me ask a question.

What is the ONLY way to find atonment for our sins? Answer: Jesus's blood.

Easy, huh?
It is his blood sacrifice for us that atones for are sins...Leviticus teaches us that ONLY through blood sacrifice can we find atonment.

Lev. 17:11:
“For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.”
------------------
Definition of Atone:

1. To expiate.

Definition of Expiate: To make amends or reparation for.
--------------------
While now lets look at what some of the Apocrypha books have to say:

Sirach 3:1-4

3:1 Hear me your father, O children, and do thereafter, that ye may be safe. 3:2 For the Lord hath given the father honour over the children, and hath confirmed the authority of the mother over the sons. 3:3 Whoso honoureth his father maketh an atonement for his sins: 3:4 And he that honoureth his mother is as one that layeth up treasure.

Whoa! Thats a big NO. Honoring our parents is good and part of God's will, but it sure doesn't atone for our sins.

Sirach 3:29-31
3:29 The heart of the prudent will understand a parable; and an attentive ear is the desire of a wise man. 3:30 Water will quench a flaming fire; and alms maketh an atonement for sins. 3:31 And he that requiteth good turns is mindful of that which may come hereafter; and when he falleth, he shall find a stay.

Whoa! Another no-no. Giving alms may be good and all, but it NO way atones for sin. Sirach teaches justification by the works of the law!

Now, lets move to the book of Tobit.

Tobit 12:8-10:
12:8 Prayer and fasting are good, but better than either is almsgiving accompanied by righteousness. A little with righteousness is better than abundance with wickedness. It is better to give alms than to store up gold; 12:9 for almsgiving saves one from death and expiates every sin. Those who regularly give alms shall enjoy a full life; 12:10 but those habitually guilty of sin are their own worst enemies.

AGAIN, wrong! Whats with this works for salvation bit? Did we forget about Jesus?

The Bible teaches different....Hebrews 9:14 says:
14how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?


I'll ask another EASY question: Are we born with original sin? Answer: Yes.

Lets look at what the book of Wisdom says:

Wisdom 8:19-20
8:19 For I was a witty child, and had a good spirit. 8:20 Yea rather, being good, I came into a body undefiled.

This passage isn't talking about Jesus. Thats wierd because I thought only Jesus was born undefiled.

Now, lets go back to Sirach.

Sirach 14:4
14:4 Give to the good man, refuse the sinner; refresh the downtrodden, give nothing to the proud man.

How Christ like!!!! This sounds VERY Islamic.

There is also historical errors in the apocrypha too....So...

My vote is...the Apocrypha is NOT needed or inspired, and teaches false teachings.

Click to expand...

I have to disagree. I believe that the blood of Jesus is what we need to save us, but there is alot more than just believing. Alot of what Jesus says here ties hand in hand with what you disagree with above. Not to mention that this was OT and alot of the sames things are in the non deuterocanonical books. You seem to forget that these books are pre-Christ, and was Jewish Law to alms give. How can anything be Christ like if Christ was not born yet? You arguements are very invalid. Trying reading the Protestant OT one day, and tell me if you don't read the same things..

Matthew 19:16-21

16Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?"

17"Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments."

18"Which ones?" the man inquired.

Jesus replied, " 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony,

19honor your father and mother,' and 'love your neighbor as yourself.'"

20"All these I have kept," the young man said. "What do I still lack?"

21Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."


You see, Jesus told the rich young man how to attain eternal life. Honour your mother and father, and give to the poor. How can you disagree with what is in the deuterocanonical books, if Jesus himself said it as well?

Jig said:

I'd have to say I have a problem with the Apocrypha books. First off let me ask a question.

What is the ONLY way to find atonment for our sins? Answer: Jesus's blood.

Easy, huh?
It is his blood sacrifice for us that atones for are sins...Leviticus teaches us that ONLY through blood sacrifice can we find atonment.

Lev. 17:11:
“For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.”
------------------
Definition of Atone:

1. To expiate.

Definition of Expiate: To make amends or reparation for.
--------------------
While now lets look at what some of the Apocrypha books have to say:

Sirach 3:1-4

3:1 Hear me your father, O children, and do thereafter, that ye may be safe. 3:2 For the Lord hath given the father honour over the children, and hath confirmed the authority of the mother over the sons. 3:3 Whoso honoureth his father maketh an atonement for his sins: 3:4 And he that honoureth his mother is as one that layeth up treasure.

Whoa! Thats a big NO. Honoring our parents is good and part of God's will, but it sure doesn't atone for our sins.

Sirach 3:29-31
3:29 The heart of the prudent will understand a parable; and an attentive ear is the desire of a wise man. 3:30 Water will quench a flaming fire; and alms maketh an atonement for sins. 3:31 And he that requiteth good turns is mindful of that which may come hereafter; and when he falleth, he shall find a stay.

Whoa! Another no-no. Giving alms may be good and all, but it NO way atones for sin. Sirach teaches justification by the works of the law!
Now, lets move to the book of Tobit.

Tobit 12:8-10:
12:8 Prayer and fasting are good, but better than either is almsgiving accompanied by righteousness. A little with righteousness is better than abundance with wickedness. It is better to give alms than to store up gold; 12:9 for almsgiving saves one from death and expiates every sin. Those who regularly give alms shall enjoy a full life; 12:10 but those habitually guilty of sin are their own worst enemies.

AGAIN, wrong! Whats with this works for salvation bit? Did we forget about Jesus?

Click to expand...

So what else is new? Is the book of Daniel in your Canon? Yes? What does verse 4:27 say?

I'll ask another EASY question: Are we born with original sin? Answer: Yes.

Lets look at what the book of Wisdom says:

Wisdom 8:19-20
8:19 For I was a witty child, and had a good spirit. 8:20 Yea rather, being good, I came into a body undefiled.

This passage isn't talking about Jesus. Thats wierd because I thought only Jesus was born undefiled.

Click to expand...

Haha... reverse your reasoning. Since Christ is the only one born undefiled - in fact the only one good before being born; otherwise we will be teaching pre-existence of souls - therefore what Solomon said is a prophecy about Christ. Like David, Solomon was also a type of Christ. - Courtesy of Holy Tradition

Now, lets go back to Sirach.

Sirach 14:4
14:4 Give to the good man, refuse the sinner; refresh the downtrodden, give nothing to the proud man.

How Christ like!!!! This sounds VERY Islamic.

Click to expand...

Hmmm... where did you find that? In the Greek Septuagint it says:

There is also historical errors in the apocrypha too....So...

My vote is...the Apocrypha is NOT needed or inspired, and teaches false teachings.

Click to expand...

Unsubstantiated.

Jig said:

While now lets look at what some of the Apocrypha books have to say:

Sirach 3:1-4

3:1 Hear me your father, O children, and do thereafter, that ye may be safe. 3:2 For the Lord hath given the father honour over the children, and hath confirmed the authority of the mother over the sons. 3:3 Whoso honoureth his father maketh an atonement for his sins: 3:4 And he that honoureth his mother is as one that layeth up treasure.

Whoa! Thats a big NO. Honoring our parents is good and part of God's will, but it sure doesn't atone for our sins.

Click to expand...

Actually, it can and it does.

Sirach 3:29-31
3:29 The heart of the prudent will understand a parable; and an attentive ear is the desire of a wise man. 3:30 Water will quench a flaming fire; and alms maketh an atonement for sins. 3:31 And he that requiteth good turns is mindful of that which may come hereafter; and when he falleth, he shall find a stay.

Whoa! Another no-no. Giving alms may be good and all, but it NO way atones for sin. Sirach teaches justification by the works of the law!

Click to expand...

Works are necessary. That's the original Christian belief. Do you reject what James 2 says?

Tobit 12:8-10:
12:8 Prayer and fasting are good, but better than either is almsgiving accompanied by righteousness. A little with righteousness is better than abundance with wickedness. It is better to give alms than to store up gold; 12:9 for almsgiving saves one from death and expiates every sin. Those who regularly give alms shall enjoy a full life; 12:10 but those habitually guilty of sin are their own worst enemies.

AGAIN, wrong! Whats with this works for salvation bit? Did we forget about Jesus?

Click to expand...

No, you are wrong. James 2 again. Works are a necessity.

The Bible teaches different....Hebrews 9:14 says:
14how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

Click to expand...

Fallacy of Appealing to Ignorance. Just because that verse doesn't mention works doesn't mean works aren't necessary.

I'll ask another EASY question: Are we born with original sin? Answer: Yes.

Wisdom 8:19-20
8:19 For I was a witty child, and had a good spirit. 8:20 Yea rather, being good, I came into a body undefiled.

Click to expand...

In what sense of "undefiled?" This text is actually great because it calls the body undefiled. It means that the body is good, just as Genesis states. This passage has nothing to do with the concept of original sin, but the inherit nature of being physical. Physical doesn't mean negative, and physical is real.

Please put verses into their context.

Sirach 14:4
14:4 Give to the good man, refuse the sinner; refresh the downtrodden, give nothing to the proud man.

How Christ like!!!! This sounds VERY Islamic.

Click to expand...

1. You have a very poor understanding of Islam then. Having read the Qur'an and studied Islam from reliable sources (instead of from some "Christian(s)" who haven't any real clue), you have no idea what the Muslim reaction to sinners is.
2. Sirach 14:4 says "What he denies himself he collects for others; and others will live in luxury on his goods."

There is also historical errors in the apocrypha too....So...

Click to expand...

Genesis is chuck full of historical errors. Shall we trash that too?

My vote is...the Apocrypha is NOT needed or inspired, and teaches false teachings.

Click to expand...

The Holy Spirit told the Church otherwise. I trust Him, not mortals.

icxn said:

[/i]
So what else is new? Is the book of Daniel in your Canon? Yes? What does verse 4:27 say?

Click to expand...

What are you trying to prove here? I see nothing of importance with that verse.

icxn said:

Hmmm... where did you find that? In the Greek Septuagint it says:

Whoever accumulates by depriving himself, accumulates for others; and others will live in luxury on his goods. (Sir. 14:4)



​

Click to expand...

Sorry, mistyped. Meant 12:4, not 14:4.

Sirach 12:4

Give to the good man, refuse the sinner; refresh the downtrodden, give nothing to the proud man

Reference: Catholic Site: http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/sirach/sirach12.htm

icxn said:

Unsubstantiated.

Click to expand...

Not at all.

Historical errors in the apocrypha:

Tobit tells that he was alive when Jeroboam revolted, which was in 931 B.C. and when Assyria conquered Israel, which was in 722 B.C. There is over 200 years inbetween these two happenings and yet the age of Tobit was only 158 years (Tobit 1:3-5; 14:11).

Judith mistakenly identifies Nebuchadnezzar as king of the Assyrians (1:1, 7) when in fact he was the king of Babylon (2 Kings 24:1).