The Apocrypha

[Jig]

Actually, it can and it does.

What?!? This is NOT what the gospels teach! In fact, this isnt even what the Bible teaches! When you make a claim, you need to back it up.

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

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

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

Works are not necessary. You take James 2 out of context. In other threads this has been picked apart, we hold two different sides.

Besides, the Bible does not contradict itself.

Gal. 2:16
16nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.

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.

I do read verses with context in mind. This is why I'm no longer Catholic.

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.[/QUOTE

I, too, have studied Islam. Don't be surprised someone else has a different opinion then you. Allah hates the sinners. The Quran says so many times.

2. Sirach 14:4 says "What he denies himself he collects for others; and others will live in luxury on his goods."

My bad....I meant to type 12:4, not 14:4.

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

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

Show your errors.
I'll show mine:
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).

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

Tradition?

 

[graysparrow]

Not only James 2 but the 1 John. A faith that produces no good works is pretty dead.

And relax man

 

[jckstraw72]

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).

but its understood that these issues are there. in my Catholic Bible, the introductions to these books, and the footnotes, point out that they are not perfect. I dont think Judith even claims to be a true story (as the Song of Solomon is not either). Some of these books are important for demonstrating Jewish beliefs and piety, moreso than for showing history.

 

[PaladinValer]

What?!? This is NOT what the gospels teach! In fact, this isnt even what the Bible teaches! When you make a claim, you need to back it up.

I believe two of my fellow Apostolic Christians, the EOs icxn and repentant, have already shown that you are greatly mistaken here.

Works are not necessary. You take James 2 out of context. In other threads this has been picked apart, we hold two different sides.

I take it that the Apostles themselves then lied to the first generation of the Church Fathers? How come, in their writings, works are said to be necessary?

Besides, the Bible does not contradict itself.

The opposite of faith isn't works but ~faith. Fallacy of False Analogy.

Gal. 2:16

16nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.

I have completed your underlines by bolding the whole context. Please practice what you preach in terms of getting the context right. It would score you far more points.

There's a difference between works of the law and agape. A great deal of difference. One is a result, and the other is a means and a result.

I do read verses with context in mind. This is why I'm no longer Catholic.

I showed you didn't. The passage has nothing to do with original sin but, rather, the truthful state of a physical nature. A body is "good," just as Genesis 1 states it is. It isn't evil. The passage is to warn against certain Platonist teaching that the physical is lesser than the spiritual.

I, too, have studied Islam. Don't be surprised someone else has a different opinion then you. Allah hates the sinners. The Quran says so many times.

The Qur'an says Allah despises the fact that many do not repent. However, that's an entirely different topic.

My bad....I meant to type 12:4, not 14:4.

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

Actually, it reads "Give to the devout, but do not help the sinner." Why? Verse 3 explains: "No good comes to one who persists in evil, or to one who does not give alms." These people are those who are unrepentent and are selfish instead of selfless. Helping these people gives them, in this case, the opportunity to spread more dysfunction and malevolence. It allows them to sin more and in a greater potency. Should Christians help sinners sin better? No. That is what this verse is about.

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).

Fine...

Never was a global flood.

Please feel free to rip out Genesis at your earliest convenience.

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).

Actually, he would have been, since the Neo-Babylonian Empire conquered the homeland of the Assyrians. No error there!

Tradition?

No, God.

 

[repentant]

What?!? This is NOT what the gospels teach! In fact, this isnt even what the Bible teaches! When you make a claim, you need to back it up.



Works are not necessary. You take James 2 out of context. In other threads this has been picked apart, we hold two different sides.

Besides, the Bible does not contradict itself.

Gal. 2:16
16nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.

No you are the one that takes Scripture out of context.

"a man is not justified by the works of the Law."

Has to do with Mosaic Law, which as Christians we are no longer obligated to. In other words "works within Mosaic Law" i.e. sacrifices, Sabbath, circumcision, etc. Jesus was the New Covenant and new Law. I like how you much to leave out "Of the Law" when you try to make something stand out. So you are right, Scripture does not contradict itself.

 

[jad123]

No you are the one that takes Scripture out of context.

"a man is not justified by the works of the Law."

Has to do with Mosaic Law, which as Christians we are no longer obligated to. In other words "works within Mosaic Law" i.e. sacrifices, Sabbath, circumcision, etc. Jesus was the New Covenant and new Law. I like how you much to leave out "Of the Law" when you try to make something stand out. So you are right, Scripture does not contradict itself.

FAITH FAITH FAITH FAITH FAITH!!!!

Nothing you can do will ever get you into Heaven. Saying that works plays a role is saying the what Jesus did on the cross is not enough.

Where is Paul not clear here? It is a gift!!!
Eph 2:8 For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God,
Eph 2:9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.

Paul and James do not disagree. James is simply arguing against the belief that a person cannot have faith without producing any good works. This is not to say you have to do xyz to go to Heaven. Just that if you are truly saved by faith in Christ then you WILL have good works in life. That your faith will produce good works not that your works will get you anything. Your works are a PRODUCT of your faith. To spin it to mean anything else is ridiculous.

 

[jad123]

I recently read an interesting theory on this:

It seems in my study that the Septuagint is considered pre-christain, due to the Letter of Aristeas which spoke of writing a Greek translation to the Hebrew Bible in Greek. There is NO historical evidence of who Aristeas actually is and many biblical scholars most notably Paul Kahle even suggest the document was actually written by Phio which would put the letter being A.D. not B.C. Interestingly enough while reading on the Dead Sea Scrolls it is found that Hebrew Scriptures were set apart in special parchments. The Apocrypha writings were found but just wrapped with all the other writings.

To be honest I found the above theory more interesting than convincing. But I am still bothered by the fact that the Apocrypha is considered a much larger list of writings than even the RCC accepts. There are many books that were tossed aside but not canonized.

The early christain writers could not even agree. While Irenaeus (115-200 A.D.) quoted from the Book of Wisdom, Clement of Alexandria (150-217 A.D.) recognized only II Esdras in any of his writings. Polycarp quoted from Tobit but not one agreed in "official" set. While many did read and teach from them the RCC did not officially and I stress officially since I agree the were taught from prior until the Council of Trent in 1546.

The bottom line for me is these books may be great reading and may teach us how to raise our kids but inspired by God?

 

[jckstraw72]

Romans 2:5 But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6 who “will render to each one according to his deeds”:[a] 7 eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality;

 

[jad123]

Romans 2:5 But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6 who “will render to each one according to his deeds”:[a] 7 eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality;

Titus 3:5 not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit,
Titus3:6 whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior,
Titus 3:7 that being justified by His grace, we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

The scripture you quote speaks of judgement. Continue reading Romans into Chapter 3 and Chapter 4 where Paul proclaims the God saves wicked people by His Grace. You must read the whole book to understand what the writer (Paul) was saying. Free from OT law and that His Grace is enough.

Rom 3:23 for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God,
Rom 3:24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus;
Rom 3:25 whom God has set forth to be a propitiation through faith in His blood, to declare His righteousness through the passing by of the sins that had taken place before, in the forbearance of God;
Rom 3:26 for the display of His righteousness at this time, for Him to be just and, forgiving the one being of the faith of Jesus.
Rom 3:27 Then where is the boasting? It is excluded. Through what law? Of works? No, but through the law of faith.
Rom 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the works of the Law.
Rom 3:29 Or is He the God of the Jews only, and not also of the nations? Yes, of the nations also,
Rom 3:30 since it is one God who will justify circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.
Rom 3:31 Do we then make the Law void through faith? Let it not be! But we establish the Law.

 

[jckstraw72]

The scripture you quote speaks of judgement. Continue reading Romans into Chapter 3 and Chapter 4 where Paul proclaims the God saves wicked people by His Grace. You must read the whole book to understand what the writer (Paul) was saying. Free from OT law and that His Grace is enough.

it says God will give eternal life according to our deeds. but not deeds of the Law...deeds like living for God and seeking to glorify Him, bc such a manner of living leads to sanctification by the Spirit. Becoming Christ-like IS salvation--truly becoming free of sin.

 

[Deren]

Who here has read the Apocrypha?

I've read parts of it. I'm currently reading through 1 Maccabees.

Should it be included in scripture?

No.

 

[Jig]

I believe two of my fellow Apostolic Christians, the EOs icxn and repentant, have already shown that you are greatly mistaken here.

They are entitled to their opinions on translational differences.

I take it that the Apostles themselves then lied to the first generation of the Church Fathers? How come, in their writings, works are said to be necessary?

What can I say they were wrong. Alot of early Christians were confused. They continued to mix their old faiths with true Christianity. This is why Paul wrote so many letters. It is very possible that some of oral tradition and some early un-inspired writings contain errors. This is why I double check ALL taching with true inspired scripture.

The opposite of faith isn't works but ~faith. Fallacy of False Analogy.

I have completed your underlines by bolding the whole context. Please practice what you preach in terms of getting the context right. It would score you far more points.

Fine, I guess I'll have to give you some clearer verses.

Eph. 2:8-9


8For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;

9not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.



2 Tim 1:9

9who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity,

Actually, it reads "Give to the devout, but do not help the sinner."

Are you saying one of the most trusted Catholic english translations gives a bad translation here? (NAB) Go figure...

Why? Verse 3 explains: "No good comes to one who persists in evil, or to one who does not give alms." These people are those who are unrepentent and are selfish instead of selfless. Helping these people gives them, in this case, the opportunity to spread more dysfunction and malevolence. It allows them to sin more and in a greater potency. Should Christians help sinners sin better? No. That is what this verse is about.

This doesn't sound very Christ like....God loves even the worst sinner. Didn't Jesus say LOVE EVERYONE? Not just Christians.

Fine...

Never was a global flood.

I knew it. You have no proof. I can say there was a global flood. The evidence goes both ways. I tend to believe the Bible.

Actually, he would have been, since the Neo-Babylonian Empire conquered the homeland of the Assyrians. No error there!



No, God.

What about the other historcal error I pointed out...couldn't find a good explaination for that one?

 

[Jig]

it says God will give eternal life according to our deeds. but not deeds of the Law...deeds like living for God and seeking to glorify Him, bc such a manner of living leads to sanctification by the Spirit. Becoming Christ-like IS salvation--truly becoming free of sin.

If what you say is true, then Paul is wrong.

He talks about our 'deeds' being judged but not for salvation, just for rewards. Look at line 15...the man who get's his deeds burned up, still is saved.

1 Cor. 3:12

12Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw,
13each man's work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man's work.
14If any man's work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward. 15If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

This proves works have nothing to do with actual salvation.

 

[Brownsy]

[/color]


What can I say they were wrong. Alot of early Christians were confused. They continued to mix their old faiths with true Christianity. This is why Paul wrote so many letters. It is very possible that some of oral tradition and some early un-inspired writings contain errors. This is why I double check ALL taching with true inspired scripture.

What, so the first generation Christians, taught directly by the Apostles, who got their teachings fom Christ himself, were wrong, but you, 2000 or so years later have a clear and complete understanding of the truth?

And this also begs the question as to how you know what constitutes true, inspired scripture? The bible itself doesn't contain a list of inspired books, so, whether you like it or not your defintion of inspired scripture necassarily comes from men (inspired of course by the Holy Spirit), so why do you choose to accept the majority of the books listed as canon by the Councils of Hippo and Carthage, yet reject some? If you are going to do that, why not just pick whatever ones you like, and do away with anything you don't understand or like? If you believe they were wrong about the inspiration of the Deuterocananical books, why do you believe they were correct about the rest? surely theese councils were either inspired by the Holy Spirit or not.

Blessings to you

 

[Brownsy]

[/color]


This doesn't sound very Christ like....God loves even the worst sinner. Didn't Jesus say LOVE EVERYONE? Not just Christians.

He wasn;t talking about not loving sinners, rather about not helping them to sin further. Like offering an alcoholic a glass of wine when he was thirsty or giving a gambling addict money so he can go and play the slot machines some more. There is a big difference between loving a sinner and aiding them in their sin.

Blessings to you all

 

[Jig]

What, so the first generation Christians, taught directly by the Apostles, who got their teachings fom Christ himself, were wrong, but you, 2000 or so years later have a clear and complete understanding of the truth?

Not all first generation Christians were taught directly by the apostles. And even the ones that were, still got things wrong some of the times. If you read some of Pauls writings you'll see that he had to return to some cities (that he had previously teached at) to correct them again. It's logical to think, some of those who had a hard time leaving their previous faith, tried to incorperate it into Christianity...this is why there is agnostic writings and such.

And this also begs the question as to how you know what constitutes true, inspired scripture? The bible itself doesn't contain a list of inspired books, so, whether you like it or not your defintion of inspired scripture necassarily comes from men (inspired of course by the Holy Spirit), so why do you choose to accept the majority of the books listed as canon by the Councils of Hippo and Carthage, yet reject some? If you are going to do that, why not just pick whatever ones you like, and do away with anything you don't understand or like? If you believe they were wrong about the inspiration of the Deuterocananical books, why do you believe they were correct about the rest? surely theese councils were either inspired by the Holy Spirit or not.

Blessings to you

I only reject those that contradict the gospels, or are knowingly not inspired due to factual mistakes in historic evidence.

 

[Jig]

He wasn;t talking about not loving sinners, rather about not helping them to sin further. Like offering an alcoholic a glass of wine when he was thirsty or giving a gambling addict money so he can go and play the slot machines some more. There is a big difference between loving a sinner and aiding them in their sin.

Blessings to you all

What she said was half way correct, but the verse he implied it too said nothing of the sort.

 

[jckstraw72]

If what you say is true, then Paul is wrong.

what i said IS what Paul said. He also says "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling", "now is our salvation nearer than when we first believed", and he also says he has not yet attained that to which he has been called and that he pushes on towards the prize of the high calling of God (something like that). what youre not understanding is that were not saying works can make you worthy to be in the eternal presence of the perfect God, but that by actively serving God we become recipients of His grace, thereby becoming sanctified aka Christ-like aka over-coming sins, and thus we can be in the sinless Heaven. Its all according to God's grace.

 

[IgnatiusOfAntioch]

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.

Hi Sanctifym3. I have to disagree with you on that basis that your information is incorrect.

Actually The Canon used by the Catholic Church was established at the Council of Hippo in 393 A.D. This Canon was confirmed in 397 A.D. at another Church, the Council of Carthage. This was more than 1100 years before Luther.

Martin Luther, in accord with his posture of supreme self-importance as restorer of Christianity, even presumed, inconsistently, to judge various books of the Bible, God's holy Word. Luther feels himself entirely able and duty-bound -- as a lone individual -- to judge the canonicity and even overall value of Old Testament and New Testament books which had been securely in the canon for over 1100 years.

Your brother in Christ.

 

[Brownsy]

I only reject those that contradict the gospels, or are knowingly not inspired due to factual mistakes in historic evidence.

So you basically believe that the Councils which canonized the books of the bible weren't inspired by the Holy Spirit? If this is the case (and lets pressume here that the divine inspiration if the Gospels is self evident) then why do you believe that any of the other books of the Bible are inspired? Or for that matter, why don't you consider any other writing of the time inspired, even if it doesn't contradict the gospels?

Blessings to you