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.
Here are 21 reasons (http://www.bible.ca/catholic-apocrypha.htm):
- The Roman Catholic Church did not officially canonize the Apocrypha until the Council of Trent (1546 AD). This was in part because the Apocrypha contained material which supported certain Catholic doctrines, such as purgatory, praying for the dead, and the treasury of merit.
[/list]
From The Third Council of Carthage on the Canon of Scripture
"Third Council of Carthage (held in A.D. 397, the list was later ratified in A.D. 415).
It was also determined that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in the Church under the title of divine Scriptures. The Canonical Scriptures are these: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings (Samuel 1 & 2 and Kings 1 & 2), two books of Paraleipomena (Chronicles), Job, the Psalter, five books of Solomon (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom of Solomon, and Ecclesiasticus), the books of the twelve prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezechiel, Daniel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras (Ezra and Nehemiah), two books of the Maccabees. Of the New Testament: four books of the Gospels, one book of the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles of the Apostle Paul, one epistle of the same [writer] to the Hebrews, two Epistles of the Apostle Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude, one book of the Apocalypse of John. Let this be made known also to our brother and fellow-priest Boniface, or to other bishops of those parts, for the purpose of confirming that Canon. because we have received from our fathers that those books must be read in the Church. Let it also be allowed that the Passions of Martyrs be read when their festivals are kept."
The Council of Rome in 382 under Pope Damasus I started the process of determining the Canon of Scripture. Councils in Hippo and Carthage were convened to promulgate an authoritative list.
I don't like defending cut and paste apologetics in a single megalithic post. Noone reads such long sections of quote and commentary, so if you want we can go through the other 20 points in turn.
Are you saying Trent is wrong?
How so? Here is the start of the Wiki article on the Canon of Trent Canon of Trent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"... the phrase Canon of Trent usually refers to the list of biblical books that were from then on to be considered canonical. This was a decree, the De Canonicis Scripturis, from the Council's fourth session, of 4 April 1546, which passed by vote (24 yea, 15 nay, 16 abstain).[1] With its decision, the Council of Trent confirmed the identical list already locally approved in 1442 by the Council of Florence (Session 11, 4 February 1442),[2] and that had existed in the earliest canonical lists from the synods of Carthage and Rome in the fourth century. The list confirmed that the deuterocanonical books were on a par with the other books of the canon (while Luther placed these books in the Apocrypha of his canon) and ended debate on the Antilegomena and coordinated church tradition with the Scriptures as a rule of faith. It also affirmed Jerome's Latin translation, the Vulgate, to be authoritative for the text of Scripture, contrary to Protestant views that the Greek and Hebrew texts were more authoritative"
About what? On some points I'd say yes on others, no.
Did I say I was Catholic? Catholicism didn't 'birth' protestantism. Protestantism came from Catholicism, in the same way that all other heresies came from Catholicism via changing of the faith.
This isn't true. We do have a debate sub-board, it is called General Theology, as at least half of these threads have something to do with Catholicism.
I never really studied on that and tried to find a thread on CF about that subject. I did find this:Originally Posted by tz620q
How so? Here is the start of the Wiki article on the Canon of Trent
"... the phrase Canon of Trent usually refers to the list of biblical books that were from then on to be considered canonical.
This was a decree, the De Canonicis Scripturis, from the Council's fourth session, of 4 April 1546, which passed by vote (24 yea, 15 nay, 16 abstain).[1] With its decision, the Council of Trent confirmed the identical list already locally approved in 1442 by the Council of Florence (Session 11, 4 February 1442),[2] and that had existed in the earliest canonical lists from the synods of Carthage and Rome in the fourth century.
Originally Posted by ScottBot
My Catholic brothers and sisters.
I have been posting at CF for nearly 3 years now. Them that know me can attest that I have been an ardent defender of our Catholic doctrines since the day I set foot here. I also know that I am not the only one who burdens day in and day out to ensure that Catholicism if fairly represented in the den of torment and vice called General Theology (and many of the Theology subforums). Those of you that also know, I was a Supermoderator of the Theology Team for the better part of last year.
It has been my growing position that our efforts in the great Catholic v Protestant War of 2008 are pointless. No quarter is given, and none are taken. I have to applaud much of my Catholic bretheren (to remain nameless, you know who you are), as we have done, on the whole, an admirable job of representing our faith fairly from authentic Catholic sources to show what our faith is about, only to be met with the constant anti-Catholic droning from about a dozen or so very impolite and inarticulate posters. Here is what I propose.
Don't post in any of the Theology threads. None. GT, Mariology, CHurch History, nothing. Let them continue on their rant. It will save you a mountain of aggrevation and our efforts change nothing there anyway. Let them continue on. What we could do is monitor those threads, and when a particular issue is raised that concerns you, start a corresponding thread here with a link to the GT thread. We can then have our very well informed apologists explain the Catholic theological perspective, and post responses from the Catechism, Scripture, Church Fathers, etc...
Then when we have a good handle on the topic, someone here could make a brief post in the corresponding GT thread with a link to the OBOB discussion. COngregational forum rules forbid debate, so we won't have to worry about one of them coming in here and accusing us of being tools of the anti-Christ, etc...
It is going to become my personal policy, and I hope that many of you who have been getting your senses beat up at GT will join me.
Pax Christi
Scott
The idea that the Roman Catholic Church is infallible has always seemed rather silly to me. Especially since they have often contradicted themselves.
Infallible on issues of faith and morals, not on who makes the best burger.
In what ways do you believe Catholics have contradicted themselves?
Infallible on issues of faith and morals, not on who makes the best burger.
You know what they say about fastballs down the middle of the plate.Here are 21 reasons (http://www.bible.ca/catholic-apocrypha.htm):
- The Roman Catholic Church did not officially canonize the Apocrypha until the Council of Trent (1546 AD). This was in part because the Apocrypha contained material which supported certain Catholic doctrines, such as purgatory, praying for the dead, and the treasury of merit.
Found out from the Dead Sea Scrolls that this isn't true as all of the contested books are found in Hebrew or Aramaic.[*]Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.
Give me the verses in the other books were the author claims that they are profess that they are writing a Sacred book. For this argument to work, all of the 66 books that you accept must have that feature. I'll wait for those passages.[*]Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.
Jewish Church? Are you talking about the Ebionites or are you talking about the Jews?[*]These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord.
There is no evidence for this claim. None. In fact there is ample evidence that the Church Fathers viewed these writings as Scripture, because they quoted from these writings as such.[*]They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian Church.
1st and foremost you should understand that 1st and 2nd Maccabees covers about the same timeframe. They are not sequential as lets say 1st and 2nd Kings, but rather their relationship is similar to how the books of Kings and Chronicles are related. 2nd there were more than one Antiochus talked about in those two books.[*]They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many different places.
You know what is interesting? The Jews have a very ancient tradition dating back before Christ. They actually pray for the dead. Did you know that? They call it Kaddish.[*]The Apocrypha inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection.And the day following Judas came with his company, to take away the bodies of them that were slain, and to bury them with their kinsmen, in the sepulchers of their fathers. And they found under the coats of the slain some of the donaries of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbiddeth to the Jews: so that all plainly saw, that for this cause they were slain. Then they all blessed the just judgment of the Lord, who had discovered the things that were hidden. And so betaking themselves to prayers, they besought him, that the sin which had been committed might be forgotten. But the most valiant Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves from sin, forasmuch as they saw before their eyes what had happened, because of the sins of those that were slain. And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachmas of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection, (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead,) And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them. It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins. (2 Maccabees 12:39-46)
[*]The apocrypha contains offensive materials unbecoming of God's authorship.Ecclesiasticus 25:19 Any iniquity is insignificant compared to a wife's iniquity.Ecclesiasticus 25:24 From a woman sin had its beginning. Because of her we all die.Ecclesiasticus 22:3 It is a disgrace to be the father of an undisciplined, and the birth of a daughter is a loss.
Post some examples.[*]It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation.
I thought you didn't believe in 1st Mac. Not only that were does it say that one must be a prophet to be used by God to write Scripture?[*]The apocryphal books themselves make reference to what we call the Silent 400 years, where there was no prophets of God to write inspired materials.And they laid up the stones in the mountain of the temple in a convenient place, till there should come a prophet, and give answer concerning them. (1 Maccabees 4:46)And there was a great tribulation in Israel, such as was not since the day, that there was no prophet seen in Israel. (1 Maccabees 9:27)And that the Jews, and their priests, had consented that he should be their prince, and high priest for ever, till there should arise a faithful prophet. (1 Maccabees 14:41)
So Josephus is a figure of authority? Tell me why he has such a high level of esteem? He is a Jew who rejected Christ is he not?[*]Josephus rejected the apocryphal books as inspired and this reflected Jewish thought at the time of Jesus"From Artexerxes to our own time the complete history has been written but has not been deemed worthy of equal credit with the earlier records because of the failure of the exact succession of the prophets." ... "We have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine..."(Flavius Josephus, Against Apion 1:8)
So the Manual of Discipline bears authority on Christians?[*]The Manual of Discipline in the Dead Sea Scrolls rejected the apocrypha as inspired.
No such thing as this council of Jamnia. It never existed. Current views is that the Jews closed there canon somewhere between the 4th and 6th centuries.[*]The Council of Jamnia held the same view rejected the apocrypha as inspired.They debated the canonicity of a few books (e.g., Ecclesiastes), but they changed nothing and never proclaimed themselves to be authoritative determiners of the Old Testament canon. "The books which they decided to acknowledge as canonical were already generally accepted, although questions had been raised about them. Those which they refused to admit had never been included. They did not expel from the canon any book which had previously been admitted. 'The Council of Jamnia was the confirming of public opinion, not the forming of it.'" (F. F. Bruce, The Books and Parchments [Old Tappan, NJ.: Fleming H. Revell, 1963], p. 98])
A couple of things here: the Muratorian Canon refers only to the New Testament canon, not the old. It does speak of the Book of Wisdom, but as an accepted book.[*]Although it was occasionally quoted in early church writings, it was nowhere accepted in a canon. Melito (AD 170) and Origen rejected the Apocrypha, (Eccl. Hist. VI. 25, Eusebius) as does the Muratorian Canon.
Jerome was heavily influenced by his Jewish friends who taught him Hebrew and Aramaic, and helped him find Hebrew/Aramaic manuscripts to translate into Latin. The point needs to be made here is that Jerome was not even a bishop, he was priest, who was given the responsibility to fix the Latin Bible, by Pope Damasus. He got much grief from his contemporaries, concerning his opinions and later denied them as his opinions.[*]Jerome vigorously resisted including the Apocrypha in his Latin Vulgate Version (400 AD), but was overruled. As a result, the standard Roman Catholic Bible throughout the medieval period contained it. Thus, it gradually came to be revered by the average clergyman. Still, many medieval Catholic scholars realized that it was not inspired.
No the terms these two terms were coined by a Jewish convert, Sixtus of Siena, to differentiate the contested books in his debates with Jews.[*]The terms "protocanonical" and "deuterocanonical" are used by Catholics to signify respectively those books of Scripture that were received by the entire Church from the beginning as inspired, and those whose inspiration came to be recognized later, after the matter had been disputed by certain Fathers and local churches.
Only the 1st sentence of this is true. The synod of Carthage did not mention Jerome's translation, and Jerome's Vulgate did include all books.[*]Pope Damasus (366-384) authorized Jerome to translate the Latin Vulgate. The Council of Carthage declared this translation as "the infallible and authentic Bible." Jerome was the first to describe the extra 7 Old Testament books as the "Apocrypha" (doubtful authenticity). Needless to say, Jerome's Latin Vulgate did not include the Apocrypha.
Already dealt with this.[*]Cyril (born about A.D. 315) - "Read the divine Scriptures - namely, the 22 books of the Old Testament which the 72 interpreters translated" (the Septuagint)
Not true.[*]The apocrypha wasn't included at first in the Septuagint, but was appended by the Alexandrian Jews, and was not listed in any of the catalogues of the inspired books till the 4th century
Don't see it. He uses the same list as Origen, which includes the epistle of Jeremiah.[*]Hilary (bishop of Poictiers, 350 A.D.) rejected the apocrypha (Prologue to the Psalms, Sec. 15)
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?