Why the Apocryphal Books Rejected as Scripture.

[ozso]

We believe that all our dogma, tradition, and doctrine IS supported by the Bible and that the brand new churches do not have as accurate of an interpretation as the Church that was founded by the Apostles and who voted on what books would be included in the Biblican cannon. One might think that the church that wrote the Bible would have a better than the churches that made their own revisions and took out the parts of the Bible that they disagreed with

I think what's missing in that statement is they value their personal version of the Bible too much. We are to have faith in God and learn from the Bible, not just have faith in the Bible as if 100 people who read it with no guidance don't come up with 100 different ways to interpret it. We see the evidence of that with literally 100,000 different Protestant churches.

That's verbatim to what I've read from others. It's like it was written out for Catholics to repeat.

 

[Valletta]

That's verbatim to what I've read from others. It's like it was written out for Catholics to repeat.

I think just about all Christians think the Bible backs up their beliefs and that their personal interpretation of Holy Scripture is correct. But the Catholic Church chose the 73 books of the Bible. So of course, any text that contradicted Catholic teaching would have been rejected. If your religion would have chosen the books I'm sure it would have used that same criteria. Nor would you have included books that you did not believe were God-breathed yet say those books were such.

 

[ozso]

your religion

My religion is Christian. What's yours?

 

[concretecamper]

The idea that there's unrecorded teaching of the apostles floating around doesn't make any sense. I've gone over it before in other threads.

John 21:25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did which, if they were written every one, the world itself. I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.


The point is not that there are a bunch of super secret unwritten teachings of Christ floating around. The point is Scripture doesn't claim it contains all a Christian should know. And Jesus is specific, listen to the Church. And His Church, according to Scripture is visible, authoritative, and One.

So go find His Church and submit to it.

 

[ozso]

John 21:25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did which, if they were written every one, the world itself. I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.

That one verse that gets posted quite a lot. But did doesn't fit in with taught or said.

The point is not that there are a bunch of super secret unwritten teachings of Christ floating around. The point is Scripture doesn't claim it contains all a Christian should know. And Jesus is specific, listen to the Church. And His Church, according to Scripture is visible, authoritative, and One.

So go find His Church and submit to it.

His church consists of the deciples of Christ; the body of Christ. Jesus, Luke and Paul refer to many different churches as the church.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

That one verse that gets posted quite a lot. But did doesn't fit in with taught or said.

It is often quoted because it is the Father's Word who sent the Holy Spirit to inspire it and the Apostle whom Jesus loved wrote it down for our benefit. "But did doesn't fit in with taught or said." is too hard for me to understand.

His church consists of the deciples of Christ; the body of Christ. Jesus, Luke and Paul refer to many different churches as the church.

@concretecamper advises So go find His Church and submit to it. which is very good advice in context, its meaning being that every Christian ought to seek for Christ's Church which he established upon saint Peter (the rock of Matthew 16:18) and which is one, as well as present through all the ages since he established it, and it has spread the gospel and made new members everywhere on earth.

 

[ozso]

It is often quoted because it is the Father's Word who sent the Holy Spirit to inspire it and the Apostle whom Jesus loved wrote it down for our benefit. "But did doesn't fit in with taught or said." is too hard for me to understand.

The verse refers to what Jesus did. Not what he taught. Catholic interpretation of the verse is that "did" means "taught". That's known as eisegesis; the process of interpreting text in such a way as to introduce one's own presuppositions, agendas or biases.

@concretecamper advises So go find His Church and submit to it. which is very good advice in context, its meaning being that every Christian ought to seek for Christ's Church which he established upon saint Peter (the rock of Matthew 16:18) and which is one, as well as present through all the ages since he established it, and it has spread the gospel and made new members everywhere on earth.

That's not exclusive to the church in Rome. Jesus called many churches "the church". He had John write to the seven churches. None of them were the church in Rome. Luke tells us of many different churches. Paul taught at and wrote letters to many different churches. Only Roman Catholic dogma says the church in Rome is the only church of Christ and Christianity. I'm sure all of the different Orthodox churches would agree with that.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The verse refers to what Jesus did. Not what he taught.

Are you a teacher? If you are, or were, then teaching is doing is it not? What was Jesus?
(John 3:2 DRB) This man came to Jesus by night and said to him: Rabbi, we know that thou art come a teacher from God; for no man can do these signs which thou dost, unless God be with him.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Catholic interpretation of the verse is that "did" means "taught". That's known as eisegesis; the process of interpreting text in such a way as to introduce one's own presuppositions, agendas or biases.

Yep, we're as biased as saint John when he called Jesus a teacher and then said "all that Jesus did". What more can be said? Doing is teaching when you are a teacher. And Jesus was a teacher. Remember what John wrote? "Rabbi, we know that thou art come a teacher from God; for no man can do these signs which thou dost, unless God be with him." what does Rabbi mean? It means teacher. Jesus' life was and is teaching, it is the lesson every Christian learns from. So, when John wrote Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book. he was referring to Jesus teaching, as the very next verse says But these [sings that Jesus did] are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God: and that believing, you may have life in his name. Christians benefit from reading about what Jesus did, that is what we have in the gospels, Luke wrote Dear Theophilus: In my first book I wrote about all the things that Jesus did and taught from the time he began his work.

I hope that convinces our readers, God willing it will convince all who come to sacred scripture to hear the word of the Lord.

 

[Philip_B]

My issue with the idea of a store of knowledge beyond the canonical texts is the capacity to suggest a hidden or secret store of faith/knowledge that could be construed as some form of Gnosticism. Now I know that is not what you intend or believe. When we refer to the Canon of Scripture, we suggest that Scripture is the rule by which we measure things. I used a passage from the Didache recently on an Ordination Card, and this is a clear example of text that is not part of scripture but can be measured by scripture, and it presents a worthwhile insight into the mind and life of the primitive church.

 

[ozso]

Are you a teacher? If you are, or were, then teaching is doing is it not? What was Jesus?
(John 3:2 DRB) This man came to Jesus by night and said to him: Rabbi, we know that thou art come a teacher from God; for no man can do these signs which thou dost, unless God be with him.

Did and taught are not interchangeable. If I had been a teacher, saying that I did my class wouldn't be the same as saying I taught my class. Jesus did many acts and performed many miracles. That's how the word ἐποίησεν (did) is used. It's never used in place of "taught".

 

[ozso]

Yep, we're as biased as saint John when he called Jesus a teacher and then said "all that Jesus did". What more can be said? Doing is teaching when you are a teacher. And Jesus was a teacher. Remember what John wrote? "Rabbi, we know that thou art come a teacher from God; for no man can do these signs which thou dost, unless God be with him." what does Rabbi mean? It means teacher. Jesus' life was and is teaching, it is the lesson every Christian learns from. So, when John wrote Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book. he was referring to Jesus teaching, as the very next verse says But these [sings that Jesus did] are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God: and that believing, you may have life in his name. Christians benefit from reading about what Jesus did, that is what we have in the gospels, Luke wrote Dear Theophilus: In my first book I wrote about all the things that Jesus did and taught from the time he began his work.

I hope that convinces our readers, God willing it will convince all who come to sacred scripture to hear the word of the Lord.

So Luke says that he wrote about all the things Jesus did and taught. That obviously makes it clear that what Jesus "did" and "taught" are separate. Also Luke says that he wrote down all that Jesus did and also all that Jesus taught. "All" being πάντων (pantōn) meaning; all, the whole, every kind of.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

My issue with the idea of a store of knowledge beyond the canonical texts is the capacity to suggest a hidden or secret store of faith/knowledge that could be construed as some form of Gnosticism. Now I know that is not what you intend or believe.

Thank you for the acknowledgement. I do not intend Sacred Tradition to be gnostic hidden knowledge.

I. The Apostolic Tradition​

​

75 "Christ the Lord, in whom the entire Revelation of the most high God is summed up, commanded the apostles to preach the Gospel, which had been promised beforehand by the prophets, and which he fulfilled in his own person and promulgated with his own lips. In preaching the Gospel, they were to communicate the gifts of God to all men. This Gospel was to be the source of all saving truth and moral discipline."32​

​

In the apostolic preaching. . .​

​

76 In keeping with the Lord's command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways:​

- orally "by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit";33​

- in writing "by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing".34​

​

. . . continued in apostolic succession​

​

77 "In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority."35 Indeed, "the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time."36​

​

78 This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, "the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes."37 "The sayings of the holy Fathers are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer."38​

​

79 The Father's self-communication made through his Word in the Holy Spirit, remains present and active in the Church: "God, who spoke in the past, continues to converse with the Spouse of his beloved Son. and the Holy Spirit, through whom the living voice of the Gospel rings out in the Church - and through her in the world - leads believers to the full truth, and makes the Word of Christ dwell in them in all its richness."39​

---

32 DV 7; cf. Mt 28:19-20; Mk 16:15​

33 DV 7.​

34 DV 7.​

35 DV 7 # 2; St. Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. 3, 3, 1: PG 7/1, 848; Harvey, 2, 9.​

36 DV 8 # 1.​

37 DV 8 # 1.​

38 DV 8 # 3.​

39 DV 8 # 3; cf. Col 3:16.​

When we refer to the Canon of Scripture, we suggest that Scripture is the rule by which we measure things. I used a passage from the Didache recently on an Ordination Card, and this is a clear example of text that is not part of scripture but can be measured by scripture, and it presents a worthwhile insight into the mind and life of the primitive church.

Yes, I thought that was the way Anglican thought about holy scripture.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

That obviously makes it clear that what Jesus "did" and "taught" are separate.

No, it does not. But you say so and I am not willing to argue it further.

 

[ozso]

No, it does not. But you say so and I am not willing to argue it further.

I don't say so, the text does.

 

[rturner76]

That's verbatim to what I've read from others. It's like it was written out for Catholics to repeat.

One thing about Roman Catholics (cafeteria Catholics excluded) is that we follow our religion. For the first 1000+ years after Christ founded his Church, there was only one Holy and Apostolic Church. Then it fractured into East and West. 500 years later, anyone who disagreed with The Church was able to found their own church based on how they chose to interpret scripture. Under whose authority/teaching/interpretation are they changing the dogma of the Church that was founded by Jesus himself? Also, how is it, the Church that assembled the books that would be canonized and known as The New Testament would then be unqualified to interpret?

 

[ozso]

One thing about Roman Catholics (cafeteria Catholics excluded) is that we follow our religion. For the first 1000+ years after Christ founded his Church, there was only one Holy and Apostolic Church. Then it fractured into East and West. 500 years later, anyone who disagreed with The Church was able to found their own church based on how they chose to interpret scripture. Under whose authority/teaching/interpretation are they changing the dogma of the Church that was founded by Jesus himself? Also, how is it, the Church that assembled the books that would be canonized and known as The New Testament would then be unqualified to interpret?

The Roman Catholic church has a very specific order of government but as you say, there are and probably always have been many Catholics who don't strictly adhere to it. For the most part most Christians (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant) hold to core Christian beliefs as cited in the Nicene Creed etc.

 

[rturner76]

The Roman Catholic church has a very specific order of government but as you say, there are and probably always have been many Catholics who don't strictly adhere to it. For the most part most Christians (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant) hold to core Christian beliefs as cited in the Nicene Creed etc.

Agreed

 

[Always in His Presence]

The term means "hidden or concealed" from the Greek word apokruphos. In the fourth century Jerome was the first to call the group of literature "Apocrypha." The Apocrypha consists of the books added to the Old Testament by the Catholic church that Protestants say are not canonical.

"Tbbit (early 2nd cent. B.C.) is a short novel. Strongly Pharisaic in tone, it emphasizes the Law, clean foods, ceremonial washings, charity, fasting and prayer. It is clearly unscriptural in its statement that almsgiving atones for sin.

"Judith (about the middle of 2nd cent B.C.) is also fictitious and Pharisaic. The heroine of this novel is Judith, a beautiful Jewish widow. When her city was besieged she took her maid, together with Jewish clean food, and went out to the tent of the attacking general. He was enamored of her beauty and gave her a place in his tent. Fortunately, he had imbibed too freely and sank into a drunken stupor. Judith took his sword and cut off his head. Then she and her maid left the camp, taking his head in their provision bag. It was hung on the wall of a nearby city and the leaderless Assyrian army was defeated.

"Additions to Esther (about 100 B.C.). Esther stands alone among the books of the Old Testament in having no mention of God. We are told that Esther and Mordecai fasted but not specifically that they prayed. To compensate for this lack, the Additions have long prayers attributed to these two, together with a couple of letters supposedly written by Artaxerxes.

McDowell, Josh. Evidence that Demands a Verdict, eBook: Fast Answers for Skeptics' Questions about Jesus (p. 34). Thomas Nelson. Kindle Edition.

 

[The Liturgist]

Catholics are not followers of Josephus, a man who rejected the Gospels. As I previously stated, different groups of Jews recognized different books of the Old Testament at the time Jesus walked on earth. Not all Jews back then would agree that "one canon" was preserved because the "canon" of Holy Scripture is a Christian term. The canon of the Bible was decided upon through councils, with the approval of the popes. Jews had no such councils. These decisions of the Catholic Church were made by the authority of Jesus given to the Apostles and the Church. As to Josephus, he was fairly accurate although it is hard to believe all of his claims. But at the time he made his statement that 22 books were kept in the Temple, a time when the Pharisees were in charge, that is believable. Which 22 books is a matter of debate. For example, do you believe Esther was included in the 22? Realize that discussions within the Catholic Church to choose the books of the Bible took place in a process that spanned centuries, and these were Catholics FAR much closer to the time of Jesus and the Apostles. Now Protestants, as part of their tradition, use not only the same NT books chosen by Catholics, but even kept the same order. But for OT books they decided to drop some. By what authority?

Neither are Orthodox or most Anglicans. Josephus has no authority over Christians.